On May 23, 2018, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The individual disclosed on an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing form that he had failed to file state and federal tax returns for three consecutive years and was involved in two alcohol-related incidents away from work. The individual disclosed, during a personnel security interview conducted by the local security office that he had sought treatment for his alcohol problems in the past but relapsed after a period of abstinence following each course of treatment. A DOE consulting psychologist evaluated the individual and concluded that, under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth (DSM-5), the individual met the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, in Early Remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The DOE psychologist also concluded that the individual had a long history of binge drinking. The individual testified at the hearing that he had filed all of his outstanding tax returns, and had made significant progress towards satisfying his tax liability. The individual also testified that he had abstained from alcohol for three and one-half months, was attending online AA meetings, and was pursuing counseling for his alcohol problem. The DOE psychologist testified that her diagnosis of the individual was unchanged and that the individual had not adequately demonstrated rehabilitation or reformation. The Administrative Judge concluded that the individual's habitual failure to timely file tax returns raised serious security concerns relating to the individual's judgment and willingness to abide by rules, and that the individual had not adequately mitigated these concerns. The Administrative Judge concluded that the individual also had not adequately mitigated the security concerns related to alcohol consumption in light of the DOE psychologist's diagnosis of the individual, the short period of abstinence that the individual had established as of the date of the hearing, and the individual's history of relapsing after periods of treatment and abstinence. The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the individual's access authorization should not be restored. (Neil Schuldenfrei).