Case No. VSO-0031, 25 DOE ¶ 82,770 (H.O. Augustyn Oct. 10, 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's Opinion

Case Name: Personnel Security Hearing

Date of Filing:April 19, 1995

Case Number:VSO-0031

This Opinion concerns the continued eligibility of XXXXX (hereinafter referred to as "the individual") to hold a level "Q" access authorization<1> under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled "Criteria for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material." Several months ago, the individual's access authorization was suspended at the direction of the Manager of the Department of Energy's Albuquerque Operations Office (DOE/AL) pursuant to the provisions of Part 710. As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations, it is my opinion that the individual's access authorization should not be restored.

I. Background

The individual is currently employed by XXXXX the prime subcontractor that performs engineering, maintenance, construction and custodial work, at DOE's XXXXX. For approximately XXXXX years, the individual has maintained a "Q" clearance which enabled him to work at XXXXX in a variety of positions. From 1978 through 1994, the individual was arrested eight times for alcohol related incidents. Then, on December 15, 1994, the individual tested positive for cocaine during a random drug test administered by XXXXX. As the result of the positive drug test, the DOE conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the individual on January 18, 1995. After the PSI, the DOE suspended the individual's security clearance and referred him to Dr. XXXXX, a board-certified psychiatrist, for a mental evaluation. Dr. XXXXX examined the individual on March 9, 1995, and memorialized his findings in a report dated March 19, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Psychiatric Report"). In the Psychiatric Report, Dr. XXXXX opined, among other things, that the individual suffers from alcohol dependence and does not present evidence of adequate rehabilitation and reformation. Since information creating doubt as to the individual's eligibility for a clearance remained

unresolved after the mental evaluation, the DOE/AL requested from the Director of the Office of Safeguards and Security the authority to conduct an administrative review proceeding.

On April 10, 1995, the DOE/AL commenced the administrative review proceeding by issuing a letter to the individual notifying him that the DOE possessed information which created a substantial doubt concerning his continued eligibility for an access authorization. See Letter from Richard A. Marquez, Assistant Manager for Management and Administration, DOE/AL, to the individual (April 10, 1995) (hereinafter "Notification Letter"). The Notification Letter specifically identified the derogatory information at issue and explained how that information came within the purview of two criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 710.8, i.e., (j) and (k). In addition, the Notification Letter informed the individual of his right under the regulations to file a written response to the derogatory information and to request a hearing before a Hearing Officer in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his continued eligibility for access authorization.

On April 12, 1995, the individual filed with the Manager of the DOE/AL a request for a hearing concerning this matter. The DOE/AL transmitted the individual's hearing request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) Director pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(a) on April 19, 1995. The OHA Director appointed me as Hearing Officer in this case on April 21, 1995. After obtaining an extension of time from the OHA Director, I convened a hearing in this matter in XXXXX, on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.25 (e),(g).

At the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX hearing, the individual represented himself and testified on his own behalf. In addition, the individual called the following five witnesses to testify on his behalf: XXXXX, a counselor with the XXXXX Employee Assistance Program (EAP); XXXXX, a former supervisor; XXXXX, the individual's current supervisor and friend; and two persons familiar with the individual's attendance and progress at Alcohol Anonymous (AA), XXXXX and XXXXX. The DOE/AL also presented three witnesses at the hearing, XXXXX, a DOE Personnel Security Specialist; Dr. XXXXX, a board-certified psychiatrist; and XXXXX, a XXXXX employment supervisor.

II. Substantive Regulatory Criteria At Issue

As noted above, the Notification Letter issued to the individual included a specific description of information in the possession of the DOE that the agency regards as derogatory and which, in the opinion of the DOE, creates a substantial doubt as to the individual's eligibility to hold a "Q" clearance. According to the Notification Letter, the information can be categorized as falling within the ambit of two regulatory criteria, subsections (j) and (k) of 10 C.F.R. § 710.8. Criterion (j) concerns information which reveals that a person has:

[b]een, or is, a user of alcohol habitually to excess, or has been diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist, other licensed physician or a licensed clinical psychologist as alcohol dependent or as suffering from alcohol abuse.

10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j). Criterion (k) pertains to information evidencing that a person 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, amphetamines, 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). The specific security concerns attendant each criterion set forth above and the factual bases supporting the DOE's invocation of each will be discussed at appropriate junctures in this Opinion.

III. Findings of Fact

The relevant facts in this case are largely uncontested. The principal dispute concerns the ultimate question, whether the individual is rehabilitated or reformed to such an extent that the security concerns connected with the individual's past alcohol and drug use are mitigated. Based on my consideration of all the evidence in the record in this proceeding, which includes the transcript of the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Hearing (hereinafter cited as "Hearing Tr."), the documents submitted by the DOE/AL and the individual at the hearing, and all other papers the parties have filed with me, I make the following findings of fact:

From 1978 through 1994, the individual, a XXXXX-year old male, has been arrested and charged with Drinking While Intoxicated (DWI) or other alcohol-related offenses eight times. The individual's first arrest for DWI occurred in September 1978. See Transcript of PSI dated July 8, 1991, at 44 (hereinafter cited as "1991 PSI Tr."). Five months later in February 1979, the individual was arrested again for DWI. See DOE Exhibit 14. Then, after a four-year hiatus, the individual was arrested once again on a DWI charge in July 1983. See DOE Exhibit 15. The 1983 arrest was followed in July 1984 by an arrest for Disorderly Conduct which resulted when the individual, while under the influence of alcohol, grabbed a police officer's night stick and pulled it out from the ring attached to the officer's belt. See DOE Exhibit 16. Two years later, in August 1986, the individual was once again arrested for DWI. As the result of this arrest, the individual's fourth DWI arrest, the individual was referred to the XXXXXXXXXXs Council on Alcoholism (hereinafter the "Council"). See DOE Exhibit 17. The Council recommended that the individual attend DWI school, obtain alcohol counseling, and attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. Id. The individual attended and satisfactorily completed DWI school and an Alcohol Awareness Education Program during a three week period in February 1987. Despite the individual's completion of these alcohol education programs, the individual was arrested again, in November 1989, on yet another DWI charge. See DOE Exhibit 18. Then, in March 1993, the individual was arrested for Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon after he physically fought with his mother's boyfriend, threatened him with a knife, and threw a beer bottle at him. DOE Exhibit 3, at 71-75; DOE Exhibit 13. With regard to this latter arrest, the individual admitted that he had consumed three or four beers prior to the incident that triggered the arrest and that he was "buzzed" at the time of the incident. See Transcript of PSI dated January 18, 1995, at 72 (hereinafter cited as "1995 PSI Tr."). One year later, on February 11, 1994, the individual was arrested for another DWI. See DOE Exhibit 19.

Finally, on December 15, 1994, the individual tested positive for cocaine during a random drug test administered by his employer, XXXXX. During a PSI conducted by the DOE/AL on January 18, 1995, the individual admitted snorting cocaine a few days prior to the test. 1995 PSI Tr. at 25-26. The individual explained first during that PSI and again at the hearing that he was drunk at the time he snorted the cocaine. 1995 PSI at 25; Hearing Tr. at 21.

Upon learning of the individual's positive drug test, XXXXX immediately memorialized the conditions of the individual's continued employment with XXXXX in a Memorandum dated January 3, 1995 which the individual was required to read and sign. See DOE Exhibit 20. In that memorandum, XXXXX advised the individual that in order to retain his job he must (1) enter an outpatient rehabilitation program; and (2) at the conclusion of the program, provide evidence indicating that his addiction has been arrested. Id. To fulfill the second requirement, XXXXX advised that the individual must attend AA meetings seven times per week for the first 90 days, meet with XXXXX, an EAP Counselor, once a week during the first 90-day period, undergo random periodic drug/alcohol testing for one year following his return to work, (i.e., through January 1996), and abstain totally from alcohol and other mood-altering drugs. Id.

In the meantime, the DOE/AL requested that the individual undergo a psychiatric examination by Dr. XXXXX. Psychiatric Report at 1. Dr. XXXXX conducted that examination on March 9, 1995 and provided a Psychiatric Report to the DOE on March 19, 1995. Based on his evaluation of the individual and his review of the individual's Personnel Security file, Dr. XXXXX determined that the individual (1) meets the criteria under the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (4th ed. 1994) (DSM-IV) for alcohol dependence; and (2) is a user of alcohol habitually to excess without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Psychiatric Report at 30, 34. In the Psychiatric Report, Dr. XXXXX distinguishes between rehabilitation and reformation. In order to be rehabilitated from his alcohol dependence, Dr. XXXXX states that the individual must "satisfactorily complete an outpatient or inpatient substance use program with a minimum of 50 to 100 hours of active treatment." Id. at 33. That formal program, according to Dr. XXXXX, must consist of four elements: (1) individual counseling; (2) group therapy with other substance users; (3) education; and (4) family involvement. Id. To be reformed from his alcohol dependence, Dr. XXXXX indicates that the individual must abstain from alcohol during the period of his treatment and for one year after the completion of the treatment program. Id. at 34. Alternatively, Dr. XXXXX opines that if the individual elects not to participate in a rehabilitation program, he may demonstrate reformation by abstaining from all non-prescribed psychoactive substances for a period of two years. Id. Dr. XXXXX reaffirmed his position concerning what would constitute adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation for the individual even after hearing the individual testify as to his efforts at maintaining sobriety. Hearing Tr. at 41. Finally, Dr. XXXXX indicated at the hearing that he never informed the individual in writing or orally of his views regarding what the individual needed to do to be rehabilitated or reformed from his alcohol dependence. Id. 47.

At the hearing, the individual admitted that he is an alcoholic and that all the alcohol-related charges set forth in the Notification Letter are true. Hearing Tr. at 16-17; 20-21. In his defense, the individual attempted to show through his own testimony and that of others that he has modified his behavior in a manner supportive of sobriety. Id. at 25. First, the individual testified that he has not consumed alcohol for almost nine months. Id. Moreover, he related that he has watched educational films about alcohol abuse and continues to attend AA meetings, often bringing his children to those meetings. Id. at 19-20. Finally, the individual asserted that he is a different person as the result of adjustments he has made in his life based on his attendance at AA meetings and his counseling sessions with XXXXX, the EAP counselor. Id. at 32.

XXXXX, the XXXXX employment supervisor, who testified on behalf of the DOE commented that the individual did a fine job in complying with the terms of the XXXXX-imposed treatment plan. Id. at 62. With respect to XXXXX's plan requirement that the individual undergo random periodic drug/alcohol testing, XXXXX advised that the individual has been randomly drug tested four times since January 1995. DOE Exhibit 20 at 1; Hearing Tr. at 64. According to XXXXX records, the individual tested negative each of those times. Id. In addition, XXXXX noted that during the individual's tenure at XXXXX, the individual has been drug tested 12 times, with the only positive drug test being the one for cocaine in December 1994. Id. XXXXX, a retired operations officer at XXXXX who has been involved himself with AA for 11 years, testified that the individual regularly and enthusiastically attends AA even though he fulfilled the terms of that XXXXX-imposed requirement quite some time ago. Id. at 105. In addition, XXXXX, a current XXXXX employee who attends noontime AA meetings with the individual, spoke very positively of the individual's involvement with AA.

Finally, XXXXX, the XXXXX EAP Program Counselor and a licensed mental health counselor, testified that he has counseled the individual on 25 separate occasions. Id. at 71. XXXXX observed that the individual continues to seek counseling from him during his lunch hour even though the XXXXX-mandated treatment plan no longer requires such counseling. XXXXX disagreed with Dr. XXXXX that the individual must complete a formal substance use program with four components to achieve rehabilitation. Id. at 73. Regarding the issue of reformation, XXXXX noted that under the DSM-IV standards, the individual would be considered in remission from alcohol dependence after being sober for six months. Id. at 79. XXXXX added, however, that he would like to see the individual maintain sobriety for a period of two years. Id. at 80.

IV. Analysis

The applicable DOE regulations state that "[t]he decision as to access authorization is a comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all the 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). Among the factors I will consider in rendering a determination concerning the individual's access authorization are the following: the nature, extent, and seriousness of his conduct; the circumstances surrounding his conduct, including knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency of his conduct; his age and maturity at the time of the conduct; the voluntariness of his participation; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the motivation for his conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress, the likelihood of continuation or recurrence; and other relevant and material factors. 10 C.F.R. §§ 710.7(c), 710.27(a). It is the totality of these facts and circumstances that will guide me in evaluating whether the individual's access authorization should be restored. As will be discussed below, after careful consideration of the record in view of the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 710, I find that the DOE/AL properly invoked the two criteria cited in the Notification Letter in suspending the individual's "Q" clearance. I further find that the arguments advanced by the individual in his defense do not mitigate the security concerns accompanying those two criteria. Therefore, it is my opinion that the individual's access authorization should not be restored.

A. The Individual's Alcohol Use

1. Derogatory Information

The individual's long-time pattern of arrests for alcohol-related incidents supports the DOE/AL's position that the individual is a habitual user of alcohol to excess. In addition, the individual readily admits that he is an alcoholic and acknowledges that his judgment is poor when he is intoxicated. Hearing Tr. at 17, 21-22. The most notable example of the individual's impaired judgment while inebriated occurred when the individual elected to snort cocaine. 1995 PSI at 37-38; Hearing Tr. at 21. In addition, the individual has consistently demonstrated lack of good judgment on each of the six occasions that he chose to drive an automobile while intoxicated. His poor judgment is further exemplified by the two arrests stemming from alcohol-related incidents, one in 1984 and the other in 1993. The more recent of the two incidents, the one in 1993, resulted in an arrest for Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon. The earlier incident in 1984, while remote in time, is instructive because it demonstrates again that the individual has difficulty controlling his actions when intoxicated. During the 1984 incident, a police officer observed the individual consuming alcohol near his car. When ordered by the officer to dump the contents of the container on the ground, the individual ignored the officer's request, while continuing to drink more alcohol. Id. See DOE Exhibit 16. When the officer removed the alcohol from the individual's hand, the individual grabbed the officer's night stick and pulled it out of the ring attached to the officer's belt. Id. In addition to demonstrating the individual's poor judgment, both the 1984 and 1993 incidents illustrate that the individual is prone to destructive behavior while intoxicated, and that this behavior poses a danger to other people. In my opinion, the individual's lengthy history of alcohol use creates a legitimate security concern that the individual's judgment might be faulty and his reliability questionable when he is under the influence of alcohol. See Personnel Security Hearing, VSO-0016, 25 DOE ¶ 82,757 (1995); Personnel Security Hearing, VSO-0018, 25 DOE ¶ 82,758 (1995); Personnel Security Hearing, VSO-0014, 25 DOE ¶ 82,755 (1995).

Finally, it is the opinion of Dr. XXXXX that the individual suffers from "Substance Dependence, Alcohol" under the diagnostic criteria contained in DSM-IV. Psychiatric Report at 31, 32. I agree with Dr. XXXXX that the individual's alcohol dependence is an illness or mental condition which causes, or may cause, a significant defect in judgment or reliability. Id. at 34.

In sum, the individual's long history of arrests for alcohol-related offenses, the individual's admission that he is an alcoholic, and the psychiatric finding the he suffers from "alcohol dependence" unequivocally demonstrate that the DOE/AL properly relied on 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j) as a basis for suspending the individual's "Q" clearance. I conclude from the individual's protracted history of alcohol use that his judgment and reliability might be impaired to the point where it would raise legitimate security concerns.

2. Mitigating Factors

a. Rehabilitation and Reformation

The individual contends that any security concerns associated with his drinking problems are mitigated because of his efforts to achieve sobriety. At the hearing, the individual explained that he has remained sober for almost nine months. He further advised that he continues to attend AA meetings regularly and individual counseling sessions with XXXXX, the EAP Counselor at XXXXX. Moreover, the individual related that he has involved his family in his rehabilitation efforts, and has viewed educational films concerning the danger of alcohol abuse. Hearing Tr. at 18, 105.

The record evidences that the individual has successfully completed the following terms of the XXXXX-imposed treatment plan: attending AA meetings seven times per week for 90 days, meeting with XXXXX once a week for 90 days, and abstaining completely from alcohol and other mind-altering drugs. Hearing Tr. at 2-3. The final term of the XXXXX-imposed treatment plan requires that the individual undergo random drug testing for a one-year period, until January 1996. According to the employment supervisor who testified at the hearing, the individual has thus far been subjected to four random drug tests since January 1995 and has tested negative each time. Hearing Tr. at 64.

At the hearing, Dr. XXXXX was given the opportunity to state whether his opinion concerning the proper course of rehabilitation and reformation had changed in view of the individual's testimony concerning his efforts at maintaining sobriety. Dr. XXXXX remained firm in his view that the individual must complete a formal treatment program consisting of group therapy, individual counseling, education, and family participation in order to achieve rehabilitation. Dr. XXXXX also did not waiver on his views about appropriate reformation in this case. Dr. XXXXX reiterated his position that to be reformed the individual requires either (1) one year of sobriety following his completion of an alcohol treatment program of the kind described in the Psychiatric Report, or (2) two years of abstinence if the individual chooses not to seek the treatment XXXXX recommends. Exhibit 25 at 33-34. In Dr. XXXXX's opinion, the individual's rehabilitation efforts thus far have been inadequate. According to Dr. XXXXX, the two rehabilitation efforts the individual has undertaken to date, AA and individual counseling sessions with XXXXX, are not as effective as group therapy. Dr. XXXXX explains that AA is supportive in nature whereas group therapy is confrontational in nature. Group therapy, according to Dr. XXXXX, confronts a person's rationalizations, denials and minimizations of his alcohol problems. Dr. XXXXX does not believe AA and/or individual counseling perform this same role. For all these reasons, Dr. XXXXX believes that the individual has not been rehabilitated. Regarding the issue of reformation, Dr. XXXXX does not believe sufficient time has elapsed to allow the individual to demonstrate his reformation from alcohol.

The expert who testified on behalf of the individual at the hearing, XXXXX, strenuously disagreed with XXXXX's view that a formal rehabilitation program consisting of four distinct components is essential to the individual's rehabilitation. Despite XXXXX strongly held view that the individual is making wonderful progress in arresting his alcohol problem, XXXXX offered conflicting testimony at the hearing about whether the individual has been rehabilitated and/or reformed. On the one hand, XXXXX asserted that under the standards set forth in the DSM-IV, the individual would only need six months of sobriety to be considered in complete remission. Hearing Tr. at 79-80. On the other hand, XXXXX stated that he would like to see the individual maintain sobriety for a two year period to enable him to "get better grounded, [and] have more positive reinforcement . . . ." Given the conflict stated above, I am not able to discern what XXXXX opinion is concerning the appropriate length of time required for the individual to demonstrate rehabilitation and/or reformation.

Based on all the evidence before me, I find that the individual has failed to demonstrate that he is rehabilitated or reformed from his alcohol dependence. The crucial deciding factor, in my opinion, is that enough time has not elapsed since the individual first undertook efforts to arrest his alcohol problem in January 1995 to suggest a high probability of his successfully conquering that problem. I simply do not believe that nine months of abstinence of alcohol under the circumstances is sufficient for the individual to demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation.

In evaluating the evidence on the issue of rehabilitation, I am mindful of the views advanced by XXXXX, two individuals who testified at the hearing as to the individual's progress and enthusiasm at AA, and his efforts to remain sober. Both witnesses made it clear that the individual appears committed to conquering his alcohol problems. In addition, it was my impression from the individual's demeanor and testimony at the hearing that he is contrite about his past misdeeds and sincere in his efforts to rehabilitate himself. There is also testimonial evidence that the individual pursued the XXXXX-imposed treatment plan willingly, and completed three of the four phases of the plan. It is laudable that the individual has continued, on his own, to adhere to terms of that plan even though he is no longer mandated to follow that course of action. In the last analysis, however, no matter how valiant the individual's efforts at achieving sobriety have been so far, in view of the severity of his problem more time must pass to gauge the success of those efforts.<2>

b. Other Factors

Finally, as I examined the totality of all the evidence before me concerning the individual's alcohol use, I was cognizant that the individual consumed alcohol to excess for many years and that his use of alcohol significantly affected his judgment and reliability. The individual's knowing and voluntary consumption of alcohol, his age and maturity at the time of his last alcohol-related offense, and the circumstances surrounding his alcohol use are significant factors, which weigh heavily against the individual. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c). All of these factors lead me to conclude that the individual, at this time, has failed to mitigate the legitimate security concern regarding his alcohol use as described in the Notification Letter.

B. The Individual's Drug Use

In suspending the individual's access authorization, the DOE/AL also relied on 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(k). As noted in Section II above, criterion (k) pertains to information which demonstrates that a person has, among other things, 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. As justification for invoking criterion (k), the DOE/AL points to two facts: (1) the individual's positive drug test on December 15, 1994 and (2) a PSI on January 18, 1995 where the individual admitted to using cocaine while under the influence of alcohol a few days prior to the drug test. See DOE Exhibit 1.

At the hearing, XXXXX, a DOE Personnel Security Specialist, discussed the DOE security concerns connected with drug use. See Hearing Tr. at 50-58. Specifically, XXXXX stated that a person who is under the influence of drugs is likely to have his inhibitions reduced and divulge classified information without an awareness that he is so doing. Id. at 54. In addition, a person who uses drugs, according to XXXXX, comes into contact with criminal elements of society and places himself in a high position of vulnerability. Id. Finally, XXXXX testified that a person's behavior while under the influence of drugs may be unpredictable, causing harm to himself or others. Id.

In his defense, the individual argues that his cocaine use was a one-time occurrence which should be excused as an isolated incident. He asserts, and the records confirms, that he has been drug tested twelve times since 1988 and that the only time he has tested positive for an illegal substance was in December 1994. Hearing Tr. at 65. In addition, the individual explains that he would not have snorted the cocaine had he not been drunk. 1995 PSI at 25, 31; Hearing Tr. at 21. Finally, the individual maintains that he will not use cocaine or any other illegal substance again. 1995 Tr. at 39.

An examination of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the individual's cocaine use persuades me that the DOE's security concerns associated with the individual's cocaine use have not been mitigated. As an initial matter, it is clear to me that the individual's alcohol dependence and his resultant cocaine use are inextricably intertwined. The individual admits or implies numerous times that he was intoxicated and his judgment faulty at the time he elected to snort cocaine. While I am willing to accept the individual's assertion that his use of cocaine in December 1994 was an isolated incident, I am not willing to accept the individual's assurance that he will not be involved with drugs again. It is my belief that until the individual is rehabilitated or reformed from his alcohol dependence, there is a possibility that an incident such as the one at issue here could occur again. See generally Personnel Security Hearing, VSO-0014. In view of all the foregoing, it is my opinion that the individual's drug use raises legitimate security concerns.

V. Conclusion

As explained in this Opinion, I find that the DOE/AL properly invoked 10 C.F.R. §§ 710.8(j) and (k) in suspending the individual's access authorization. In view of these criteria 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 clearly consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I find that the individual'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. The party seeking review of the Opinion must file a statement identifying the issues which it wishes to contest 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). Submissions must be served on the Office of Security Affairs at the following address:

Director

Office of Safeguards and Security, NN-51

Office of Security Affairs

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD. 20874

Ann S. Augustyn

Hearing Officer

Office of Hearings and Appeals

<1>/ Access authorization is defined as an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). Such authorization will be referred to from time to time in this Opinion as access authorization, security clearance, or "Q" clearance.

<2>/ I note that I initially was troubled to learn at the hearing that Dr. XXXXX had never advised the individual of his views concerning what constitutes an appropriate rehabilitation program for the individual. It is impossible for a person to fulfill the terms of a rehabilitation program such as the one recommended by Dr. XXXXX if a person has no knowledge of the specifics of such a program. In this case, it is clear to me that even had the individual known of and entered into a rehabilitation program such as the one recommended by Dr. XXXXX, I still could not opine that the individual was reformed at this time. There simply would not have been enough time for the individual to show one year of reformation following the completion of such a rehabilitation program.