Summary of Decisions - April 18, 2022 - April 22, 2022

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On April 18, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The Individual had a history of an alcohol-related arrest, and a DOE Psychiatrist found that he the meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild (AUD) set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and had not been reformed or rehabilitated.  The AJ found that the Individual had taken the important first steps of sincerely acknowledging that he has AUD, attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, and working AA's Twelve Step Program with the support of his Sponsor. However, the AJ further found that the Individual had not shown that he had sufficiently complied with the reasonable and appropriate recommendations of the Psychiatrist.  First, the Individual had not shown that he has abstained from alcohol use for 12 months, since the Individual had shown himself to be an unreliable historian concerning his alcohol use. Second, the AJ found that Individual did not show that his attendance at group alcohol education classes were the functional equivalent of the Intensive Outpatient Program, followed by six months of aftercare, recommended by the Psychiatrist . Lastly, while the AJ found that Individual had become meaningfully engaged in AA, that meaningful engagement only began approximately three months prior to the Hearing, which was well short of the 12 months recommended by the Psychiatrist.

The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0040, Fine)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On April 21, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be restored. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. In late November 2020, the Individual self-reported that he had been arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and having an open container in his vehicle. A few days later, the Individual was placed on Administrative Leave "due to being at work with an alcohol odor." In August 2021, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE consultant psychologist (Psychologist). The Psychologist diagnosed him with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, in early remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had successfully completed both and inpatient and outpatient treatment program as well as the accompanying aftercare. Furthermore, he had been abstinent from alcohol for over a year and was fully engaged with a peer support group for first responders who had experienced trauma. After hearing the Individual's testimony, the Psychologist opined that the Individual had demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation from the Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, and was in full remission. After considering the evidence in the record and testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline G. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0027, Quintana)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption).

On April 22, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should 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. The LSO alleged that in his May 2021 report, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, In Early Remission, and that the Individual had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.

At the hearing, the Individual, his Clinical Psychologist, his wife, his workers, a Licensed Therapist, and the DOE Psychologist testified. The record established that the Individual recognized his maladaptive alcohol use and took tangible steps toward treating the issue years prior to the issuance of the Notification Letter. He began by seeking therapy from a Clinical Psychologist with whom he discussed the matter of his alcohol consumption. After reaching the understanding that he needed more focused support and treatment for his alcohol consumption, the Individual voluntarily enrolled in an inpatient recovery program in Summer 2020, completed an intensive outpatient treatment program in Spring 2021, involved himself in self-help groups like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Self- Management and Recovery Training (SMART), and continued to receive individual therapy. A number of alcohol test results were submitted into the record, the results of which were consistent with the Individual's ongoing abstinence as well as his reported relapse in Fall 2020. Although the evidence showed that the Individual had suffered a relapse in 2020, there was no indication the Individual had consumed alcohol since, as indicated by his wife and coworker.

During his testimony, the DOE Psychologist confirmed that he had recommended that the Individual remain abstinent for the span of twelve months, that he attend a self -help group at least twice a week, and that he continue receiving individual counseling. As the Individual had complied with his recommendations, the DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual's AUD was in sustained remission and that he had presented adequate evidence of rehabilitation and remission.

Accordingly, given the state of the Individual's rehabilitation from his diagnosis of AUD, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had mitigated all Guideline G concerns raised in the Notification Letter. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(b), (d). (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0010, Cronin)