Case No. VSO-0130, 26 DOE ¶ 82,779 (H.O. Tao June 4, 1997)

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

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

June 4, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Hearing Officer's Opinion

Case Name: Personnel Security Hearing

Date of Filing:January 13, 1997

Case Number: VSO-0130

This Opinion concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as "the individual") to retain an access authorization under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled "Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material."(1)

I. Background

The individual is an employee of a Department of Energy (DOE) subcontractor. As a condition of his employment, the DOE and the individual's employer require that the individual obtain and maintain a security clearance. Upon learning from the individual that he had been arrested for driving while intoxicated, the Personnel Security Division of the DOE (DOE Security) conducted two Personnel Security Interviews (PSIs) with the individual. Following these interviews and the individual's interview with a DOE psychiatrist, DOE Security determined that information existed that was substantially derogatory and created questions regarding the individual's continued eligibility for access authorization. Accordingly, a DOE Official suspended the individual's access authorization and obtained authority from the Director of the DOE Office of Safeguards and Security to initiate an administrative review proceeding.

In December 1996, the DOE Official commenced the administrative review proceeding by informing the individual that information in the possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his continued eligibility for an access authorization. I will hereinafter refer to this letter as the Notification Letter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 710.21, the Notification Letter included a statement of derogatory information possessed by the DOE. Specifically, the Notification Letter included information described in 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j). 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 continued eligibility for access authorization.

In a December 1996 letter, the individual requested a hearing on this matter. The DOE Official forwarded the individual's request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) and the Director of the OHA appointed me the Hearing Officer in this matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(f), I conducted a prehearing telephone conference and a hearing within the time deadlines promulgated in the regulations.

The individual called seven witnesses at the hearing. The witnesses were the individual; the individual's girlfriend; a coworker of the individual; a member of the individual's Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings; and three of the individual's former or current supervisors. The DOE called two witnesses to testify: a personnel security specialist and a board-certified psychiatrist.

II. Statement of Derogatory Information

As indicated above, the Notification Letter issued to the individual included a statement of derogatory information in the possession of the DOE that created a substantial doubt as to the individual's continued eligibility to hold a security clearance. On the basis of that derogatory information, the DOE Official believes that the individual "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." See 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j). Specifically, the Notification Letter states that the individual underwent a DOE psychiatric examination in XXXXXXXXXX 1996. Following that examination, the DOE psychiatrist determined that the individual met the clinical criteria for alcohol abuse and that there had not been adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The Notification Letter also details several incidents involving alcohol. The Notification Letter states that during a 1996 PSI, the individual never reported having a blackout, but that during his psychiatric examination, the individual reported alcohol-induced blackouts while in Vietnam. Also, the Notification Letter states that the individual is a current user of alcohol who has been arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) on four occasions. These DWI arrests allegedly occurred in 1963, 1977, 1993 and 1996.(2) Finally, the Notification Letter states that in XXXXXXXXX 1994, the individual got into a physical altercation with a man at his ex-wife's residence and that the individual admitted drinking one to two beers prior to the incident. The Notification Letter states that the individual was under a restraining order at the time to keep a minimum distance of 1,000 feet away from his ex-wife.(3)

III.Analysis

A. Background

The criteria for determining eligibility for a security clearance set forth at 10 C.F.R. §§ 710.1 et seq. dictate that in these proceedings, a Hearing Officer must undertake a careful review of all of the relevant facts and circumstances. In fact, the applicable DOE regulations require the Hearing Officer to make a "common-sense judgment . . . after consideration of all the relevant information." 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). I must therefore consider all information, favorable or unfavorable, that has a bearing on the question of whether restoring the individual's security clearance would compromise national security concerns. Specifically, the regulations compel me to consider the nature, extent, and seriousness of the individual's conduct; the circumstances surrounding his conduct; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the age and maturity of the individual at the time of the conduct; the voluntariness of participation; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct; the individual's potential for being susceptible to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of the conduct; and any other relevant and material factors. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c). It is the totality of these facts and circumstances that will shed light on whether the individual could fail to perform his security responsibilities adequately. Although it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty an individual's future behavior, as the Hearing Officer, I am directed to make a predictive assessment. Thus, it is incumbent upon the individual to demonstrate that restoring his 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). After careful consideration of these factors and all the evidence in the record in this proceeding, I find that restoring the individual's access authorization will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. I therefore recommend that DOE Security restore his clearance.

As an initial matter, I must make a few preliminary findings regarding the charges described in the Notification Letter. The individual states that he has been arrested only three times for DWI violations, not four as described in the Notification Letter. See note 2 infra. The record indicates that each of the three DWI charges was subsequently dismissed. DOE Exhibits 23, 24 and 27. In the 1993 arrest, the police dropped the DWI charge because the individual's blood alcohol content was below the state legal limit. In both the 1977 and 1996 arrests, the arresting officer failed to show up for the court hearing and the charges were dropped. Accordingly, the court dismissed the 1977 and 1996 arrests because the police failed to prosecute the cases within the required six month time limit. Since the DOE psychiatrist based his diagnosis of alcohol abuse on these three DWIs involving alcohol, I will consider them in my recommendation, along with the individual's admission that he drank one to two beers prior to the 1994 altercation with a man at his ex-wife's residence.

The individual also states that there is a misunderstanding regarding the DOE's charge that during his PSI, he reported never having an alcohol-induced blackout, but that he later admitted during his psychiatric evaluation to having alcohol- induced blackouts in Vietnam. Specifically, the individual states that, during his two tours of duty in Vietnam (ending in 1969), he drank enough alcohol at times to "pass out," but that he defines "passing out" as very different from a "blackout." Tr. at 46- 47. The individual admits drinking enough alcohol while in Vietnam to sometimes fall asleep (his definition of passing out), but that he never experienced a "blackout" where, in his words, a person continues to drink with no awareness of what they are doing. Tr. at 47.

The DOE psychiatrist testified at the hearing that it is "certainly possible" that his conceptualization of the question and what he asked the individual were different from the way the individual understood the question during their interview in XXXXXXXXX 1996. Tr. at 110. Also, the transcript of the February 1996 PSI indicates that the DOE Security Specialist and the individual never discussed the meaning of the word "blackout" at the time the DOE Security Specialist asked the question. DOE Exhibit 5 at 16. I have reviewed the February 1996 PSI transcript and when I compare it with the record in this case, it does not appear to me that the individual tried to hide facts or be evasive to the interviewer. Given these facts and the testimony of the DOE psychiatrist regarding a "certainly possible" misunderstanding in his interview with the individual, I believe the individual did not intend to deceive the DOE Security Specialist during the February 1996 PSI. Accordingly, I find that the record is undisputed regarding the individual's sometimes heavy use of alcohol while in Vietnam.

B. The Individual's Condition

The individual states that he had a problem with alcohol and is now a recovering alcoholic. Tr. at 38. According to the DOE psychiatrist's report on the individual, the basis for the DOE psychiatrist's diagnosis that the individual suffered from alcohol abuse stems from several factors. Specifically, the DOE psychiatrist mentioned the individual's past arrests for DWI, his passing out from alcohol in Vietnam, that he has had feelings of guilt from drinking alcohol after his wife and children complained to him, and that at the time of the psychiatric interview the individual had not abstained from alcohol consumption despite these problems.(4) However, the individual contends that there exist several mitigating factors regarding his past problems with alcohol. The individual states that he has established an extensive treatment program that is based on the recommendations of the DOE psychiatrist. In October 1996, the individual sought out his employer's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Counselor. This counselor has stated that the individual has been "extremely conscientious in adhering" to his program. Individual's Exhibit 9. In fact, the EAP Counselor wrote after nearly six months into the program that the individual "has met every agreed upon treatment requirement as outlined and continues to do so." Individual's Exhibit 5.(5) The individual has also attended AA meetings approximately once a week since October 1996. See Individual's Exhibit 2 (documentation showing the individual's attendance at AA); Tr. at 80.

Also, the individual states that through the help of his EAP Counselor and AA, he has totally abstained from consuming alcohol since October 1996 and is committed to a future of total abstention. Tr. at 39, 89, 97. To prove that he has totally abstained from consuming alcohol since October 1996, the individual submitted the results of four unannounced substance abuse tests and two blood chemistry profiles that he took as part of his alcohol treatment program. Individual's Exhibits 1, 5, 8. After reviewing these Exhibits, the DOE psychiatrist confirmed at the hearing that the test results are consistent with someone who has totally abstained from alcohol since October 1996. Tr. at 123-134. Several of the individual's witnesses also confirmed that they never observed the individual consume alcohol since October 1996 and believe he is committed to total abstention. Tr. at 26, 27, 82, 86, 173.

At the hearing, the DOE psychiatrist reevaluated the individual based on the testimony he observed at the hearing, medical data, and the important changes that had transpired in the individual's life since their meeting nearly seven months before. Specifically, the DOE psychiatrist found that the individual fulfilled his recommendation to begin receiving treatment from a mental health professional, trained in dealing with substance abuse disorders (the EAP Counselor) and that six months after he began treatment, the individual is now "quite involved" in his treatment. Tr. at 116-119. Also, the DOE psychiatrist testified that he believes the individual now understands that he had an alcohol problem at the time of the initial evaluation. Tr. at 118. Finally, the DOE psychiatrist evaluated the lab and psychological tests conducted on the individual in the prior six months (since October 1996) and the testimony at the hearing that indicated that the individual is telling the truth regarding the date he stopped drinking alcohol. Tr. at 119-129.(6) He found that these tests support the individual's contention that he totally abstained from alcohol in the prior six months. Id.

The DOE psychiatrist also stated that the individual "is six months into the process . . . [he] recommended, and . . . is doing very well." Tr. at 129. In fact, the DOE psychiatrist testified that his updated diagnosis of the individual is "alcohol abuse, in remission." Tr. at 130. The DOE psychiatrist testified that since he last interviewed the individual, there is now "substantially less" risk that the individual will return to having problems with alcohol. Tr. at 139. Furthermore, the DOE psychiatrist stated that it was "not likely" the individual would relapse into further alcohol use. Tr. at 140. Finally, the DOE psychiatrist also believes that the individual needs continued abstinence from alcohol and more treatment, including one year of regular treatments, followed by a year of less intense treatment or AA meetings before all of the DOE's concerns can be alleviated. Tr. at 130.

Nearly all of the cases involving substance abuse that have come before the OHA have dealt with individuals' claims that they have been rehabilitated and reformed from their past problems. In many of these cases, Hearing Officers found, based on expert testimony, that individuals with substance dependence disorders are not sufficiently rehabilitated until they abstained from the use of all psychoactive substances for a period of at least 12 months. See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0018, 25 DOE ¶ 82,758 (1995) (expert diagnosed individual with alcohol dependence "weakly" and alcohol abuse); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0014, 25 DOE ¶ 82,755 (1995); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0005, 24 DOE ¶ 82,753 (1995), affirmed, 25 DOE ¶ 83,013 (1995), affirmed, (Office of Security Affairs (OSA) 1995). However, OHA Hearing Officers recognized in these cases that requiring 12 months of abstinence to show rehabilitation is not a "hard and fast rule." Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0103, 26 DOE ¶ 82,761 (1996), affirmed, 26 DOE ¶ 83,006 (1997), affirmed, (OSA 1997). See also Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0102, 26 DOE ¶ 82,763 (1997), affirmed, 26 DOE ¶ 83,___, VSA-0102 (May 19, 1997) (No evidence to show that a consensus of professional opinion exists regarding the minimum period of time required to demonstrate rehabilitation), affirmed, (OSA 1997). In each case, OHA Hearing Officers evaluated the circumstances and based their decisions on expert opinions regarding each individual's particular condition.

At the time of the hearing in this case, the individual was only six months into AA and his meetings with a qualified substance abuse counselor. The DOE psychiatrist testified at the hearing regarding the length of the individual's current recovery activities and its importance to his diagnosis. He stated,

I don't think there is any magic [to one year of abstinence and treatments]. I think that this [alcohol abuse] is a difficult problem, and I think people can go backwards. I don't think there is any magic to it [one year of abstinence and treatments]. I think the important thing is the connection to the process, how serious the person sees their problem and how serious they see their treatment. Based on what I observed today, I believe that . . . [the individual] has done some soul searching.

. . .

I think that clearly there is some understanding now that there is a problem. . . . The thing that struck me today is that there is affect, he was close to tears that you see when somebody is struggling with something. Understanding is the beginning of change. . . . I saw a man who . . . is at that stage where he's struggling, and he knows there is something real serious here . . . he's gone a step or two beyond that . . . and I think that's very important.

Tr. at 130-132.

In prior cases where OHA Hearing Officers found that a person suffering from alcohol problems was not sufficiently rehabilitated after a time period of less than 12 months, there existed one or several distinguishing factors that are not present in this case. In those cases, OHA Hearing Officers found that individuals had alcohol dependence (a more severe form of alcohol abuse); or a significant defect in judgment or reliability as a result of their alcohol problem; or additional derogatory information regarding the individual that created more questions about his eligibility for an access authorization (such as falsifying information); or no proper program in place (such as AA) to treat the alcohol problem; or denial regarding the alcohol problem. These important considerations contributed to a Hearing Officer's belief that an individual with an alcohol problem was at risk to suffer a relapse of alcohol problems and might compromise national security.(7) See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0079, 25 DOE ¶ 82,803 (1996), affirmed (OSA 1996) (OHA Hearing Officer recommended that an individual with five months alcohol abstention from alcohol dependence that caused a significant defect in judgment or reliability should not have his clearance restored); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0018, 25 DOE ¶ 82,758 (1995), affirmed 25 DOE ¶ 83,006 (1996) (OHA Hearing Officer recommended that an individual with five months of abstention from alcohol abuse and weak alcohol dependence that caused a significant defect in judgment and reliability and who unsuccessfully promised several times in PSIs that he would no longer drink alcohol and drive should not have his clearance restored). I believe it is significant that the individual in this case does not have any of the above-mentioned problems.

The primary question in this case is whether the individual has provided sufficient assurances that he will remain abstinent from alcohol consumption. In DOE hearings of this type, a substance abuser usually testifies under oath that he will never abuse alcohol or illegal substances again. See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO- 0079, 25 DOE ¶ 82,803 (1996); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No.VSO-0049, 25 DOE ¶ 82,785 (1996), affirmed, 25 DOE ¶ 83,011 (1996). However, in making a recommendation, I cannot simply accept on its face an individual's assertion that he will no longer abuse alcohol or drugs. The individual must provide additional assurances to convince me that his problems will not recur. I believe that the individual has demonstrated that he has taken the proper steps to avoid future consumption of alcohol and that he has the proper program in place, the ability, and the motivation to honor his commitment never to drink alcohol again.

As stated above, the DOE psychiatrist testified that while the individual "is doing very well" in his recommended treatment programs and will "not likely" return to drinking alcohol, the individual needs continued abstinence from alcohol and more treatment before all of the DOE's concerns can be alleviated. Tr. at 130, 139, 140. There is no question that I would not be able to recommend to DOE Security that they restore the individual's clearance absent my belief that he will abstain from alcohol consumption and absent the individual's testimony that he will complete the DOE psychiatrist's recommended treatment program through October 1998. Tr. at 90.(8) With regard to the individual's intentions regarding continued abstinence and treatment programs, the individual testified,

I have made a commitment to myself that I will not drink anymore, total abstention, and that's a commitment I will keep.

Tr. at 39.

. . . my intentions are that I will honor my commitment to myself and stay sober.

. . .

since AA has helped me so much in my sobriety, I do plan to continue AA, maybe not on a weekly basis, but to stay active in AA for some time, because they have helped me so tremendously much. . . .

. . .

Yes, [I] definitely [intend to continue seeing the EAP Counselor. He] has been a tremendous help to me.

Tr. at 89, 90.

. . . I'll do anything that it's going to take to obtain my clearance again and be able to keep it, and I'm willing to - - if it's the EAPRO program or the EAP program, whichever, or both, which mandates unannounced drug testing once a month, which includes also the breathalyser test for alcohol unannounced, and the counseling and, of course, the AA.

Tr. at 195.

I also believe that the individual's program and full involvement with the EAP Counselor and AA provide the support necessary to help him achieve his goal of continued abstinence. See Tr. at 117 (DOE psychiatrist believes the individual is "quite involved" in his treatment); Individual's Exhibit 2 (AA attendance records); Individual's Exhibit 9 (EAP Counselor states the individual is "extremely conscientious in adhering" to his treatment program); Tr. at 80 (AA Secretary attests to the individual's active participation). Although the individual stated that he plans to continue with AA, he qualified this statement by stating that he might not continue to attend on a weekly basis. I note that as long as the individual continues with his EAP Counselor until October 1988 and abstains from consuming alcohol, he will have abided by the DOE psychiatrist's recommendation. See note 8 infra.(9) Since the individual has provided assurances that he has been and will likely remain abstinent from consuming alcohol and is committed to finishing his recommended treatment program, I find that the individual has sufficiently mitigated and alleviated the DOE's concerns regarding his alcohol problem.

C. Additional Considerations

As stated above, I find it important that the DOE psychiatrist did not diagnose the individual with a defect in judgment or reliability stemming from his alcohol consumption or a dependence on alcohol. The individual's EAP Counselor also confirmed in an April 1997 letter that he, like the DOE psychiatrist, did not find a defect in judgment or reliability due to the individual's alcohol abuse. Individual's Exhibit 5. I also believe the individual has demonstrated that he has the motivation and ability to achieve total abstinence. In fact, the individual and a few of his witnesses testified regarding the individual's motivations. The individual's girlfriend testified that the individual is aware that she does not approve of him drinking any alcohol. Tr. at 27. Another witness, a supervisor of the individual, testified

I want to make absolutely clear that I think . . . [the individual] is not going to . . . have a problem with alcohol in the future. I think he recognizes the hazards of alcohol in his life, and I do not think he will in any way endanger his job, his future or his life through the misuse of alcohol; otherwise, I wouldn't be here.

Tr. at 75.(10) This supervisor of the individual also stated in no uncertain terms that

. . . [the individual] has done significant things for the United States Government, period, throughout his career. I want to go on record and say that this is not an ordinary guy that's just been walking around, this is a guy that's risked his life repeatedly for the United States Government . . . he's prepared to put his life on the line again for the country, if necessary, to protect nuclear weapons.

Tr. at 58. While laudatory testimony regarding an individual's character is common in these types of cases, I believe that in this case it sheds some light on the motivation and abilities the individual possesses. The individual must recognize that he currently has the trust and support of his superiors, but if he violates his commitment to never drink alcohol again, no one will give him a second chance.

IV. Conclusion

Since the DOE psychiatrist based his findings on facts and observations that are well supported in the record, I find his updated evaluation that the individual is "in remission" from alcohol abuse to be both credible and reasonable. As stated above, I would not be able to recommend to DOE security that they restore the individual's clearance if the individual had not presented ample evidence that he will never consume alcohol again and that he will complete the DOE psychiatrist's recommended treatment program through October 1998. In considering the DOE psychiatrist's updated evaluation and my belief that the individual will not drink alcohol again, I find that the individual has demonstrated that he is sufficiently rehabilitated and reformed from his past alcohol abuse problem. Thus, I 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 recommend that DOE Security restore the individual's access authorization.

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 the Hearing Officer's Opinion within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Opinion. A party must file such a request with the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-0107, and serve a copy 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. They must file this statement 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).

Leonard M. Tao

Hearing Officer

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: June 4, 1997

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

(2) At the hearing, the DOE counsel withdrew the charge described in the Notification Letter that involved an alleged 1963 DWI arrest. Hearing Transcript at 11 (hereinafter Tr.). See Notification Letter at paragraph "D".

(3) Actually, the protective order stated that "[b]oth Petitioner and Respondent are to stay 100 yards away from one another . . . ." DOE Exhibit 26.

(4) The individual described, during a February 1996 PSI, his alcohol consumption habits. He stated that at that time he drank alcohol, usually beer at home, and that he drank to intoxication "[m]aybe twice per year." DOE Exhibit 5 at 13-14.

(5) The EAP Counselor also wrote that in his opinion "[i]t is my professional recommendation that . . . [the individual] be allowed to retain his security clearance." Individual's Exhibit 5. Although the EAP Counselor is not competent to make a recommendation on whether the individual should retain a security clearance, this statement does demonstrate that the EAP Counselor feels that the individual's efforts at rehabilitation are headed in the right direction.

(6) The DOE psychiatrist reviewed several tests. These tests included the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Inventory Test; the MacAndrew's alcoholism test; and a test for liver enzyme levels.

(7) In some of these cases, the OHA Hearing Officers relied on psychiatric experts, who in turn referred to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (1994) (DSM-IV). The DSM- IV contains "course specifiers" for substance dependence. See DSM-IV at 179. This section delineates four remission specifiers regarding substance dependence. The DSM-IV uses the term "Sustained Full Remission" when a person diagnosed with substance dependence shows none of the criteria for substance dependence for a period of 12 months of longer. There is no comparable section of remission specifiers regarding alcohol abuse. Also, the DOE psychiatrist in this case did not specifically refer to the DSM-IV at the hearing or in his psychiatric evaluation in making his diagnosis.

(8) The DOE psychiatrist's recommendation stated

During the first phase of treatment he should be seen for 12 months as an outpatient with regular counseling sessions. The first phase would not be completed without evidence of 12 consecutive months of abstinence of alcohol. The second phase of treatment would consist of an additional 12 months of monthly contact with his treatment provider. An alternative to this requirement during the second phase of treatment would be weekly attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings during that year.

DOE Exhibit 21 at 12.

(9) The DOE psychiatrist was present when the individual testified as to his future intentions concerning AA.

(10) When asked at the hearing, "If . . . [the individual] were to . . . get arrested again for a DWI . . . , what would be your reaction?" this individual's supervisor answered,

My reaction is, "That's it, it's all over. You violated a trust." I have a basic philosophy of life that if you give me your word, I expect your word is good. If you ever violate that word, then you're out of options, there is no second chance. I've demonstrated that, and any of my mangers who violate their basic management principles are terminated on value issues like that. . . . I don't have [to] give second chances in those kinds of situations.

Tr. at 69-70.