On September 5, 2019, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. In July 2018, the Individual was arrested for DUI and his blood alcohol content was measured at .174 g/210L. The Individual subsequently disclosed to the local security office that he began drinking to intoxication on a regular basis after he learned that his wife had engaged in extra-marital affairs, and drank up to twelve beers per sitting to avoid thinking about his problems. A DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) evaluated the Individual and concluded that he met the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, under the DSM-V. The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual demonstrate rehabilitation by abstaining from alcohol for at least twelve months, undergoing random breathalyzer, EtG, and PEth tests over a twelve-month period to prove he had abstained from alcohol, and attending alcoholics anonymous (AA) or a comparable in-person program on a weekly basis for twelve months. At the hearing, the Individual asserted that he had abstained from alcohol for thirteen months, and that he intended to do so in the future. The Individual did not undergo the EtG or PEth tests recommended by the DOE Psychologist, and only began attending AA within weeks of the date of the hearing. The Individual asserted that he did not believe that he needed to attend AA to maintain his sobriety. After observing the entire hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual did not display insight into the relationship triggers that led him to excessive drinking, and that he remained at a moderate to low risk for returning to problematic drinking unless he developed a support system that would hold him accountable to abstinence. The DOE Psychologist opined that AA would have performed this function had the Individual actively participated as she had recommended. Based on the Individual's non-compliance with the DOE Psychologist's treatment recommendations, the testimony of the DOE Psychologist that the Individual remained at risk for relapse until he developed an effective support system, and the lack of objective laboratory evidence showing that the Individual had abstained from alcohol, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not mitigated the security concerns under Guideline G. Therefore, she determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-19-0032 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman,).