On November 26, 2018, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he 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 security clearance. In April 2018, a DOE-consultant psychologist ("DOE Psychologist") diagnosed the Individual with Substance Abuse Disorder-Alcohol of moderate severity under the DSM-5. Over the past two decades, the Individual also has been charged with a few criminal offenses, most of them alcohol-related, including Driving While Intoxicated in October 2017. Further, in October 2014, the Individual tested positive on breath alcohol tests taken at work. The Individual also failed to remain abstinent from alcohol despite receiving Intensive Outpatient Treatment (IOT) in 2014 and entering an inpatient alcohol treatment facility in 2017, and despite stating in Personnel Security Interviews in December 2014 and February 2018 that he intended to remain abstinent. The Individual's Local Security Office (LSO) raised concerns about these issues under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines, and the Individual requested a hearing. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had remained abstinent from alcohol for around six months, although he did not provide alcohol test results to support this claim. Previously, the DOE Psychologist had indicated that the Individual could establish his rehabilitation by, among other actions, remaining abstinent for 12 months. The Individual also had attended a victims impact panel and an alcohol education course, received alcohol counseling from a therapist, and obtained online therapy. However, the Individual had not complied with many of the DOE Psychologist's treatment recommendations, including attending another IOP and participating in some form of group therapy, such as Alcoholics Anonymous. The DOE Psychologist opined at the hearing that the Individual's alcohol problem was not well-treated and that the Individual had a "very poor" prognosis for remaining abstinent. Based on the evidence in the record, including the relapses in the Individual's history, the AJ found that the Individual had not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline G. The AJ further found that, because the Individual had not mitigated the security concerns regarding his alcohol consumption, the Individual had not demonstrated that he was unlikely to commit alcohol-related criminal offenses in the future. Thus, the AJ found that the Individual had not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline J. Accordingly, the AJ found that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-18-0063 (Gregory S. Krauss).