PSH-23-0144 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On December 15, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. In November 2022, DOE notified the Individual that, as part of its Continuous Evaluation System, it discovered that "a protection order was placed on " him in October 2022. The Individual subsequently revealed that, in July 2022, he was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). He also stated that, while in police custody, he told a law enforcement officer "just kill me." As a result of this statement, he was transported to a hospital for an evaluation, and law enforcement "executed a warrant to take [his] firearms." The Individual did not report these events to DOE at the time they occurred. The DOE also discovered that the Individual did not provide candid answers during national security investigative processes spanning back over a decade. Due to the alcohol related concerns, the Individual underwent a psychological assessment with a DOE consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in April 2023. The DOE Psychologist ultimately determined that the Individual engaged in habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and was underreporting his alcohol consumption.

At the hearing, the Individual sought to explain circumstances surrounding his failure to report the 2022 DWI, and the resulting consequences, as well as his failure to provide candid answers during national security review processes. He also testified that he had been abstinent from alcohol and participating in Alcoholic Anonymous for approximately three months. The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual had not yet established adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation regarding his habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment. Ultimately, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had failed to mitigate the Guideline E and Guideline G security concerns, and she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0144, Quintana)