On May 11, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The Individual had a history of two alcohol-related arrests, and a DOE Psychologist found that he the meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe (AUD) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) 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, rather than trying to show that he had mitigated the security concerns raised by his two alcohol-related arrests and the Psychologist's finding that he met the DSM -5 criteria for AUD and NPD, the Individual attempted to challenge the Psychologist's conclusions and the veracity of the police reports upon which his DUI and PI arrests were based.

The Individual attempted to contradict his AUD diagnosis by contending that: his two -alcohol related arrests resulted from panic attacks rather than excessive alcohol consumption; the Psychologist had misdiagnosed him with AUD; the laboratory testing was not accurate; and Exhibit A shows that he had abstained from using alcohol from February 27, 2020, to November 8, 2020. Noting that the Individual had not submit any credible evidence from an expert witness of treating mental health provider or substance abuse professional to contradict the Psychologist's opinion that he has AUD, the AJ found that the Individual had not shown that the derogatory information concerning him (two alcohol-related arrests; the AUD, Severe, diagnosis; and three separate laboratory tests indicating that he had likely been engaging in heavy alcohol consumption) was not reliable. The AJ further found the Individual had not provided any evidence indicating that he had mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline G, since he did not recognize that he has AUD, admitted that he continues to use alcohol, and had not attended any AA or other self -help group meetings, therefore failing to comply with the Psychologist's treatment recommendations.

The AJ similarly found that the Individual had not produced any evidence contradicting the Psychologist's conclusion that he has NPD.  The AJ found that while the Individual's counsel had asked the Individual's coworker and former supervisor if they had noticed whether the Individual had displayed any of the DSM-5 criteria for NPD, neither of these witnesses were qualified to testify on this matter. The AJ further found that the Individual's testimony that he does not meet the DSM -5 criteria was not worthy of any weight. Finally, the Individual testified that he had maintained an HRP certification from 2006 until 2019, during which time he had been under constant monitoring for psychological and mental health issues without the HRP having concluded that he had NPD. The AJ found that without further development or evidence regarding the results of his HRP evaluations, that contention did not contradict the Psychologist's conclusion. Moreover, the AJ concluded, since the Individual testified that the HRP staff stopped monitoring him after his suspension in 2019, the HRP staff did not have access to most of the information that the Psychologist relied upon in reaching her conclusion.  Accordingly, the AJ found that without any information or testimony from the HRP staff, there is no evidence in the Record indicating that they would disagree with the Psychologist's conclusion. The AJ therefore concluded that Individual had not shown that the Psychologist's finding that he meets the DSM-5 criteria for NPD is not reliable.

Accordingly, the Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0047, Fine)