On September 9, 2021, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is an employee of a DOE contractor for a position that requires the possession of a security clearance. As part of the application for access authorization, the DOE Local Security Office (LSO) requested that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychiatrist ("Psychiatrist") who provided the LSO with a report that included opinions and conclusions regarding the Individual's alcohol consumption and psychological profile. Subsequently, the LSO informed the Individual that it possessed the following information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance under Guideline G and Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines: (1) the Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, (DSM-5) criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Mild, in early remission, and he binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment; and (2) the Individual met the DSM-5 criteria for Other Psychotic Disorder, Auditory Hallucinations. At the hearing, the Individual did not dispute the diagnoses, but rather provided exhibits and testimony to resolve the security concerns. At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the DOE appropriately invoked Guidelines G and I, and the Individual failed to resolve the security concerns for the following reasons. Regarding Guideline G, the AJ did not find that the Individual had taken sufficient actions to overcome his problem, nor had he established a pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. In reaching this conclusion, the AJ relied upon the Psychiatrist's failure to give the Individual a positive prognosis based on the Individual's relatively short AA participation without the benefit of a sponsor. Regarding Guideline I, the AJ found that the Individual's condition is not readily controllable with treatment and neither the Individual's treatment provider nor the Psychiatrist provided a positive prognosis for the Individual's psychological condition. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. (Case No. PSH-21-0054, James P. Thompson III)