Summary of Decisions - December 28, 2020 - January 01, 2021

Personnel Security Hearing

On December 28, 2020, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be granted. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. The Individual had a history of concerning alcohol use. He testified at the hearing that he had remained abstinent from alcohol for several months and had become deeply involved in a group recovery program. He had added new sober activities and support systems to his life and intended to remain abstinent from alcohol indefinitely. The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual was rehabilitated. After reviewing the evidence and observing all of the testimony at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had resolved the security concerns. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0030 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman).

On December 28, 2020, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold a DOE security clearance. In November of 2018, the Individual completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) and revealed that, in 2010, she voluntarily sought treatment for the use of narcotics and presently remained in treatment. In March 2019, the Individual underwent an interview by the National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB). The interviewer reported that the Individual began taking the medication, Suboxone, in 2010 in order to " avoid opiate withdrawals." According to the NBIB report, the Individual explained to the interviewer that "there are emphatic warnings about mixing [Suboxone] with alcohol" as "it can be fatal." Despite having this information, the Individual reported that, although she had decreased her alcohol consumption, she continued to consume alcohol. In response to this information, a DOE consulting psychologist (DOE Psychologist) evaluated the Individual in September 2019. The DOE Psychologist determined that laboratory results show that the Individual is habitually consuming alcohol to the point of impaired judgment without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual abstain from alcohol for a minimum of 12 months, submit to random alcohol testing, attend psychotherapy, and participate in Alcoholics Anonymous, or a similar program, for a minimum of 12 months. During the hearing the Individual testified that she had not been abstinent from alcohol and did not believe it was problematic to consume alcohol while using Suboxone. After reviewing the evidence and observing all of the testimony at the hearing, the DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual had not adequately followed his treatment recommendations, and he added that the Individual's choice to consume alcohol against medical recommendations, along with her decision to ignore his recommendations, raises questions about her judgment. The Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline G. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0039 (Katie Quintana).

On December 30, 2020, 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 DOE security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol consumption. Under Guideline G, the LSO alleged that (1) the DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate; (2) the Individual consumed an average of five to eight beers on a daily basis from 1993 to 2018; and (3) the Individual has a history of involvement with law enforcement in the 1990s as a result of alcohol consumption. At the hearing, the Individual and seven other witnesses testified. The first two witnesses, the Individual's colleagues, testified to the Individual's good professional reputation. Another colleague testified that the Individual has chosen not to attend his game nights in order to avoid environments in which alcohol is typically consumed. The Individual and his wife testified to a strong support system, their desire to remain abstinent, ongoing therapy, the Individual's treatment, and their efforts to avoid triggering environments and situations. Both the Individual's Expert and the DOE Psychologist provided the opinion that the Individual has been reformed or rehabilitated. The Individual's Expert further testified that the Individual has complied with the established recovery program and has developed the skills to not only avoid relapse, but to reinitiate abstinence in the event of relapse. The Individual's AA sponsor confirmed that the Individual is on step 12 of the program and that the Individual continues to participate despite the ongoing pandemic. He further testified that the Individaul has a desire to change his life and is even ready to sponsor someone himself. Most compelling, the DOE Psychologist stated that he felt the Individual's chances for relapse are low and that his prognosis is good. Based on credible testimony from lay witnesses, the Individual, and two experts, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had mitigated all security concerns stated in the Notification Letter. The Administrative Judge therefore concludes that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0038 (Janet Fishman).