On May 21, 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 November 2015, the individual completed the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) as part of a security clearance reinvestigation. Subsequently, the local security office (LSO) held a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) with the individual in June 2017. In response to information gathered at the PSI, a DOE consulting psychologist evaluated the individual and determined that that the individual's alcohol consumption met the DSM-5 description of an Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder. The psychologist noted that the individual demonstrated a lack of candor with regard to his alcohol consumption and his criminal conduct, which she concluded to be personality traits or conditions that could impair the individual's judgment, stability, reliability and trustworthiness. At the hearing, the individual testified that he had not consumed alcohol for approximately four months and had engaged the help of the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). He explained that he had been attending both a traditional Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) program and a twelve step program, similar to AA. The individual reported that he has self-identified as an alcoholic. The individual additionally acknowledged misrepresenting his alcohol consumption to the DOE psychologist. The DOE psychologist testified that she did not feel that the individual had been either rehabilitated or reformed, and she opined that the individual had a “fair” prognosis due to the limited period of time that he had abstained from alcohol. She also testified that she had concerns with regard to the individual's candor. Although the individual's EAP Counselor opined that the individual had “very good” prognosis, the individual had reported to the EAP Counselor that he had been abstinent for alcohol for a longer period of time. Furthermore, both the individual's EAP Counselor and his twelve step program's group leader testified that he had not yet identified as an alcoholic. The Administrative Judge concluded that the individual had not mitigated the security concerns under Guideline G due to the brevity of his period of abstinence. With regard to Guidelines E and I, the Administrative Judge determined that the security concerns were not mitigated due to the individual's provision of false information regarding both his alcohol consumption and his criminal history and due to the inconsistencies between the individual's testimony and that of his EAP Counselor and group leader. As such, the Administrative Judge concluded that the individual's access authorization should not be restored. (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman)