Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security
Office of Hearings and Appeals
March 8, 2024
minute read time
Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)
Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
On March 6, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In June 2023, the Individual voluntarily entered an in-patient treatment program (ITP) for alcohol use. As a result of her attendance at the ITP, the Local Security Office (LSO) sent the Individual for an evaluation by a DOE-consultant Psychologist (DOE Psychologist). The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), severe, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The DOE Psychologist partially based his opinion on the PEth test results, which indicated that she had consumed alcohol at a higher amount that she stated to the DOE Psychologist. The Individual testified, and her mother confirmed, that she attended a 12-week Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program (IOP) and reenrolled for another 12-week session. She also testified, and her mother confirmed, that she consumed alcohol at Thanksgiving 2023 and Christmas 2023. At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual was not reformed or rehabilitated from her alcohol diagnosis . The Individual did not mitigate the concerns under any of the conditions listed in the Guidelines. Accordingly, the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he had resolved the security concerns arising under Guideline G. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0017, Fishman)
Access Authorization Restored; Guideline E (Personal Conduct); Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption; Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)
On March 8, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization should be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In January 2021 and again in November 2022, the Individual was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). The Individual falsely reported to the arresting officer, and later to the LSO, that he had not consumed alcohol prior to the second arrest. He did not come clean to the LSO until seven months later, in June 2023. In August 2023, a DOE-contracted psychologist (Psychologist) conducted a psychological evaluation of the Individual and diagnosed the Individual with Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had not consumed alcohol since the night of his second DWI arrest, 15 months prior, which was corroborated by extensive alcohol testing. The Individual had successfully completed and intensive outpatient program and aftercare, as well as additional alcohol education classes and counseling. He testified that he intended to remain abstinent and continue his therapy . He also testified that he felt great remorse for being untruthful to the LSO, and his both of his counselors opined that he had learned his lesson and had demonstrated honesty and integrity. His counselors also testified that his prognosis was positive, and the Psychologist testified that, as of the hearing, he had complied with her treatment recommendations and demonstrated rehabilitation. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had mitigated the concerns until Guidelines E, G, and J, and therefore his clearance should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0029, Rotman)
Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct) Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse)
On March 8, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is seeking employment with 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 personal conduct and drug involvement. Regarding the Guidelines E and H allegations, the LSO alleged that among other things, the Individual omitted information from two separate QNSPs and that he used marijuana before and after his military service.
The Individual and his cousin testified at the hearing. The Individual also submitted twelve exhibits. Although the Individual mitigated a specific Guideline E concern pursuant to the mitigating factor at ¶ 17(f), the Administrative Judge could not find that the Individual mitigated the remainder of the Guideline E concerns. Further, the Individual failed to mitigate the stated Guideline H concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0043, Rahimzadeh)