Summary of Decisions - June 06, 2022– June 10, 2022

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On June 6, 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. In August 2020, the Individual self-reported that he was voluntarily admitting himself for hospitalization for "alcohol treatment." Subsequently, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE consultant psychologist (Psychologist) in April 2021. The Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had successfully completed a 90-day inpatient alcohol treatment program, attended weekly relapse prevention meetings, and participated in monthly individual counseling sessions. He further testified that he had been abstinent from alcohol since September 30, 2021, and he had been attending daily Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings since November 2021.  The Individual acknowledged that he has an Alcohol Use Disorder and cannot consume alcohol. He testified to the skills he has developed through his rehabilitation journey that aid in his sobriety and provided laboratory evidence of his abstinence from alcohol. 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, Moderate. After considering the evidence in the record and testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had resolved the security concern associated with Guideline G. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-22-0015 (Katie Quintana)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline I ( Psychological Conditions)

On June 6, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In April 2021, the local security office (LSO) received notice that the Individual had been hospitalized after expressing suicidal ideation while intoxicated. In response to a letter of interrogatory issued by the LSO, the Individual admitted that he had relapsed following inpatient treatment for alcohol misuse. A DOE -contracted Psychologist (DOE Psychologist) conducted a clinical interview of the Individual and determined that he met the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, not in remission under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition. The DOE Psychologist also determined that the Individual's elevated risk of suicide constituted a psychological condition that could impair his judgment and stability. The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual demonstrate rehabilitation by abstaining from alcohol for eighteen months, documenting his abstinence from alcohol through laboratory testing, and consulting with a mental health practitioner regarding his suicidal ideation. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had consumed alcohol approximately two weeks prior to the hearing and had not received treatment related to his suicidal ideation. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual's AUD was not in remission, the Individual remained at heightened risk of suicide, and the Individual had not complied with his recommendations. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline G because of his recent alcohol consumption and failure to comply with the DOE Psychologist's recommendations. The Administrative Judge also concluded that security concerns under Guideline I were unresolved based on the opinion of the DOE Psychologist and the absence of evidence supporting the Individual's claim that his mental state had improved since he communicated suicidal intentions. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0054, Harmonick)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and I ( Psychological Conditions)

On June 9, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. A DOE Psychologist found that the Individual meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate (AUD) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD) set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and had not been reformed or rehabilitated.

At the Hearing, the Individual did not dispute that he had been properly diagnosed with both PTSD and AUD, and instead contended, without presenting any hearing testimony from an expert witness or treating mental health professional, that he had sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by both diagnoses. However, the AJ found that the Individual had not submitted sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by his AUD. The AJ found that the only material evidence submitted by the Individual that he had mitigated the security concerns associated with these two disorders was his own testimony; two laboratory test results indicating that he had not consumed excessive amounts of alcohol for most of the past two -and-a-half months; a one-paragraph letter from his treating psychiatrist indicating that he has been receiving treatment for both disorders and that his prognosis is "good"; and a recent one-page letter from the LCSW outlining the treatment programs for the Individual's PTSD that he had successfully completed and indicating that that his PTSD is " well-managed," but failing to reach a similar conclusion about the Individual's AUD, noting only that the Individual had recently started to attend a substance abuse program and had been "highly engaged" in treatment.

The AJ was convinced that the Individual was rehabilitated from his PTSD by the LCSW and Psychiatrist's letters; the Individual's hearing testimony in which he articulated a great deal of insight and understanding of his PTSD; and the Psychologist's testimony in which she opined that the Individual's prognosis for his PTSD was "good" and that his PTSD was not currently affecting his judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness and was unlikely to do so in the future.  However, the AJ was not convinced that the Individual had been rehabilitated or reformed from his AUD. The AJ found that the Individual's hearing testimony, where he agreed that he has AUD but claimed that he does not have an alcohol problem, did not indicate anywhere near the same level of insight or understanding of his AUD that he had exhibited concerning his PTSD. Moreover, the AJ found, while the Individual had completed several treatment programs for his PTSD, he had only recently begun attending an IOP, and that IOP was significantly less rigorous than what was recommended by the Psychologist.  The AJ also found that the Individual had only shown that he has been drinking in moderation for a period of three months, which was significantly less than sufficient for the AJ to conclude that he had demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption. Finally, the AJ noted, while the LCSW was able to conclude that the Individual's PTSD was well -managed, he was only able to report that the Individual had begun and was highly engaged in substance abuse treatment.

Accordingly, the Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0053, Fine)