On July 10, 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 June 2017, the individual self-reported that he was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. Subsequently, the local security office (LSO) held a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) with the individual in August 2017. In response to information gathered at the PSI, a DOE consulting psychologist evaluated the individual and concluded that the individual was "frequently (habitually) drinking to excess without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation." The psychologist further opined that the individual's "difficulty being candid about his use of alcohol and probable disregard for court restrictions are antisocial tendencies and as such constitute mental conditions that can impair his judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness." During the hearing, the individual testified that he has been abstinent from alcohol for over one year, intends to remain abstinent from alcohol, and has enrolled in an Intensive Outpatient Treatment and a Recovery/Relapse Prevention program. The psychologist determined that the individual had shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation with regard to alcohol; however, he stated that after hearing the individual's testimony, the individual's antisocial facet, lying, was worse than he original thought when he first interviewed the individual. The psychologist noted several examples, during the hearing, in which the individual's testimony was not accurate or was inconsistent. Further, the Administrative Judge observed additional instances in which the individual gave evasive, incredible, or conflicting testimony. As such, the Administrative Judge determined that, although the individual resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline G, he failed to resolve the security concerns associated with Guideline I. Accordingly, she concluded that the individual's access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-18-0036 (Katie Quintana).