On September 22, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold a security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol use and criminal conduct. Regarding Guideline G, the LSO cited his diagnosis by a DOE Psychiatrist of Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, in early remission, and her two alcohol-related arrests, an August 2021 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and a February 2010 Driving While Intoxicated.  Regarding Guideline J, the LSO cited her alcohol - related arrests and a 2006 Larceny charge. The Judge found that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline G concerns regarding her alcohol use. The Individual testified that she has been abstinent since her August 2021 DUI alcohol-related arrest. She has voluntarily submitted to phosphatidylethanol (PEth) testing since October 2021 and underwent random alcohol and drug tests in September and October. The Individual voluntarily entered the alcohol awareness and education program at the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Further, she began attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), individual counseling, and an additional self -help group. In addition, the Individual has an AA sponsor and is working on step 9 of the 12 steps. At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist declared that the Individual's "this is . . . probably the most thorough, comprehensive and persuasive example of the steps that someone has taken to demonstrate their -- not just rehabilitation, not just that they're not drinking, but the reformation and their life changes, than I have maybe seen in all those years." Further, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual has demonstrated reformation or rehabilitation "in spades" and that her risk of relapse is "low, very low." Based on the facts, the Judge found that the Individual met the mitigating conditions set forth under Guideline G.  Regarding the Guideline J concerns, since the behavior regarding the two alcohol -related arrests was a direct result of her maladaptive alcohol use and that the larceny charge was so remote in time, the Judge found that the Individual mitigated the Guideline J concerns as well. Accordingly, the Individual was able to demonstrate that she had resolved the security concerns arising under Guidelines G and J. ( OHA Case No. PSH-22-0099, Fishman)