Case No. VSO-0016, 25 DOE ¶ 82,757 (H. O. Brown May 19, 1995)

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 XXXXX's.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Hearing Officer Opinion

Case Name: Personnel Security Hearing

Date of Filing: December 28, 1994

Case Number: Case No. VSO-0016

This Opinion concerns the eligibility of XXXXX ("the respondent") for continued "Q" 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>The Department of Energy's XXXXX Operations Office (DOE/XXXXX) suspended the respondent's access authorization under the provisions of Part 710. This opinion considers whether, on the basis of the evidence and testimony presented in this proceeding, the respondent's access authorization should be restored.

I. Background

The provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 710 govern the eligibility of individuals who are employed by or are applicants for employment with DOE contractors, agents, DOE access permittees, and other persons designated by the Secretary of Energy for access to classified matter or special nuclear material. Part 710 generally provides that "[t]he decision as to access authorization is a comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all relevant information, favorable or unfavorable, as to whether the granting of access authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest." 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).

The DOE granted the respondent an access authorization, in this instance a "Q" clearance, in January 1986 in conjunction with his employment as a XXXXX with XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, a DOE contractor located in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. However, on December 28, 1994,

DOE/XXXXX issued a Notification Letter informing the respondent that his access authorization had been suspended based upon information in the possession of DOE which created a substantial doubt concerning his continued eligibility. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21. More specifically, the letter stated that such derogatory information indicated criteria established in 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j), that the respondent "has been, or is a user of alcohol habitually to excess, or has been diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist as alcohol dependent or as suffering from alcohol abuse." The stated bases for this statement contained in Enclosure 2 accompanying the Notification Letter are summarized below.

In May 1994, the respondent was evaluated by Dr. XXXXX, a DOE-consultant psychiatrist, who issued a report which provided his professional opinion that the respondent is a user of alcohol habitually to excess, that there is not adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation, and that the respondent's condition meets the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, 3rd Edition, Revised (DSM III-R) criteria for Alcohol Dependence, Moderate, in Partial Remission. In addition, information in possession of DOE shows that the respondent was arrested in the following alcohol related incidents: (1) October 1982, on a charge of "Driving While Intoxicated" (DWI), having a blood-alcohol level of .20 according to a breathalyzer test that was administered; (2) July 1984, on a misdemeanor charge of "Battery" in connection with a domestic violence incident involving his former wife under circumstances in which, according to the police report, the respondent appeared to be very intoxicated; (3) November 1985, on charges of speeding and DWI by military police on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; (4) May 1987, on charges of "Criminal Damage to Private Property", "Aggravated Battery", and "DWI", having a reported blood-alcohol level of .195, for acts committed when the respondent intentionally rammed his former wife's car and a police car upon fleeing the scene; (5) May 1987, on a reduced charge of "Battery" following an altercation outside a bar; (6) December 1993, on a charge of "Battery" when the police responded to a reported altercation at the respondent's apartment between he and his girlfriend, following a night of partying during which the respondent acknowledges having consumed "about a six-pack" of beer; and (7) January 1994, on a charge of "Battery" when the police again responded to a reported altercation between the respondent and his girlfriend and the police report states that both appeared to be intoxicated.

In addition to the arrests, the Notification Letter (Enclosure 2) details several other alcohol-related incidents that did not result in or necessitate intervention by the police: (1) the respondent received an Article 15 disciplinary action for drinking alcoholic beverages while on duty in December 1980 while serving in the U.S. Air Force; (2) in June 1992, the respondent who admits to have been drinking the previous night, was perceived as having a strong odor of alcohol about him by his XXXXX supervisor and a urinalysis screen test that was then administered indicated a blood-alcohol equivalence of .258; and (3) the respondent acknowledges having telephoned his supervisor on several occasions and requesting "personal leave" because of his use of too much alcohol the night before. The Notification Letter further notes that the respondent has declined to participate in an alcohol outpatient treatment program administered by XXXXX's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), and also declined to participate in DOE's Employee Assistance Program Referral Option (EAPRO) under which the DOE would have deferred the initiation of the present administrative review process under Part 710 in return for his compliance and committing to obtaining professional help regarding the use of alcohol. Finally, the Notification Letter notifies the respondent of his right to have the issue of his eligibility for continued access authorization resolved by personal appearance before a Hearing Officer.

In a letter that was forwarded to OHA by DOE/XXXXX on January 18, 1995, the respondent exercised his right under Part 710 to request a hearing in this matter, 10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b), and on January 24, 1995, I was appointed as Hearing Officer in this case. After conferring with the respondent and the DOE Counsel that had been appointed in the case, 10 C.F.R. § 710.24, I set a hearing date of March 29, 1995. Thereafter, on February 27, 1995, DOE Counsel filed a compilation of documents relied upon as evidence by DOE/XXXXX in support of the derogatory information itemized in the Notification Letter.<2>Then, on March 7, 1995, I conducted by telephone a prehearing conference between DOE Counsel and the respondent, as required under 10 C.F.R. 710.25(f)<3>, in which several salient matters were established. First, although from the outset of the proceeding DOE Counsel and I had advised the respondent of his right to be accompanied, represented and advised by counsel or a representative of his choosing, 10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b)(7), the respondent determined that he would proceed pro se at the hearing. Second, the respondent did not wish to contest the factual validity of the Notification Letter but instead to present evidence concerning his attendance at an alcohol rehabilitation program during 1994. The respondent therefore stipulated the accuracy of the Notification Letter and underlying documents that were supplied by DOE Counsel.<4> On the basis of this stipulation, DOE Counsel determined that it only wished to call two witnesses: XXXXX, a DOE personnel security specialist, and Dr. XXXXX, the DOE consultant psychiatrist that rendered the diagnosis relied upon by DOE/XXXXX in the Notification Letter. The respondent, in turn, sought only to testify in his own behalf and to call one other witness, XXXXX, his probation officer, to proffer testimony concerning the respondent's participation in an alcohol rehabilitation program. Accordingly, the hearing in this matter proceeded as scheduled, in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, with the specified witnesses.

II. Analysis

I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions of the parties, the evidence presented and the testimony of the witnesses at the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX hearing convened in this matter. In resolving the question of the respondent's eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided by the applicable factors prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c): the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the voluntariness of the participation; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure coercion, exploitation, or duress; the likelihood of continuance or recurrence; and other relevant and material factors. After due deliberation, it is my opinion that the respondent's access authorization should not be restored since I am unable to conclude that such restoration would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). The specific findings which I make in this matter are discussed below, segmented into the two avenues of inquiry which lead to my opinion: first, that the derogatory information, 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j), presented by DOE/XXXXX in the Notification Letter is valid, substantial and sufficient to disqualify the respondent as to access authorization eligibility and, second, that the respondent has failed to present sufficient evidence of rehabilitation, reformation or other evidence to mitigate that derogatory information.

A. Derogatory Information

The respondent does not contest the factual validity of the derogatory information and admits the actions and conduct which are itemized in the Notification Letter, described above. Thus, consistent with his stance concerning these matters, the respondent has further stipulated to the accuracy of the documents submitted by DOE/XXXXX in support of the Notification Letter. See Memorandum of March 7, 1995 Prehearing Conference; Transcript of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Hearing (hereinafter "Tr.") at 7, 10, and 78.<5> Consequently, my evaluation of the derogatory information centers not upon whether the cited incidents occurred, since that is given, but rather upon whether the respondent's conduct should disqualify him from access authorization eligibility. In this regard, DOE/XXXXX places substantial reliance on the diagnosis of Dr. XXXXX, a DOE consultant psychiatrist, who classified the respondent as "Alcohol Dependent, Moderate, in Partial Remission" based upon his review of the respondent's records submitted in this proceeding and his examination of the respondent in May 1994. The respondent has charged bias on the part of Dr. XXXXX and thus implicitly challenges his diagnosis.<6> I have therefore examined the stated bases for Dr. XXXXX's conclusions and, as explained below, I find no basis for questioning the accuracy of his diagnosis.

In his report of evaluation provided to DOE/XXXXX following the examination of the respondent, Dr. XXXXX's states that his diagnosis is based upon application of criteria relating to Psychoactive Substance Dependence Disorder, as set forth in the third revised edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM III-R). See Tr. Exh. 9, XXXXX, M.D., Psychiatric Evaluation dated May 29, 1994 (XXXXX Report), at 27.<7> DSM III-R provides, in pertinent part, that a person is properly diagnosed with Psychoactive Substance Dependence<8>, where conduct demonstrates:

A. At least three of the following

(1) substance often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than the person intended

(2) persistent desire or one or more unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use

(3) a great deal of time spent in activities necessary to get the substance (e.g. theft), taking the substance (e.g. chain smoking), or recovering from its effects

(4) frequent intoxication or withdrawal symptoms when expected to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g. does not go to work because hung over, goes to school or work "high," intoxicated while taking care of his or her children), or when substance use is physically hazardous (e.g. drives when intoxicated)

(5) important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of substance use

(6) continued substance use despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent social, psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by the use of the substance (e.g. keeps using heroin despite family arguments about it, cocaine-induced depression, or having an ulcer made worse by drinking)

. . . .

B. Some symptoms of the disturbance have persisted for at least one month, or have occurred repeatedly over a longer period of time.

Having reviewed the respondent's personnel security file and performed a personal examination of the respondent, Dr. XXXXX concluded that the respondent is properly determined as alcohol dependent based upon his determination that the respondent met criteria A1, A2, A4, A5, A6, and B, in his use of alcohol, while noting that only three of the nine in A are required for the diagnosis. XXXXX Report at 27. Then in ranking the severity of the respondent's condition, Dr. XXXXX utilized the DSM III-R "Criteria for severity of Psychoactive Substance Dependence", and determined that the respondent was:

Moderate: Symptoms of functional impairment intermediate between "mild" and "severe".

and,

In Partial Remission: During the past six months, either no use of the substance, or use of the substance and no symptoms of dependence.

Id. at 28.

In his report and during the hearing, Dr. XXXXX clearly explains his application of the specified DSM III-R criteria. First, concerning the A1 criterion, Dr. XXXXX states that the respondent is a binge drinker, rather than a daily drinker, who employs various techniques to control his drinking such as not drinking alone or only drinking on holidays and weekends.<9> Notwithstanding, the incidents described in the Notification Letter indicate that the respondent has consumed greater amounts of alcohol than he may have initially intended, and has become intoxicated frequently to the point in a number of instances that intervention by police authorities was required.<10> Dr. XXXXX confirmed this assessment in his testimony. See Tr. at 23-24.

With respect to criterion A2, Dr. XXXXX states that although the respondent has professed the belief that he can control his drinking, he has persistently had serious alcohol related incidents. See Tr. at 24-25. Consistent with this assessment, the record of this proceeding shows that the respondent has attended Alcoholic Anonymous and received other counseling to control his drinking at various times. Id.; see Tr. Exh. 15, XXXXX Employee Assistance Program medical records. Despite these efforts to control his drinking, the difficulties occasioned by his sometimes excessive use of alcohol have resurfaced intermittently over a number of years as displayed in the Notification Letter.

In addition, the behavior demonstrated by respondent, particularly the DWI arrests and work incidents described in the Notification Letter, clearly fall within criterion A4. There are a number of occasions where the respondent reportedly requested leave from work because of excessive use of alcohol or the lingering indications of excessive alcohol use were detected by co-workers. See Tr. at 25-26, and at 30-31. For the same reason, Dr. XXXXX is secure in his opinion that the respondent's behavior falls under criterion A5 (occupational activities reduced). Id. at 26. In addition, the respondent's alcohol consumption clearly falls under criterion A6 since he has continued to drink despite the serious problems it has caused him over the 12 year period covered by the Notification Letter. Indeed, as discussed in the succeeding section of this opinion concerning rehabilitation, the respondent admittedly continues to drink despite the present suspension of his access authorization and the resulting potential loss of his job. Finally, concerning criterion B, the respondent's difficulties with alcohol have persisted for a number of years, even prior to the incidents covered by the Notification Letter. See, e.g., Tr. Exh. 8, Transcript of July 19, 1985 PSI at 42 (admits he and his brother were drinking prior to violent altercation in 1979).

As noted previously, the respondent's condition need satisfy only three of the "A" criteria in order to sustain a diagnosis of alcohol dependent. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that Dr. XXXXX's diagnosis of the respondent rests upon firm foundation. Moreover, I find no support for the respondent's suspicion that Dr. XXXXX's diagnosis was contrived in conspiracy with the DOE in order to separate him from employment. See note 6, supra. Instead to the contrary, the record shows that based upon Dr. XXXXX's report, the DOE offered the respondent an opportunity to keep his access authorization by participating in the Employee Assistance Program Referral Option (EAPRO), a rehabilitation program administered by DOE/XXXXX Personnel Security. See Tr. Exh. 3, Transcript of July 5, 1994 PSI at 13-14. However, the respondent chose to refuse EAPRO, stating that he was already participating in a rehabilitation program, although he was admonished that suspension of his access authorization might be a consequence of his refusal. Id. at 21-23.<11> Accordingly, I now turn to the sufficiency of any rehabilitation on part of the respondent.

B. Rehabilitation

On the basis of his diagnosis, Dr. XXXXX states that as adequate evidence of rehabilitation, the respondent should complete a minimum of 100 hours in a recognized substance abuse/dependence treatment program having the following four components: (1) individual counseling, (2) group therapy with other persons with the same disorder, (3) an educational component, and (4) a family component. See XXXXX Report at 29. Dr. XXXXX explained in his testimony that these four components are standard, with respect to a viable alcohol/drug treatment as recognized by the American Society of Addiction Medicine. Tr. at 48. Then, as adequate evidence of reformation, Dr. XXXXX would want the respondent to be 100% sober/abstinent from all psychoactive substances for: (i) a minimum of one year after the satisfactory completion of a rehabilitation program, as described, or (ii) for a period of two years if the respondent chose not to enter a rehabilitation meeting the above specifications. Finally, Dr. XXXXX asserts that "[m]ost importantly, the subject [respondent] must learn to accept that persons who meet DSM III-R criteria for Psychoactive Substance Dependence Disorder can not drink in a controlled way, i.e., in moderation." Id.

The record shows that the respondent attended an alternative alcohol rehabilitation program, known as XXXXX. XXXXX, the respondent's probation officer, testified that the respondent was referred to XXXXX by his office in February 1994, and that the respondent attended 15 of the 20 weekly scheduled classes during the period March through July 1994.<12> However, the respondent's participation in the XXXXX program failed to meet the minimal requirements for rehabilitation recommended by Dr. XXXXX. During my examination of Dr. XXXXX, he indicated that he was aware of XXXXX as an alternative to some individuals who were uncomfortable with Alcoholics Anonymous, but had no information with regard to effectiveness of XXXXX. Tr. at 41-42. In any event, the respondent's attendance at 15 one-hour sessions did not nearly meet the 100 hours of treatment recommended by Dr. XXXXX in his report.<13> Moreover, while he was uncertain, Dr. XXXXX's impression was that XXXXX failed to provide all the components of his recommended program of treatment, particularly regarding individual counseling. Tr. at 39.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the respondent has failed to provide evidence of reformation. Dr. XXXXX emphasized that an abstinence period of at least one year is critical, particularly in instances where treatment is lacking. See Tr. at 43-44. However, the respondent has not only failed to undergo a substantial period of abstinence but instead acknowledged during his testimony that he continues to drink, having three beers at his residence approximately three weeks prior to the hearing. Id. at 80. According to the respondent, he continues to drink despite the professional recommendations he has received because "I think I control it." Id. at 82. Thus, the respondent does not accept that which Dr. XXXXX considers to be indispensable to his rehabilitation, that he cannot maintain his ability to drink in a controlled way.<14>

The respondent has presented no evidence and I find little in the record to mitigate the adverse inferences that I am compelled to draw from the respondent's lack of rehabilitation efforts. The respondent is now XXXXX years old and the fact that he continues to drink despite the many difficulties it has caused in his life, including the jeopardy in which it has placed his access authorization, demonstrates very poor judgment. The respondent testified that he has attained a level of moderation in his drinking and has not had any recent difficulties on his job relating to his drinking. See Tr. at 90-92. However, based upon the respondent's history, his pattern of alcohol use, the psychiatric diagnosis and his failure to secure meaningful treatment, I believe that there is a substantial likelihood that the respondent's excessive alcohol use and associated difficulties will resurface. As explained by XXXXX, the personnel security specialist, and corroborated by Dr. XXXXX, the ability to make responsible judgments and decisions is diminished by alcohol abuse, which leads to irresponsible behavior, such as criminal conduct, violence and financial difficulties. See Tr. at 16, 28. Therefore, I am compelled to agree with DOE/XXXXX's assessment that the risk attached to the respondent's maintaining an access authorization is unacceptable.

III. Conclusion

As explained in this Opinion, I find that DOE/XXXXX properly invoked § 710.8(j) in suspending the respondent's access authorization. In view of this criterion and the record before me, I cannot find that restoring the individual's access authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and would be consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I find that the respondent's "Q" access authorization should not be restored.

The regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28(a) provide that the Office of Security Affairs or the individual may file a request for review of this Hearing Officer's Opinion within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Opinion. Any such request must be filed with the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, and served on the other party. If either party elects to seek review of the Opinion, that party must file a statement identifying the issues on which it wishes the OHA Director to focus. This statement must be filed within 15 calendar days after the party files its request for review. The party seeking review must serve a copy of its statement on the other party, who may file a response within 20 days of receipt of the statement. 10 C.F.R. § 710.28(b). The address to which submissions must be sent for purposes of serving them on the Office of Security Affairs is as follows:

Director

Office of Safeguards and Security, NN-51

Office of Security Affairs

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874

Fred L. Brown

Hearing Officer

Office of Hearings and Appeals

<1>/ A "Q" 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 variously in this opinion as an access authorization, security clearance, or "Q" clearance.

<2>/ Apart from the Notification Letter and the respondent's hearing request, the documents include: 1) transcripts of several Personnel Security Interviews that were conducted with the respondent during the period July 1985 to July 1994; 2) three separate psychiatric evaluation reports including that provided by Dr. XXXXX (dated May 29, 1995); 3) two Personnel Security Questionnaires (dated October 10, 1990 and August 12, 1984); 4) records from XXXXX, the program attended by the respondent; 5) XXXXX EAP records; 6) XXXXX Police Department records, and 7) two Office of Personnel Management field investigation reports (dated 1991 and 1984).

<3>/ Section 710.25(f) provides: "At least 7 calendar days prior to the date scheduled for the hearing, the Hearing Officer will convene a prehearing conference for the purpose of discussing stipulations and exhibits, identifying witnesses, and disposing of other appropriate matters. The conference will usually be conducted by telephone." I initially scheduled the prehearing conference for February 28, 1995, but determined that it should be postponed one week in order to provide the respondent an opportunity to retain counsel.

<4>/ The documents supplied by DOE Counsel (see note 2, supra) were made part of the official of the record of this proceeding and constitute exhibits to the transcript of the hearing convened in this matter. These documents are cited in this Opinion as "Tr. Exh.".

<5>/ I note that during that a February 9, 1994 Personnel Security Interview (PSI), the respondent disputed the assessment made by an XXXXX Police Department report that he was intoxicated when he was arrested in January 1994 following an altercation with his girlfriend at his apartment. According to the respondent during the PSI, she had been drinking but he had not. See Transcript of February 9, 1994 PSI, Tr. Exh. 4 at 115. I raised this matter to the respondent during the prehearing conference and he chose not to contest the accuracy of the XXXXX Police Report (Tr. Exh. 16) for purposes of

this proceeding.

<6>/ In his letter of hearing request, the respondent asserts that "[i]n the hearing I would like to prove the majority of client[s] that visited Dr. XXXXX, a DOE consultant psychiatrist, had their access authorization suspended." The respondent further asserted during the hearing concerning Dr. XXXXX's diagnosis that "I don't agree with Dr. XXXXX, because I know a lot of people have been to Dr. XXXXX for an evaluation and . . . personally, I think Dr. XXXXX, working with DOE, is an elimination factory, and he got a lot of lawsuits against him." I must observe, however, that the respondent presented no evidence to support his assertions in this regard.

<7>/ Subsequent to Dr. XXXXX's evaluation, a fourth edition of the manual, DSM IV, was issued. However, with respect to the prevalent issues in this case, there are no significant differences between the two editions.

<8>/ As explained by Dr. XXXXX during his testimony, the word "substance" is used generically in DSM III-R, and the same criteria would apply for purposes of evaluating the use of a number of psychoactive substances, e.g. cocaine, marijuana or, in this instance, alcohol. See Tr. at 23.

<9>/ The respondent states that his drinking on these occasions would generally consist of a six-pack of beer, supplemented by two shots of liquor. See February 9, 1994 PSI, Tr. Exh. 4 at 9-13. Dr. XXXXX states that the circumstance that the respondent is a binge, rather than daily, drinker accounts for the fact he is not physiologically dependent on alcohol and tested negative with regard to liver disfunction in laboratory tests administered in May 1994. See XXXXX Report at 27 and attachments; Tr. at 29.

<10>/ Dr. XXXXX notes in this regard that there was yet another alcohol related incident involving the respondent subsequent to those specified in the Notification Letter. Police reports show that on February 5, 1994, the respondent's girlfriend was arrested at his apartment following an altercation with the respondent under circumstances in which, according to the XXXXX Police Department report, "both subjects intoxicated at time of incident." See Tr. Exh. 16. The respondent did not reveal this incident during his February 9, 1994 PSI. XXXXX Report at 24. Dr. XXXXX believes that the inability of the respondent to control his drinking at this time further confirms the applicability of criterion A1; as stated in his report: "[P]erhaps most importantly, the last thing that the subject would want while he was in the process of being reinvestigated for his Q clearance, are three alcohol related arrests a month apart." Id. at 28.

<11>/ The EAPRO requirements, as explained to the respondent, were consistent with the program of treatment for rehabilitation recommended by Dr. XXXXX in his report with respect to respondent. EAPRO called for a two-phase program to be designed and administered by an EAP provider which generally entailed: (1) Phase I, a 12-month period of abstinence, counseling and monthly unannounced substance abuse tests; and (2) Phase II, an additional 12-month period of quarterly, unannounced substance abuse tests and any other treatment recommended by the EAP. See Tr. Exh. 3, Transcript of July 5, 1994 PSI at 16.

<12>/ Ensuing the December 1993 altercation with his girlfriend, the respondent was charged with "Battery" and ultimately sentenced to one year's supervised probation, administered by the XXXXX Metropolitan Court, Probation Division. The respondent's record of attendance at XXXXX during the stated period is confirmed in reports (the last dated August 3, 1994) maintained by the Probation Division, reports which I subpoenaed subsequent to the hearing. XXXXX testified that the respondent may have attended more XXXXX meetings but he had no confirmation of this since the respondent was placed on unsupervised probation in September 1994, and XXXXX went out of existence shortly thereafter. XXXXX was therefore unable to obtain a final XXXXX report prior to the respondent's probation ending in January 1995. See Tr. 51. I note, however, that during his direct testimony and cross-examination, the respondent did not state that he attended any additional XXXXX meetings.

<13>/ In his testimony, Dr. XXXXX revised his recommendation of hours of treatment from 100 hours to 50-100 hours, because "the standard of treatment has changed in the community." Tr. at 37. The fact remains, however, that the respondent's hours of treatment in the XXXXX program are substantially deficient.

<14>/ Despite the respondent's asserted belief that he can control his drinking, my impression is that doubt still remains in the respondent's mind. When the respondent was asked whether he intended to seek any more alcohol counseling, he stated that "I've been thinking about AA." Tr. at 86.