PSH-24-0081 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On July 5, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In September 2023, the Individual was charged with Battery On A Household Member after consuming two sixteen-ounce alcoholic beverages. In the answer to a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) issued in October 2023, the Individual indicated that the September 2023 criminal charge against him was dismissed. Ex. 8 at 47. He also reported that, although he testified during a prior administrative review hearing in November 2022 that he had been sober since July 2021 and was dedicated to his sobriety, he had relapsed and consumed "[two] beers" in July 2023 and two beers in September 2023. He further claimed that he had been sober since his September 2023 consumption. Following the October 2023 LOI, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE-consultant Psychologist (DOE Psychologist), which resulted in the DOE Psychologist in diagnosing the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), moderate, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he relapsed in July 2023 after the death of his uncle and after he had stopped attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). He also testified that he began attending AA again the weekend after his September 2023 charge. He also began seeing a therapist for weekly session in November 2023 and attending telehealth Intensive Outpatient Treatment (IOP) in February 2024. The Individual's Employee Assistance Program counselor testified that he attended a six-week alcohol awareness program, while under the Fitness For Duty program. She also testified that she was very optimistic about his likelihood of remaining sober. After hearing all the testimony, the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual is not yet rehabilitated and that his AUD diagnosis would be in sustained remission after 12 months of sobriety from his last alcohol consumption in September 2023. The Administrative Judge found that none of the mitigating conditions had been satisfied and that the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he had resolved the security concerns arising under Guideline G. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0081, Fishman)