Case No. VSA-0103, 26 DOE ¶ 83,006 (OHA January 15, 1997)

For full history of this case, and links to other cases, click here.

* The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced with XXXXXXX's.

January 15, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Opinion of the Director

Name of Case: Personnel Security Review

Date of Filing: November 22, 1996

Case Number: VSA-0103

This Opinion considers a Request for Review filed by XXXXX (hereinafter referred to as "the individual") concerning his eligibility to retain an access authorization under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled "Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material.(1)An Office of the Department of Energy (DOE) suspended the individual's access authorization under the provisions of Part 710. The individual requested administrative review of this action before a Hearing Officer and on October 24, 1996, the Hearing Officer assigned by the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals issued an Opinion that the individual's access authorization should not be restored. On November 22, 1996, the individual filed a Request for Review of the Hearing Officer's Opinion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.28. The Request included a statement of the issues to be reviewed (Statement of Issues). On December 26, 1996, the DOE's Office of Safeguards and Security (OSS) filed a response to the Statement of Issues. The Response stated that the OSS concurred with the recommendation of the Hearing Officer, and had no additional information to submit in

this proceeding. This Opinion will therefore consider the matters raised by the Statement of Issues. For the most part, the objections concern the weight that the Hearing Officer accorded evidence brought forward by the individual.

I. BACKGROUND

The events leading to the present proceeding began when the individual, pursuant to a routine reinvestigation of his eligibility to maintain a security clearance, signed and dated a standardized security questionnaire. In connection with completing the form, he signed the following certification:

My statements on this form, and any attachments to it, are true, complete, and are made in good faith. I understand that a knowing and willful false statement on this form can be punished by fine or imprisonment or both. (See section 1001 of title 18, United States Code).

The form also included the following three questions:

(A) Since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, whichever is shorter, have you illegally used any controlled substance, for example, . . . cocaine, . . . ?

(B) Have you ever illegally used a controlled substance . . . while possessing a security clearance; or while in a position directly and immediately affecting the public safety?

(C) In the last 7 years, have you been involved in the illegal purchase, manufacture, trafficking, production, transfer, shipping, receiving or sale of any narcotic, depressant, stimulant, hallucinogen, or cannabis for your own intended profit or that of another?

(emphasis in the original). The individual answered each of these questions in the negative. Twenty-three days later, he was arrested for possession of cocaine.

On the next working day, the individual reported his arrest to his employer's medical officer and requested to be placed in a substance abuse treatment program. As a result of these events, a DOE Personnel Security Specialist conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) with the individual in which he was questioned about the arrest, his past drug use and his representations in the questionnaire that he had neither used drugs in the past seven years nor illegally used a controlled substance while possessing a security clearance. During the PSI, the individual admitted that he had: (1) used cocaine from late 1994 until the date of his arrest; and (2) intentionally provided false information when completing his questionnaire.

Since this interview did not resolve the security concerns raised by the individual's use of cocaine and intentional provision of false information, his access authorization was suspended and an administrative review proceeding was initiated. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.9. The administrative review process was commenced by the issuance of a letter which notified the individual that information possessed by the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his continued eligibility for access authorization (Notification Letter).

The Notification Letter specified three areas of derogatory information described in 10 C.F.R. § 710.8. First, the Notification Letter presented allegations under Criterion K that the individual used cocaine. (2) Second, under Criterion F, the Notification Letter alleged that the individual intentionally provided false information when completing his questionnaire. (3)Third, based on the arrest for cocaine possession, the Notification Letter charged under Criterion L (10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l)) that the individual "engaged in unusual conduct or is subject to circumstances which tend to show that the individual is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to believe that the individual may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress which may cause the individual to act contrary to the best interests of the national security."

At the request of the individual, a hearing was held on these matters. At the hearing, the DOE presented one witness, the DOE Personnel Security Specialist who had conducted the individual's PSI. The individual testified on his own behalf and called three other witnesses. The first two witnesses were his present and past supervisors. The individual then called his substance abuse counselor (the individual's expert or counselor) to provide both expert testimony and testimony based upon the counselor's personal knowledge of the individual and the individual's treatment program.

II. The Hearing Officer's Opinion

After considering all the testimony given at the Hearing, as well as other information in the record, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had not met his burden to show that restoring his clearance was in the national interest. Specifically, he determined that the DOE's security concerns involving Criteria K, F and L had not been resolved or mitigated.

A. Criterion K

Noting that the individual admitted that he used cocaine on a weekly basis for a period of 15 to 18 months previous to his arrest, the Hearing Officer found that the sole issue to be considered under Criterion K was whether the individual had been sufficiently rehabilitated from his cocaine use to resolve the security concerns raised in the Notification Letter. The Hearing Officer referred to the individual's assertion that he had mitigated the DOE's security concerns under Criterion K by undergoing a chemical dependency rehabilitation program. In support of this contention, the individual provided the testimony of his expert witness, documentary evidence of his frequent attendance at Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous meetings, selected treatment records, and his own testimony.

In his Opinion, the Hearing Officer discussed the individual's treatment in detail. He recognized that upon his discharge from the program, the individual's prognosis was considered to be "fair to good." The Discharge Summary stated that the individual "completed all treatment plan assignments and appeared to gain benefit from them." The Summary went on to note:

Other good indicators of his progress in early recovery has [sic] been his attendance and participation in 12- step groups and this facility's Continuing Care Group. During this course of treatment he has been attending AA/NA groups on the average of 7 times per week and consistently attended the weekly continuing care group sessions.

The Hearing Officer noted that the individual also submitted an After Care Meeting Attendance Record, showing that he attended Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous meetings on an almost daily basis.

The Hearing Officer also considered the testimony of the individual's expert who cited the following factors as positive signs that the individual's recovery would succeed: (1) his recovery was internally motivated; (2) a relative absence of external stressors; (3) his highly enthusiastic participation in his treatment program; and (4) his frequent attendance of Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. The counselor further testified that the individual's chemical dependency disorder was considered to be in "Early Full Remission" under the diagnostic criteria set forth in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - IV (DSM-IV) [at 178-181], because at the time of the Hearing, the individual had not used alcohol or drugs for a period of approximately six months.

Nevertheless, the Hearing Officer concluded that the duration of the individual's abstinence was not sufficient to resolve the serious security concerns raised by his cocaine use. He determined that given the individual's previous history of a relapse, his cocaine use over an extended period (from 15 to 18 months), the cocaine dependency diagnosis, and the highly addictive nature of cocaine, a finding that he had been rehabilitated after six months would be premature.

To support this conclusion, the Hearing Officer noted that the individual testified that he had previously tried to discontinue his cocaine use, but had eventually suffered a relapse after approximately three months. The Hearing Officer also pointed out that a number of highly qualified expert witnesses had testified in previous DOE Security Hearings that individuals with substance abuse disorders are not sufficiently rehabilitated until they have abstained from the use of all psychoactive substances for a period of at least 12 months. See, e.g., Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0063, 25 DOE ¶ 82,789 (1996); Personnel Security Hearingg, Case No. VSO-0005, 24 DOE ¶ 82,753 (1995), affirmed 25 DOE ¶ 83,013 (1995), terminated, (OSS June 7, 1995); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0014, 25 DOE ¶ 82,755 (1995); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0018, 25 DOE ¶ 82,758 (1995).

The Hearing Officer stated that this consensus is also reflected in the DSM-IV's diagnostic course specifiers for Chemical Dependency Disorders, which distinguish between Early Remission and Sustained Remission. Specifically, the DSM-IV states:

Because the first 12 months following Dependence is a time of particularly high risk for relapse, this period is designated Early Remission. After 12 months of Early Remission have passed without relapse to Dependence, the person enters into Sustained Remission.

DSM-IV at 179. However, the Hearing Officer recognized that this 12-month standard is not a hard and fast rule, and that it must be applied on a case-by-case basis in the DOE's security clearance proceedings. Nevertheless, he pointed out that [OHA] Hearing Officers have not deviated from this standard absent significant mitigating circumstances.

The Hearing Officer also considered testimony of the counselor to the effect that there is no clinical significance to the 12-month standard. However, the Hearing Officer pointed out that the counselor also testified that the longer one remains abstinent, the less likely he is to relapse, and further, citing the DSM-IV standard, that the individual would have to abstain for a period of at least 12 months to be considered in "full remission." In light of the weight of evidence set forth above showing that the 12-month standard is widely recognized, the Hearing Officer stated that he was according little weight to the counselor's testimony that there is no clinical significance to the 12-month standard.

The Hearing Officer concluded that the individual's use of a particularly addictive drug, his history of intentionally providing false information to the DOE when his disorder was in an active state and his prior history of relapse indicated that reducing the period of abstinence necessary to establish his rehabilitation from 12 months to six months was not warranted. He therefore found that the individual had not mitigated the DOE's security concerns with regard to Criterion K.

B. Criterion F

Under this criterion, DOE's security concerns are based upon the individual's admittedly intentional provision of false information in completing his questionnaire. The individual contended that the DOE's Criterion F security concerns were mitigated since his intentional provision of false information was symptomatic of his chemical dependency, and that as a result of his alleged rehabilitation from chemical dependency, such dishonest acts were unlikely to recur. However, the Hearing Officer had previously found that the individual had not abstained from the use of psychoactive substances for a sufficient length of time to convince him that relapse was unlikely. The Hearing Officer therefore concluded that the DOE's security concerns under Criterion F were not mitigated.

C. Criterion L

Criterion L refers to information that an individual has "[e]ngaged in any unusual conduct or is subject to any circumstances which tend to show that the individual is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to believe that the individual may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress which may cause the individual to act contrary to the best interests of the national security." 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l).

In the Notification Letter, DOE specified the following four security concerns to support its charge that the individual's behavior falls within the scope of Criterion L: (i) The individual's use of cocaine; (ii) the individual's provision of false information on the questionnaire; (iii) the individual's statement to the police officer who frisked him on the night of his arrest that a lump in his pocket was marijuana, when in fact the lump was cocaine; and (iv) the individual's failure to seek drug treatment until he was arrested and concerned about the possibility of incarceration.

All of these concerns relate to the individual's chemical dependence. The Hearing Officer found that the chemical dependency had not been in remission for a long enough time to convince him that the individual's risk of relapse was low enough to mitigate the DOE's security concerns. Accordingly, he found that the individual had not mitigated the DOE's security concerns concerning Criterion L. (4)

Based on the above considerations, the Hearing Officer recommended that the individual's access authorization not be restored.

III. Analysis

A. Standard of Review

Part 710 provides that if, after considering all the factors in light of the relevant criteria, the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, is of the opinion that it will not endanger the common defense and security and will be clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue access authorization to the individual, the Director, Office of Hearings an Appeals, shall render an opinion favorable to the individual; otherwise, the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, shall render an opinion adverse to the individual. 10 C.F.R. § 710.28(d). As discussed below, after reviewing the evidence submitted in this case, I am convinced that it would not be clearly consistent with the national interest to restore the access authorization of this individual.

As a general rule, I will not set aside findings of fact made by Hearing Officers in these types of cases unless they are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the fact that the Hearing Officer is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses. Compare, Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982) (Pullman) with Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214, 223 (1988)(Amadeo), quoting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). See also, Helen Gaidine Oglesbee v. Westinghouse Hanford Company, 25 DOE ¶ 89,001 (1995).

The errors set forth in the Statement of Issues involve, for the most part, allegations that the Hearing Officer failed to give appropriate weight to mitigation evidence brought forward by the individual. In cases under Part 710, the Hearing Officer is responsible not only for considering the demeanor and credibility of witnesses, but also for assessing the appropriate weight to be given to their testimony. Personnel Security Review (Case No. VSA- 0049), 25 DOE ¶ 83,011 (1996). Therefore, absent some material error, I will not ordinarily supplant my judgment for that of the Hearing Officer in such matters. Id. at 86,552.

B. Statement of Issues

After reviewing the Statement of Issues, I find that it fails to specify why any of the evidence referred to was entitled to greater weight than that accorded by the Hearing Officer. See Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSA-0014), 25 DOE ¶ 83,002 (1995). Further, upon my own review of the record and of the Opinion itself, I see no errors in the Hearing Officer's determinations as to the weight to be accorded any of the evidence referred to in the Statement of Issues. As discussed below, the evidence in the record was adequately considered by the Hearing Officer. The mere fact that the individual was disappointed that the Hearing Officer did not recommend restoration of access authorization does not mean that there was any error on the part of the Hearing Officer with respect to the weight accorded to the evidence. With these considerations in mind, I will turn to the specific matters raised in the Statement of Issues.

(1) The Statement of Issues first alleges that in his discussion with respect to Criterion K, the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to evidence in the record that the nature and extent of the drug use by the individual was lighter and less aggravated, rather than heavier use under more aggravated circumstances.

At the Hearing, the counselor did testify that the individual's drug use was lighter rather than more aggravated. Transcript of Hearing (hereinafter Tr.) at 117. It is true that the Opinion in this case does not specifically cite the testimony of the individual's expert to that effect. However, I find no error by the Hearing Officer in this regard.

At the hearing, the individual's attorney posed the following question to the counselor: "In terms of the amount and frequency and duration of drug use by [the individual], as reported to you or as received in the history, where does he fall in the continuum or the spectrum? Is he closer to the end of heavy user or not as heavy user, at the time he entered treatment?" Tr. at 119 (emphasis added). The individual's counselor replied: "Not as heavy." Id.

As is evident from the above quotation, the counselor's belief that the individual's drug use was relatively light was not based on his own direct knowledge, but rather on what he learned from other sources. The record itself suggests that the counselor reached his conclusions about the individual's level of drug use based on the assertions of the individual himself. These assertions as to duration, frequency and circumstances surrounding the drug usage have no outside, objective corroboration in the record of this case. Therefore, it was certainly appropriate for the Hearing Officer to give no weight to the counselor's belief on this issue, as it was based on unsupported assertions. See Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0094), 26 DOE ¶ 82,753 (1996).

Moreover, from my own review of the record here, I cannot conclude that the individual's drug use was "light" for purposes of reducing the level of rehabilitation necessary to warrant restoration of the access authorization in this case. As a rule, in proceedings under Part 710, light substance abuse is considered to be infrequent, sporadic use over a short period of time, or use on an experimental basis. Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0045), 25 DOE ¶ 82,774 (1995)(use of marijuana was a solitary occurrence without planning or forethought); Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0074), 25 DOE ¶ 82,796 (1996)(two uses of cocaine were considered isolated and experimental).

However, in the present case the individual admittedly used cocaine on a weekly basis for a period of approximately 18 months. Transcript of Personnel Security Interview at 10-12. Thus, the use was clearly regular, extended, and premeditated. While such a level of use might be considered to be "light" within the counselor's frame of reference, it is certainly not the type of use that has been considered "light" in our security proceedings under Part 710. See Personnel Security Hearingg (Case No. VSO-0065), 25 DOE ¶ 82,798 (1996). Based on these considerations, I find that the Hearing Officer was correct in his implicit determination that this drug use pattern was not light, and in implicitly according no weight to the assertion.

(2) The Statement of Issues next argues that in his discussion with respect to Criterion K, the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to evidence that the prognosis for the individual's recovery at the completion of treatment was "the top ranking prognosis category customarily given by the treatment facility, and that the prognosis was thereafter upgraded in light of the individual's continuing exemplary participation in activities of recovery."

I see no basis for these assertions. The counselor testified that he never used the prognosis term "excellent" and that "good" was the highest prognosis rating that he uses. Tr. at 161. The counselor further testified that at the completion of rehabilitation, the individual's prognosis was "fair to good." Tr. at 128. (5) Thus, contrary to the assertion in the Statement of Issues, the individual was not accorded the highest prognosis of this treatment facility.

The Statement of Issues also asserts that the Hearing Officer improperly failed to give adequate weight to testimony that the prognosis was upgraded. From my own review, I find that the record does not support the allegation that the prognosis was actually ever upgraded. The following interchanges between the individual's expert and the individual's attorney excerpted from the hearing transcript support my conclusion:

A: On 6-12, he [the individual] was discharged from formal treatment activity and the prognosis is noted to be fair to good, with the qualifier, in parentheses, "which will be maintained or even improved, if he continues with his active participation in recovery [supports]."

...

Q: And the qualifier in this prognosis reflects a clinical sense that the prognosis may improve, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And as of the current time, in light of your knowledge of [the individual's] continuing recovery activities, would the prognosis given at that time be maintained or would it be improved or stay the same or change, in light of his continuing recovery activities?

A: If it would change, I certainly would say that that's maybe--that maybe the word "fair" could be eliminated and it could be "good...." Tr. at 128.

Therefore, the individual's expert did not upgrade the prognosis. He merely acknowledged the possibility of changing the "fair to good" prognosis to "good."

In any event, even if the individual were accorded the highest prognosis rating, it still would not necessarily mean that he had established that security concerns had been mitigated, or lead unavoidably to such a conclusion.

Accordingly, this objection establishes no valid basis for altering any conclusion in this regard reached by the Hearing Officer.

(3) The Statement of Issues further alleges that:

the Hearing Officer incorrectly concluded that the individual had ?relapsed' after six months; in fact the individual had attempted to discontinue use on his own, prior to any treatment, but the individual has not manifested any relapse whatsoever after the initiation of treatment.

This contention is totally without foundation. In his Opinion, the Hearing Officer clearly identified that the relapse occurred during an earlier attempt at abstinence by this individual, and that it took place after a three-month period of abstinence. Slip op. at 5,6. The individual has readily admitted this relapse. Tr. at 180-81. The Hearing Officer did not associate this earlier relapse after this three-month period of abstinence with the more recent professional treatment program entered into by the individual, during which there allegedly was a six-month period of abstinence. There is no evidence that the Hearing Officer mistakenly concluded that the individual had relapsed after the beginning of his treatment program. In fact, other sections of the Hearing Officer's Opinion indicate that he accepted for purposes of his determination the individual's uncorroborated assertion that he had been abstinent from drugs and alcohol for the entire six-month period since his arrest for possession of cocaine. (6) The Hearing Officer used the six-month period as the benchmark to consider whether sufficient time had passed to find that the individual had demonstrated rehabilitation. Slip op. at 6-7. Accordingly, I see no error whatsoever by the Hearing Officer in connection with his finding of a prior relapse after a three-month abstinence period.

(4) Finally, the Statement of Issues alleges that in reaching his conclusions under Criteria F, K, and L, the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the individual's commitment, success and participation in recovery, while according excessive weight to principles based on arbitrary lengths of time as indications of recovery.

The Statement of Issues seems to be referring here to the fact that in determining that the individual had not demonstrated that he was rehabilitated from drug use, the Hearing Officer found that the individual's alleged six-month abstinence period was insufficient. As noted above, the Hearing Officer found that a 12-month period of abstinence was necessary. The Statement of Issues seems to be implying that adhering to this longer period is arbitrary.

The Opinion in this case provides a substantial discussion of the bases for the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the six-month period of abstinence was insufficient in this case. The Hearing Officer clearly referred to and expressed his admiration of the individual's commitment to addressing his chemical dependency. Slip op. at 5. Thus, he certainly did consider the individual's success to date with his recovery program. Nevertheless, the Hearing Officer found that in spite of that commitment and current success, the duration of the period of abstinence was not long enough to resolve the security concerns raised by the cocaine use. In this regard, the Hearing Officer pointed to the prior relapse, the extended period of cocaine use, the cocaine dependency diagnosis, and the highly addictive nature of that substance. Id.

The Statement's implication that the 12-month period of abstinence is arbitrary is without basis. As the Hearing Officer pointed out, there is a widely-held view among substance abuse professionals that individuals with substance abuse disorders are not sufficiently rehabilitated until they have abstained from the use of all psychoactive substances for a period of at least 12 months. This consensus is reflected in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV), which specifies that the first 12 months following dependence is a time of particularly high risk for relapse. This period is designated "Early Remission." After 12 months has passed without relapse, the person enters "Sustained Remission."

Moreover, even the individual's expert recognized that the individual was still in the Early Remission period, and testified that the individual would have to abstain for a period of at least 12 months in order to be considered in full remission. Tr. at 157. Thus, not only is the 12-month benchmark widely recognized in the mental health care community, but it was even considered a significant marker by the individual's own counselor.

Accordingly, I cannot find that adherence to the 12-month time frame for rehabilitation was arbitrary. The 12-month period is certainly a useful and rational term of reference. The Hearing

Officer explained fully why it was appropriate to adopt that period in this case. I see no error by the Hearing Officer in this regard.

IV. Conclusion

As is evident from the above discussion, the matters raised by the Statement of Issues indicate that the individual strongly disagrees with the conclusions reached by the Hearing Officer. However, dissatisfaction and disappointment do not amount to error by the Hearing Officer with respect to the weight he accorded the evidence in this case. Although the non-prevailing party here may well disagree with the outcome, as detailed above, there was no error in the Hearing Officer's assessment of the evidence.

As indicated by the foregoing, it is my opinion that the individual's access authorization should not be restored. 10 C.F.R. § 710.28(d).

The regulations specify that within 30 days of receipt of this opinion, the Director, Office of Security Affairs, will make a final determination regarding restoration of the individual's access authorization based upon a complete review of the record. 10 C.F.R. § 710.28(e). The Director, Office of Security Affairs, shall through the Director, Office of Safeguards and Security, inform the individual and his counsel in writing of the final determination, and provide a copy of the present opinion. Copies of the correspondence shall be provided to the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Manager, DOE Counsel and any other party. In the event of an adverse determination the correspondence shall indicate findings by the Director, Office of Security Affairs, with respect to each allegation contained in the Notification Letter. 10 C.F.R. § 710.28(f).

George B. Breznay

Director

Office of Hearings and Appeal

Date: January 15, 1997

(1)1/ An "access authorization" is an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to classified matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5. Such authorization will be referred to in this Opinion as access authorization or security clearance.

(2)2/ Criterion K applies to information that the individual has: "Trafficked in, sold, transferred, possessed, used, or experimented with a drug or other substance listed in the Schedule of Controlled Substances established pursuant to section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (such as marijuana, cocaine, barbiturates, narcotics, etc.) except as prescribed or administered by a physician licensed to dispense drugs in the practice of medicine, or as otherwise authorized by law." 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(k).

(3)3/ Criterion F applies to information that the individual has: "Deliberately misrepresented, falsified, or omitted significant information from a Personnel Security Questionnaire, a Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions, a personnel qualifications statement, a personnel security interview, written or oral statements made in response to official inquiry on a matter that is relevant to a determination regarding eligibility for DOE access authorization, or proceedings conducted pursuant to § 710.20 through § 710.31." 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f).

(4)The Hearing Officer made no finding regarding whether the security concerns under Criteria F and L would have been mitigated if the individual's chemical dependency was shown to have been in remission. In this case, I find there was no reason to reach these issues.

(5)The Hearing Officer referred specifically to this prognosis in his Opinion. Slip op. at 5.

(6)In this case, I need not review whether the individual has adequately supported this claim of a six-month period of abstinence.