On July 22, 2020, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The Individual was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) on October 12, 2018, his second DWI arrest. The local security office subsequently sent the Individual a letter of interrogatory requesting information concerning the Individual's alcohol use, and requested that the Individual undergo an evaluation by a DOE-contracted psychiatrist (the Psychiatrist). Following a clinical interview, the Psychiatrist issued a report in which he concluded that the Individual is a "binge drinker" and that he meets the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate (AUD, Moderate) under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' Fifth Edition (DSM-5).
The Individual challenged the Psychiatrist's finding that he met the DSM-5 criteria for AUD, Moderate. To this end, he submitted a report prepared by a psychologist (the Psychologist), who had recently evaluated the Individual and opined that he did not meet the DSM-5 criteria for AUD. The Psychologist, however, agreed that the Individual has a problem with consuming alcohol to excess on a weekly basis, and that he requires outpatient treatment with a relapse prevention program. The AJ found that the Psychiatrist's opinion that the Individual meets the DSM-5 criteria for AUD, Moderate, to be persuasive. The AJ further found that because the Individual did not acknowledge that he has a serious alcohol problem, has not complied with any of the Psychiatrist's treatment recommendations, and has continued to consume alcohol, the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his AUD and two DWI arrests. Therefore, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored, since he had not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guidelines G and J. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0054 (Steven L. Fine).