Case No. VSO-0049, 25 DOE ¶ 82,785 (H.O. Cronin Jan. 4, 1996)

Case No. VSO-0049, 25 DOE ¶ 82,785 (H.O. Cronin Jan. 4, 1996)

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:July 19, 1995

Case Number: VSO-0049

This Opinion concerns the eligibility of XXXXX (hereinafter referred to as "the Individual") 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>In this Opinion, I will consider, based on the record before me, whether the Individual's access authorization should be restored.

I. BACKGROUND

The Individual was hired as an XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in 1991 by the Department of Energy's XXXXX Operations Office (DOE/XXXXX). The Individual was subsequently granted a "Q" access authorization in June of 1992. In January 1994, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conducted a background reinvestigation of the Individual. During this reinvestigation, OPM uncovered information which DOE/XXXXX found to be derogatory and that created questions regarding the Individual's continued eligibility for an access authorization. Therefore, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.9(a), DOE/XXXXX conducted a personnel security interview on January 24, 1995. Additionally, the Individual underwent a Department of Energy-sponsored mental evaluation by a board-certified psychiatrist, Dr. XXXXX, on March 27, 1995. On March 28, 1995, Dr. XXXXX issued his psychiatric evaluation regarding the individual. Since the derogatory information remained unresolved, DOE/XXXXX requested from the Director of the Office of Safeguards and Security the authority to conduct an administrative review proceeding.

The administrative review proceeding was commenced by the issuance of a Notification Letter dated June 1, 1995. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21. In that letter, the Individual was informed that information in the possession of the Department of Energy (DOE) created a substantial doubt concerning his continued eligibility for a "Q" access authorization. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 710.21, that Notification Letter included a statement of the derogatory information in the possession of the DOE that created the substantial doubt concerning the individual's eligibility for access authorization. In particular, it specified two areas of derogatory information described in 10 C.F.R. § 710.8 relating to allegations that the Individual had falsified and omitted information from a written statement submitted to DOE/XXXXX and that the individual suffered from alcohol dependency. The Notification Letter also informed the individual that he was entitled to a hearing before a Hearing Officer in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. On June 28, 1995, the Individual requested a hearing and denied both allegations described in the Notification Letter. The Individual's request for a hearing was forwarded by DOE/XXXXX to the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the DOE. On July 24, 1995, I was appointed the Hearing Officer in this matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(e) & (g), the hearing was convened in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

At the hearing on XXXXXXXXXX, at which the Individual represented himself, the following witnesses were called to testify: (i) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, DOE/XXXXX personnel security specialist; (ii) Dr. XXXXX, DOE/XXXXX consulting psychiatrist; (iii) XXXXX, a former supervisor; (iv) XXXXX, a former supervisor; (v) XXXXX, a co-worker; and (vi) the Individual.<2>

II. STATEMENT OF DEROGATORY INFORMATION

As indicated above, the Notification Letter issued to the individual on June 1, 1995, included a listing of the derogatory information in possession of the DOE that created a substantial doubt as to the individual's continued eligibility to receive a "Q" clearance. On the basis of that derogatory information, DOE/XXXXX found that:

The individual had deliberately misrepresented, falsified, or omitted significant information from a Personnel Security Questionnaire, a Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions, 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. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f). The bases for this statement were as follows: (a) In a written statement dated May 12, 1993 (May 12 Document), the individual stated that in April 1993 he had been cited for wasting energy (speeding), not wearing a seat belt and not having a valid drivers license; (b) In a January 24, 1995 Personnel Security Interview (1/95 PSI), the Individual stated that an April 1993 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) citation he had reported in his January 1994 Questionnaire for Sensitive Position (QSP) actually occurred in March 1993; (c) Records indicate that on March 24, 1993, the Individual was arrested for DUI, failure to have a valid driver's license and failure to notify the Division of Motor Vehicles of his address change; (d) The Individual admitted in his 1/95 PSI that he had not previously informed anyone about the DUI prior to his January 1994 QSP because he thought it would affect his job and security clearance.

The individual had been diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist as having an illness or mental condition of a nature which, in the opinion of that psychiatrist, causes or may cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(h). The bases for this statement were as follows: (a) The Individual, during a March 2, 1994 interview with an OPM representative, admitted drinking an average of one six pack of beer on the weekends and that he got drunk about 20 times a year; (b) In the 1/95 PSI, the individual admitted that he became intoxicated once a month; (c) On March 31, 1992, the Individual was evaluated by a psychiatrist who had diagnosed him as having a history of alcohol abuse and possible alcohol dependence and who recommended that the Individual abstain from drinking; (d) On June 11, 1992, DOE/XXXXX issued the Individual a letter summarizing the information the Individual had provided to it during a January 9, 1992 personnel security interview and the letter informed the Individual that his future behavior regarding the matters discussed in that personnel security interview would be of security concern and subject to reinvestigation; and (e) The Individual was examined on March 27, 1995 by Dr. XXXXX, a board-certified psychiatrist. In a report dated March 28, 1995, Dr. XXXXX reported that the Individual was suffering from alcohol dependency and that the Individual's judgment and reliability were suspect.

III.ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF FACT

The Hearing Officer's role in this proceeding is to evaluate the evidence presented by the agency and the Individual, and to render an opinion based upon that evidence. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). The 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 have considered in rendering this Opinion concerning the individual's eligibility for 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. See 10 C.F.R. §§ 710.7(c), 710.27(a). With regard to issues of fact upon which the decision to grant an access authorization may be made, the burden of persuasion is on the individual. See Personnel Security Hearing (VSO-0013), 25 DOE ¶ 82,752 (1995). As discussed below, after carefully considering the record in view of the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 710, I find that the Individual deliberately falsified and omitted information from a written statement made in response to an official inquiry on a matter that is relevant to a determination regarding eligibility for a Department of Energy access authorization. Further, I find that the Individual has failed to present sufficient evidence of rehabilitation, reformation or other mitigating factors with regard to the security concerns raised by his falsification and omission. With regard to the allegation that the Individual suffers from a mental illness which may affect his judgment or reliability, I find that the Individual has been diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist as suffering from alcohol dependency. However, with regard to the Individual's alcohol dependency, I find that he has presented sufficient evidence of rehabilitation such that the security concern regarding his alcohol dependency has been mitigated. Nevertheless, in light of my finding regarding the Individual's falsification and omission of information, I recommend that the DOE should not restore the Individual's access authorization.

A. FALSIFICATION AND OMISSION REGARDING THE MAY 12 DOCUMENT

The Notification Letter alleges that the Individual omitted information and provided false information in his May 12 Document describing his March 24 arrest and that this constitutes derogatory information under 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f). Specifically, DOE/XXXXX alleges that in the May 12 Document the Individual omitted the fact that he had been arrested for DUI on March 24, 1993 and, in addition, falsely stated that he had been cited for wasting energy (speeding) when in fact he had been arrested for DUI. The Individual, in the 1/95 PSI and at the hearing, denied that the May 12 Document contains false information and asserts the May 12 Document sought to report another incident separate from his March 24 arrest for DUI.

For the purpose of aiding my discussion of this allegation, the relevant text of the May 12 Document is given below:

I was pulled over for Speeding in early April 1993 by the XXXXX. I was cited for (1) Wasting Energy (speeding) (72 mph in 55 mph); (2) Not Wearing a Seatbelt and (3) Not Valid Driver's License. . . . I am scheduled to appear in XXXXX on May 25, 1993 to take care of the April 1993 citation. . . .

Exhibit (hereinafter Ex.) 3. In support of its allegation, the DOE has submitted a copy of a portion of the Individual's OPM background investigation which states that on March 24, 1993, the Individual was stopped on XXXXX, for operating his automobile at 72 miles per hour (mph) in a 55 mph zone and arrested for DUI, not having a valid driver's license and failing to notify the Division of Motor Vehicles of a change of address. Ex 5. The OPM Background Report goes on to state that on May 25, 1993, the Individual pled guilty to DUI with the other charges being dismissed. Id. The DOE also has submitted the transcript of the Individual's 1/95 PSI in which he states that on his January 1994 QSP he incorrectly identified his March 24 DUI as having occurred in April 1993. Ex. 4 at 41-42. The 1/95 PSI also contains a statement by the Individual to the effect that he did not voluntarily report his DUI arrest to the DOE prior to his January 1994 QSP because he was afraid that the arrest would affect his job. Ex. 4 at 50, 53, 57. At the hearing, DOE/XXXXX offered testimony from Mr. XXXXXXX, a DOE/XXXXX Personnel Security Specialist, who testified that the DOE's security program is based on trust and reliability and when an individual breaches that trust, there is a concern whether the individual can be trusted with classified information. Tr. at 16-17. <3>

In response to the allegations, the Individual denies that the May 12 Document contains false information. Further, the Individual claims that at the time he submitted the May 12 Document he had been informed by a DOE/XXXXX Personnel Security Specialist that he need not report his DUI arrest. At the hearing, the Individual testified that sometime after he received the DUI ticket he was stopped for speeding on XXXXX outside of XXXXX. Tr. at 97, 119. He went on to testify that one morning he asked his supervisor if he could get time off from work that day to go to court for the speeding ticket he had received. Tr. at 99, 110. Further, the Individual testified that his supervisor informed him that he would have to report the ticket to DOE/XXXXX Security personnel. Tr. at 99, 110. The Individual further testified that he reported the speeding ticket to XXXXXXXXX, a DOE/XXXXX personnel security specialist, who then asked him to provide a written statement regarding the speeding ticket incident. Tr. at 99, 104-105. The Individual stated that he was under the impression from his discussion with Ms. XXXX that he was not required to voluntarily report offenses such as traffic tickets as long as he provided such information on the next Questionnaire for Sensitive Position he was asked to complete. Tr. at 99-100. The Individual testified further that he did not want to report the DUI because he was afraid of difficulties with his boss and problems with his job. Tr. at 106. He also stated that in his January 1994 QSP he had incorrectly stated the date of his March 24, 1993 DUI arrest as occurring in April 1993. Tr. at 100, 102. The Individual stated that while he has not provided certain information to DOE he has not provided any false information regarding any question the DOE has asked him. Tr. at 100.

After considering the testimony of the Individual and all the evidence submitted by the parties, I find for the reasons discussed below that the May 12 Document was submitted by the Individual to report the circumstances surrounding his March 24 arrest. Further, I find that the Individual omitted in the May 12 Document to report that he had been arrested on March 24 for DUI. I also find that, in the May 12 Document, the Individual falsely stated he had been charged with wasting energy when in reality he had been arrested for DUI.

While the May 12 Document indicates that the Individual was arrested in April 1993, a different month than his March 24, 1993 DUI arrest, the record shows that the Individual consistently reported the March 1993 DUI arrest in his January 1994 QSP and his OPM background interview as having occurred in April 1993 instead of March 1993. Tr. at 100,102; Ex. 4 at 41-42. Further, the description of how fast the Individual was speeding in the May 12 Document is identical to the reason stated in the OPM report for why the Individual was stopped in his March 1993 DUI arrest (going 72 mph in a 55 mph zone). Most significantly, the date the Individual gives in the May 12 Document as the date he is going to court for the speeding ticket is the date the Individual pled guilty for the March 1993 DUI. Ex. 5. When asked at the hearing regarding this fact, the Individual stated that he may have made a mistake about the dates and that he could not remember exactly the dates he went to court for each offense. Tr. at 119. I do not give this explanation much weight in light of the fact that the May 12 Document contains a specific court date to resolve the charges described in the Document and the Individual's contradictory testimony at the hearing that he had asked his boss for time off to go to court for the speeding ticket later on the same day. Tr. at 99. The Individual's explanation of two separate incidents is somewhat supported by the fact that the May 12 Document states that the Individual was arrested for two offenses for which he was not charged at the time of the March 24 arrest and his testimony that the second arrest took place at a different highway than that described in the May 12 Document. However, the Individual has not submitted any other evidence to support his claim of a second arrest despite being given ample opportunity to submit evidence on this issue after the conclusion of the hearing. Tr. at 127.

I further find after considering the testimony and all the submitted evidence that the Individual's omission in the May 12 Document of his DUI arrest and his falsification of the charge for which he was arrested were deliberate. While denying that he was reporting his DUI arrest in the May 12 Document and claiming he believed that he was under no obligation to report the DUI, the Individual has admitted that the reason he did not report the DUI was that he was afraid that reporting it would affect his job. Tr. at 106; Ex. 4 at 55, 57. This motivation is especially significant in light of two facts. First, in order to receive his "Q" clearance the Individual had to undergo an interview with a psychiatrist regarding his alcohol consumption and second, when he received his "Q" clearance, he received a security advisory letter notifying him that his alcohol consumption would be of concern to the DOE. Ex. 7, Ex. 8. Further, I do not believe that the Individual's omission of the DUI arrest was motivated by a belief that he was not required to report the incident. I do not give much weight to the Individual's testimony that he was informed by Ms. XXXX that he was not required to report his DUI other than on his next QSP. Prior to the March 24 DUI, the Individual signed a security acknowledgement form that required him to report all arrests or charges, including traffic offenses with fines of over $100, and received a security advisory letter from DOE/XXXXX stating that his behavior with regard to alcohol consumption would be of concern to the DOE. Ex. 10; Ex. 8. Additionally, it seems improbable that the Individual could maintain such a belief in light of the fact that Ms. XXXX requested him to produce a written statement regarding a lesser offense such as driving over the speed limit. Given the evidence before me, I find that the Individual's omission and falsification were deliberate and motivated by his fear of adverse consequences to his job if the fact of his DUI arrest was made known to officials at DOE/XXXXX.

Finally, I find that the May 12 Document was submitted in response to an official inquiry on a matter that is relevant to a determination regarding eligibility for DOE access authorization. The regulations do not define an "official inquiry." In interpreting the phrase "official inquiry," I note that the word "official," as an adjective, is defined in the dictionary as "derived from the proper office or officer or authority." Webster Third International Dictionary 1567 (1964). This definition is, in my opinion, the most common meaning of the word. Consequently, I construe the phrase "official inquiry" to mean an inquiry made by an individual who possesses authority given by the DOE to make such an inquiry. In the present case, the Individual has testified that when he requested time off to go to court his boss instructed him to go to Security to report the circumstances regarding his need to go to court. Tr. at 99, 109-110. The individual further testified that Ms. XXXXz then requested that he submit a written statement regarding the traffic incident and subsequently typed the May 12 Document for his signature. Tr. at 105, 115. Given the testimony of the individual on this point, which is consistent with his statements given in the PSI, I find that the May 12 Document was submitted by the Individual in response to his supervisor's request to report the traffic incident and Ms. XXXX's request the he make a written statement describing the traffic incident for which he was going to court. Further, the request made by the Individual's supervisor and Ms. XXXX appear to be within the scope of their authority. Mr. XXXXXXX, the DOE/XXXXX personnel security specialist, testified that an individual would normally make a report of such an arrest to his employer or directly to the Safeguard and Security Office and that the normal procedure is to report the incident in writing. Tr. at 44. Further, no evidence is before me which indicates that the requests made by the Individual's supervisor and Ms. XXXXX were not within the scope of their authority. Consequently, I find that the May 12 Document was submitted in response to an official inquiry. I also find that this official inquiry concerns a matter which is relevant to a determination regarding eligibility for a DOE access authorization. An individual's potential conviction for an offense by the judicial system is relevant to a determination regarding eligibility for a DOE access authorization.

The Individual, in the present case, has not offered any evidence regarding rehabilitation. Further, there are essentially no factors present in this case which would mitigate the concerns raised by the Individual's deliberate omission of information and falsification of information in the May 12 Document. The Individual has submitted a copy of his January 1994 QSP in which he did report the fact that he was arrested for DUI. Ex. A. However, I do not find this to be a mitigating factor since the Individual only disclosed the fact of his DUI nine months later when required to fill out the January 1994 QSP and not on his own initiative. The Individual and other witnesses have testified regarding the problems he and his co-workers were having with his boss as one of the motivations regarding his failure to report the DUI earlier. Tr. at 104; Tr. at 83-85; Tr. 78-80. However, difficulties with a supervisor cannot mitigate a lack of candor in a situation such as this where the individual apparently made no effort to notify anyone until he was required to fill out his January 1994 QSP.

The Individual has presented three witnesses, two former supervisors and a co-worker, who have testified that he is a good employee who is truthful and honest and that, in their opinion, the Individual is not a security risk. Tr. at 72-81, 82-90, 91-96. The individual has also submitted a letter from a former supervisor stating that the Individual has an excellent work record and can be trusted with National Security Information. Ex. C. While the testimony and the letter indicate that the Individual has a good work performance record and was believed to be truthful, none of the testimony sheds much light on how forthcoming the Individual is with regard to personal matters which are required to be reported while one has a security clearance. The DUI arrest which the Individual omitted from the May 12 Document involved his consumption of alcohol and involved his problem with alcohol dependency. However, none of the Individual's three witnesses was aware that the Individual had a problem with alcohol. Tr. at 76, 86, 94. Consequently, the testimony given by the witnesses and the letter provides only limited evidence regarding the Individual's candor about himself and his truthfulness regarding sensitive personal issues which he may be required to report as a consequence of having a security clearance. Further, the witnesses' testimony is further outweighed by the Individual's own testimony which in my opinion indicates that he has a certain ambivalence toward the necessity of candor, as shown in this portion of his testimony:

So they sent me to a guy --somebody like him, I guess, an outside contractor. And he had a totally different view of everything than this guy. And he was like saying, no, I never tell them nothin'. He's telling me not to tell Security nothin'. He says you're the investigator, you go find out. And that's the best way -- and I'm just listening to him. Well, I don't want to be like that, you know, I want to be helpful and cooperate. But in a way, that's kind of the way I'm starting to feel now about it, that all this stuff can be used against you and why tell it to them anyway. But I know what it's for, it's because the potential that I have security information. And I don't believe that I'm a security risk, basically is what I'm trying to say.

Tr. at 104-5 (emphasis added). Finally, the witnesses' testimony is also outweighed by the fact that in sworn statements in his 1/95 PSI and at the hearing the Individual has continued to maintain that the May 12 Document sought to report an arrest other than the March 24 arrest despite significant evidence to the contrary. For the reasons discussed above, I find no mitigating factors in regard to the Individual's falsification and omission in the May 12 Document.

Given the evidence before me, I find that DOE/XXXXX properly invoked 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f) with regard to the omission of the Individual's DUI arrest in the May 12 Document and the related falsification regarding the charge for which he was arrested. Further, I find no evidence of rehabilitation or reformation with regard to the Individual's omission and falsification in the May 12 Document. This omission and falsification raises a serious security concern regarding the Individual's ability to be honest and candid about himself.

B. ALCOHOL DEPENDENCY

With regard to DOE/XXXXX's allegation under 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(h), the DOE has submitted a report dated March 28, 1995 from Dr. XXXXX in which he has diagnosed the Individual as suffering from alcohol dependency. Ex. 9. Additionally, at the hearing, Dr. XXXXX testified as to his diagnosis of alcohol dependency. Tr. at 51-52. The DOE has also submitted a psychiatric evaluation from another psychiatrist, Dr. XXXXX, who examined the Individual in March 1992 pursuant to the initial investigation concerning whether the Individual should receive a security clearance. Ex. 7. In that report, Dr. XXXXX stated that in his opinion the Individual had a history of alcohol abuse and possible alcohol dependence and recommended that the Individual abstain from alcohol consumption. Ex. 7. The DOE has also submitted a transcript of the 1/95 PSI in which the Individual admitted that he became intoxicated once a month. Ex. 4 at 62.

In response, the Individual admits that he had a problem with alcohol but asserts that he is now rehabilitated. Tr. at 55-56,101. Consequently, the sole issue before me is the Individual's claim that he is now rehabilitated from his alcohol dependency. At the hearing, the Individual testified regarding his rehabilitation program. Tr. at 56-60. With the consent of the parties, Dr. XXXXX was allowed to hear the Individual's testimony regarding his rehabilitation so that he could provide his opinion regarding the Individual's progress at rehabilitation. Tr. at 59. Specifically, the Individual testified that in July 1995 he admitted himself as an inpatient to a substance abuse facility, XXXXX, for a 28-day treatment program. Tr. at 56. The Individual further testified that since his release from that facility, he has been attending Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) meetings and has been following the AA 12-step treatment program. Tr. 57-58. The Individual has submitted a bill for treatment at XXXXX and a signed statement from a secretary at one of the AA meetings he has attended indicating that the Individual has been attending AA meetings. Ex. B; Ex. D. The Individual also testified that he has abstained from alcohol and all other drugs since his treatment program and that he realizes that alcohol will always be a problem for him. Tr. at 60. Further, the Individual has testified that while he has been under stress as a result of his not being able to work since the suspension of his access authorization, his commitment to sobriety is more important than anything else. Tr. at 63.

After having an opportunity to question the Individual regarding his rehabilitation program, Dr. XXXXX then testified as to his opinion of the Individual's rehabilitation from Alcohol Dependency. Tr. at 64-70. Dr. XXXXX testified that the treatment program at XXXXX was excellent and that based on the information the Individual provided at the hearing he thought the Individual's prognosis was excellent. Tr. at 64. Dr. XXXXX further stated he had no reason to believe that the Individual had not made a real commitment to a life of sobriety. Tr. at 65-66. Further, Dr. XXXXX noted that the Individual was going to AA meetings, which Dr. XXXXX deemed to be a crucial component for treatment. Tr. at 66. With regard to the Individual's judgment and reliability, Dr. XXXXX stated that his recommendation would now be that the Individual be considered reliable and possessing good judgment. Tr. at 70. Further, Dr. XXXXX stated that there was no reason why the Individual should not be allowed to go back to work but recommended that the Individual be subject to blood or urine alcohol testing by the Employee Assistance Program. Tr. at 69-70.

Given the evidence and testimony before me, I find that the individual suffers from an illness, alcohol dependency, which in the opinion of a board-certified psychiatrist causes or may cause a defect in judgment or reliability. However, I also find that the Individual has mitigated the security concern implicated in the diagnosis of alcohol dependency by demonstrating that he has been rehabilitated. After having an opportunity to question the Individual regarding his treatment program, Dr. XXXXX has testified that in his opinion the Individual has successfully completed a course of treatment for his alcohol dependency and that the Individual is reliable and that his judgment is good. Further Dr. XXXXX has testified that he sees no problem with returning the individual to work with appropriate monitoring. The individual has submitted evidence that he is currently attending AA meetings and has testified to his commitment to his rehabilitation no matter what the resolution of his security clearance situation at DOE. After reviewing the testimony and other evidence before me, I find that the Individual has mitigated the security concern regarding his alcohol dependency.

IV. CONCLUSION

As discussed above, with regard to DOE/XXXXX's allegation under 10 C.F.R § 710.8(h), the Individual has mitigated the security concerns regarding his alcohol dependency. However, I am also of the opinion that DOE/XXXXX properly invoked 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f) in suspending the Individual's access authorization. I find insufficient evidence of rehabilitation, reformation or any other mitigating factor with regard to the Individual's omission and falsification of information. In view of the record before me, including the security concerns testified to by the DOE/XXXXX personnel security specialist,

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, it is my opinion that the Individual's 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 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, DC 20585-0107, 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. The address to which submissions must be sent for purposes of serving the Office of Security Affairs is:

Director

Office of Safeguards and Security

Office of Security Affairs

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

Richard A. Cronin, Jr.

Hearing Officer

Office of Hearings and Appeals

<1>A level "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 access authorization, security clearance, or "Q" clearance.

<2>During the course of the hearing, the Individual requested permission to submit additional evidence. After consulting with both parties, I ruled that the Individual would have until November 15, 1995 to submit additional evidence. Transcript of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Personnel Security Hearing (hereinafter Tr.) at 127. Since the Individual chose not to submit additional evidence, I deemed the administrative record closed as of November 15, 1995.

<3>Mr. XXXXXXX also testified that he found no other arrests of the Individual around March or April 1993 contained in the OPM Background Report. Tr. at 24. In response to my question on this point, I permitted Mr. XXXXXXX to review his copy of the entire OPM Background Report to confirm his previous testimony. Tr at 40-42. However, I cannot give his testimony regarding the lack of other March or April 1993 arrests listed on the OPM Background Report very much weight since Mr. XXXXXXX based his testimony on portions of the OPM Background Report which were not introduced into evidence and were not provided to the Individual or myself.