On February 22, 2018, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored. The LSO relied upon the individual’s diagnosis by a DOE psychologist that the individual habitually used alcohol to impairment and has personality tendencies that indicate that he is not trustworthy or reliable.  Finally, the LSO relied upon the individual’s 2017 DWI, 2011 DWI, and 2005 charge of Providing Alcohol to a Minor.  The individual challenged the psychologist’s conclusions regarding his alcohol use and whether there is a pattern of evidence establishing that the individual is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy.  After carefully considering the totality of the record, the Administrative Judge found that the individual’s clearance should not be restored.  The individual did not mitigate the concerns raised under Guideline G regarding his diagnosis by the DOE psychologist.  He has been in treatment for only three months and has not engaged in aftercare only counseling.  As to the concern raised under Guideline I, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had mitigated the concern raised by the opinion of the DOE psychologist that he has personality tendencies that allow him to not be trustworthy or reliable.  The Administrative Judge found that nothing in the record indicates that the individual is deceitful in any other aspect of his life, beside his denial and minimization of his alcohol use.    Finally, the Administrative Judge determined that the individual had not mitigated the concern under Guideline J raised by his criminal conduct.  She determined that the repetition of alcohol-related criminal offenses demonstrates a pattern of behavior. Consequently, based on all of the above, the Administrative Judge found that the individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-17-0075 (Janet R. H. Fishman)