PSH-22-0108 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On October 13, 2022, an Administrative Jude determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. the Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol consumption. Under Guideline G, the LSO alleged that on March 11, 2022, a DOE-contracted Psychologist (DOE Psychologist) evaluated the Individual and, in a subsequent report dated March 24, 2022, determined that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) and that he did not show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The LSO further alleged that on December 17, 2021, the Individual was charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) "after he consumed eight, 16-ounce" beers, resulting in a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.258%. The LSO also alleged that the Individual was charged with Assault Causes Bodily Injury, Family Member in September 2006 after consuming alcohol, Public Intoxication in 1996, and Drunkenness, Public Intoxication in 1992. Under Guideline J, the LSO alleged that the Individual was arrested and charged with alcohol -related offenses in 2021, 2006, 1996, and 1992.

At the hearing, the Individual, his former supervisor, his wife, and the DOE Psychologist testified. The evidence in the record established that the Individual self -reported the December 2021 DWI, and that he subsequently saw an Occupational Health Services (OHS) Psychologist on three separate occasions and a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) on two occasions at the behest of his employer. The LPC recommended that the Individual participate in and complete an intensive outpatient treatment program (IOP). The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD and did not find adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation and made a number of recommendations by which the Individual could show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, which included either the attendance and completion of an IOP or regular attendance of a self-help group.

The record indicated that the Individual had been abstinent from alcohol since December 17, 2021, and that the Individual did not feel that his alcohol consumption was maladaptive. Outside of the sessions with the LPC, the record does not indicate that the Individual sought or completed any further treatment, counseling, or therapy. The evidence also indicates that the Individual did not seek treatment through an IOP and did not attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings or a similar self- help group.

Further, although the record contains multiple assurances that the alcohol -related criminal behavior would not recur in the future, the Individual did have another alcohol -related incident in December 2021, the DWI. There was no evidence that the Individual had completed probation, obtained higher education, further job training, or constructive community involvement that would demonstrate successful rehabilitation. Although the Individual's supervisor testified that the Individual was a good employee, the lack of any treatment to address his maladaptive alcohol use, which underpins the aforementioned criminal behavior, is a strong indication that the Individual has not been successfully rehabilitated. Further, there was no evidence that the Individual was pressured or coerced into committing the criminal acts or that he did not commit the acts.

Based on the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not mitigated the Guideline G and Guideline J concerns pursuant to the mitigating factors of the Adjudicative Guidelines. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0108, Rahimzadeh)