On May 2, 2018, 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 DOE security clearance. In March 2017, the individual self-reported that he had voluntarily admitted himself into a psychiatric hospital. As a result, the local security office (LSO) held a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) with the individual in May 2017. In response to information gathered at the PSI, a DOE consulting psychologist evaluated the individual and determined that the individual had been heavily and frequently consuming alcohol. The psychologist concluded that such consumption would impair the individual's judgment, as well as his reliability and trustworthiness. The psychologist additionally determined that the individual was deceptive with regard to his alcohol consumption, and therefore, the individual had a mental condition that could impair his trustworthiness. During the hearing, the individual testified that he had successfully completed an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) and was attending the weekly aftercare. He stated that, at the time of the hearing, he had attended two aftercare sessions, and he had been abstinent from alcohol for 68 days. The individual's counselor as well as the DOE psychologist indicated that although the individual had a positive prognosis, he needed to show at least 12 months of abstinence. At the time of the hearing, the individual had not yet abstained from alcohol for a period of one year as recommended by the DOE psychologist. Additionally, the DOE psychologist testified that he did not believe the individual lies generally, but noted that the individual lied when his back was against the wall. Three of the individual's witness, as well as his ex-wife, testified to his honesty. With regard to Guideline G, the Administrative Judge agreed with the individual's counselor and the DOE psychologist. However, she concluded that the individual mitigated the security concerns under Guideline I. As such, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved the concerns regarding his alcohol consumption and concluded that the individual's access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-18-0003 (Katie Quintana).