PSH-17-0076 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 9, 2018, 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.  In April 2017, as part of a background investigation, the Local Security Office conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the individual to address concerns about his alcohol use.  In addition to the PSI, the LSO requested the individual’s medical records and recommended a psychological evaluation of the individual by a DOE psychologist.  The DOE psychologist examined the individual in June 2017 and concluded that he has an emotional, mental or personality condition or conditions that can continue to impair judgment, reliability or trustworthiness.  He further concluded that the individual has a tendency to avoid being candid and to misconstrue facts, noting that these tendencies can, and have, significantly impaired the individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.  During the hearing, the individual testified that during his 2010 personnel security hearing, he stated that he would abstain from alcohol and would attend AA.   He testified that he remained abstinent and attended AA for about two years, until sometime in 2012, before he began intermittent drinking, such as having an occasional drink with dinner.  The individual was also notified that his Fitness for Duty process was complete and that all of his work-related restrictions had been lifted.  During the hearing, the individual acknowledged that he stated his intention to remain abstinent for a lifetime, but believed at the time that the overriding concern was a commitment to avoid drinking to excess.  The individual’s EAP counselor and his psychologist both testified that the individual’s social drinking and failure to fulfil his promise do not indicate that he has an emotional condition that impairs his judgment and reliability.  After listening to the hearing testimony, the DOE psychologist opined that while he is not concerned that the individual resumed intermittent alcohol consumption, he still believes the individual’s trustworthiness is impaired.  The Administrative Judge found the testimony of the individual’s two mental health professionals to be more persuasive, and further concluded that their testimony was more consistent with the witness testimony and her observations in the case. She therefore found that the individual had resolved the Guideline I concerns, and concluded that the individual’s access authorization should be restored. (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman)