On May 30, 2019, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored. The Individual was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) and A DOE-consultant psychologist ("DOE Psychologist") found that the Individual was engaging in binge drinking and habitually using alcohol to excess. At the hearing conducted by the AJ, the Individual presented evidence showing that he has taken actions to address the LSO’s concerns about his alcohol use; including enrolling in the local court-supervised program for veterans, attending 39 DUI classes, obtaining medical and pharmacological treatment for his underlying PTSD, obtaining weekly counseling for his PTSD, abstaining from alcohol use for 68 days, and committing to abstaining from alcohol use. The AJ found that these actions provided some mitigation of the security concerns raised by the Individual’s habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and DUI under Guideline G.  However, the AJ further found that the mitigation provided by these actions is not yet sufficient to resolve the security concerns at issue in the case. The AJ found that while the Psychologist characterized the likelihood that the Individual would return to binge drinking as “low,” the Psychologist also recommended an additional four months abstinence, as well as, either enrollment in an IOP or attendance at AA meetings, in order to resolve these security concerns. The AJ found that since the Individual has not been diagnosed with an alcohol disorder, his enrollment in the local court-supervised program for veterans, his attendance at 39 DUI classes, his medical and pharmacological treatment for his underlying PTSD, and his weekly counseling for his PTSD serve essentially the same function for him as enrollment in an IOP or attendance at AA meetings. However, at the time of his hearing, the Individual had only maintained abstinence from alcohol use for 68 days, which the AJ found to be an inadequate period of time for him to prove that he has resolved the concerns about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness arising from his DUI and habitual or binge consumption of alcohol. The AJ therefore found that the Individual had not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline G. Accordingly, the AJ found that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-19-0016 (Steven L. Fine).