Summary of Decisions - October 07, 2024 -October 11, 2024

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)  

Access Authorization Granted; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On October 7, 2024, an Administrative Judge (AJ) in the DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals determined that an Individual's access authorization should be granted. The Individual had reported participating in therapy in the past regarding, in part, her alcohol consumption. Following a discussion with the therapist, investigators referred the Individual to a DOE Contractor Psychologist (the Psychologist) for an alcohol abuse evaluation. The Psychologist diagnosed her with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), mild severity.

At the hearing, the Individual provided testimony and the results of blood tests showing that she had abstained from alcohol for over six months, longer than the time recommended by the Psychologist . She also presented testimony and documentary evidence showing that she had attended two group alcohol courses, one of which included an ongoing support group component, and that she was attended alcohol focused individual therapy. The Psychologist opened that the Individual was rehabilitated and reformed from AUD, adding the modifier "in sustained remission" to his original diagnosis. He gave the Individual a good prognosis. Based on the evidence, the AJ determined that the Individual had mitigated the concerns under Guideline G and, therefore, her access authorization should be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0093, Martin)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On October 8, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual was arrested and charged with Assault on a Family Member in January 2024 in connection with an altercation with his wife that occurred after they had both consumed alcohol. The Individual subsequently disclosed to the local security office that the dispute with his wife concerned his having engaged in an extra -marital affair and that he routinely consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication. The Individual met with a DOE ­contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) who opined that the Individual habitually or binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual participate in outpatient substance use counseling and attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. At the hearing, the Individual brought forth evidence that he and his wife had participated in marital counseling and that his extra-marital affair was unlikely to make him susceptible to manipulation or duress. However, the Individual denied that he misused alcohol, indicated that he continued to consume significant quantities of alcohol as of the date of the hearing, and expressed that he did not believe that he needed alcohol-related counseling. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had resolved the security concerns under Guideline E, but not the security concerns under Guidelines G and J. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0159, Harmonick)

Access Authorization Not Restored: Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On October 9, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed with a DOE Contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol consumption.

The Individual and the DOE-consultant psychologist testified at the hearing. Although the record shows that the Individual attends Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, completed an alcohol awareness and education program, submitted to several alcohol tests, and sought therapy. However, the Individual failed to show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation from his Alcohol Use Disorder diagnosis, as he was not abstinent for twelve months. Further he could not support his claims of abstinence with consistent alcohol testing, and the DOE-consultant psychologist did not have meaningful information from the Individual's therapist regarding the Individual's ongoing treatment . (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0124, Rahimzadeh)

Access Authorization Not Restored: Guideline I (Psychological Conditions); Guideline E (Personal Conduct)

On October 9, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed with a DOE Contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's prior mental health treatment and personal conduct.

The Individual, his colleague and spouse testified at the hearing, as well as the DOE -consultant psychologist. While the Individual was able to mitigate the stated Guideline I concerns, the Individual failed to mitigate the stated Guideline E concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0162, Rahimzadeh)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline F

On October 9, 2024, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The LSO cited security concerns regarding the Individual's failure to file tax returns in multiple jurisdictions over eight years . Additionally, the Individual had outstanding medical debt from 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guideline F. While the AJ determined that the Individual had brought forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the medical debt was mitigated through a repayment plan, the Individual failed to resolve the Guideline F security concerns regarding his failure to file tax returns. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0105, Balzon)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On October 9, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be restored. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. In November 2023, the Individual tested positive for alcohol during a random breath alcohol test at his worksite. In February 2024, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation with a DOE consultant-psychologist (DOE Psychologist) who determined that the Individual had a history of binge consuming alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had been abstinent from alcohol since late 2023, had completed an Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program (IOP), and had been attending the IOP's aftercare program for approximately five months with the intention of continued attendance. Additionally, the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual had established adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation from the binge consumption of alcohol. The Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had mitigated the Guideline G security concerns, and she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0129, Quintana)

Access Authorization not restored; Guidelines E and F

On October 10, 2024, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. 
A local security office (LSO) obtained a credit report for the individual which indicated that he had twelve delinquent debts nine of which were in collection status. After obtaining additional information from the Individual concerning these debts, the LSO issued a notification letter alleging that the Individual had twelve unresolved delinquent debts and that his monthly earnings were significantly less than his monthly income. In addition, the Individual had failed to self -report any of his several delinquent debts that were over 120 days past due, as required by DOE Order 472.2. At the hearing, the Individual was able to show that he had resolved ten of his twelve outstanding debts. However, he was unable to resolve two of his outstanding debts and was unable to show that his monthly expenses would not continue to be greater than his monthly earnings. Finally, the AJ found that the Individual had not shown that the security concerns raised by his failure to self -report his delinquent debts were resolved by his alleged ignorance of DOE's self-reporting requirements. After reviewing the record of the proceeding, including the hearing testimony of witnesses presented by the Individual and the DOE, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline E and F security concerns.

The AJ therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0125, Fine)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On October 11, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization should not be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In August 2022, the Individual sought inpatient treatment for alcohol use at a rehabilitation center and was diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, severe. The Individual left treatment early, against medical advice, and after a short period of abstinence, resumed the consumption of alcohol at a reduced level. In December 2023, a DOE-contracted psychiatrist (Psychiatrist) diagnosed the Individual with alcohol use disorder, moderate, not yet in early remission. At the hearing, the Individual provided evidence indicating he had been abstinent from alcohol for six months, and had been attending alcohol education classes as well as individual counseling to address mental health issues related to his alcohol use. His two expert witnesses testified that he had made tremendous progress in counseling and that his risk of relapse was low. The Psychiatrist, however, felt that six months of abstinence was much too short a timeframe, in light of the Individual's long and severe history of alcohol abuse, to demonstrate rehabilitation. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not mitigated the concerns under Guideline G, and therefore his clearance should not be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0118, Rotman)