Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security
Office of Hearings and Appeals
February 10, 2023
minute read time
Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)
Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
On February 7, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual was arrested and charged with DWI in 2010. In 2022, the Individual was arrested and charged with Aggravated DWI and sentenced to one year of probation. A DOE-contracted Psychologist (DOE Psychologist) conducted a clinical interview of the Individual and determined that her symptoms were consistent with a diagnosis of Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder (UAD) under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition. The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual demonstrate rehabilitation by abstaining from alcohol for six months, undergoing alcohol testing to document her abstinence from alcohol, and participating in counseling or Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Although the Individual did not fully comply with the DOE Psychologist's recommendations, she provided evidence at the hearing that she had abstained from alcohol for approximately nine months, established a supportive network to aid in her recovery, and enacted behavioral changes that would help her to avoid relapsing into problematic alcohol consumption in the future. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual's UAD was under control and that she had a good prognosis for avoiding a return to problematic alcohol consumption. In light of the Individual's positive lifestyle changes and the favorable prognosis from the DOE Psychologist, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had resolved the security concerns under Guideline G. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0011, Harmonick)
Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
On February 10, 2023, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In 2022, the DOE Local Security Office (LSO) received the Individual's disclosure that he completed an alcohol treatment program in 2018 and that alcohol had negatively impacted his life. The LSO requested that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE-consultant Psychiatrist ("Psychiatrist"). Afterward, the LSO informed the Individual that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance because the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined the following. The LSO appropriately invoked Guideline G by citing the Psychiatrist's conclusion that the Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, in sustained remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The AJ also concluded that the Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns for the following reasons. The record did not demonstrate that the Individual acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use because he denied that he currently had a problem with alcohol . Furthermore, although he had taken steps to address the concerns regarding his alcohol use, he had not established a pattern of abstinence in accordance with the treatment recommendations. He had only been abstinent and engaging in the Psychiatrist-recommended treatment for approximately four months, which was significantly less than recommended. A relatively short period of time had passed since the Individual became abstinent from alcohol in September 2022. And the Individual had a history of treatment and relapse because he previously completed a treatment program and maintained sobriety for a period of six months before he began consuming alcohol again . Furthermore, the Psychiatrist did not conclude that the Individual had established rehabilitation or reformation of his AUD. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline G security concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-23- 0008, Thompson III)