Case No. VSO-0322, 27 DOE ¶ 82,845 (H.O. F. Brown April 26, 2000)

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.

April 26, 2000

DECISION AND ORDER

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Hearing Officer's Opinion

Case Name: Personnel Security Hearing

Date of Filing: December 10, 1999

Case Number: VSO-0322

This Opinion concerns the eligibility of XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (hereinafter referred to as "the individual") to hold 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) A Department of Energy (DOE) Operations Office suspended the individual’s access authorization under the provisions of Part 710. This Opinion considers whether, on the basis of the evidence and testimony presented in this proceeding, the individual should be permitted to retain an access authorization. As set forth in this Opinion, I have determined that the individual’s security clearance should be restored.

I. Background

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

In this instance, the individual was granted an access authorization by DOE as a required condition of his employment with a DOE contractor. However, the DOE Office of Safeguards and Security (DOE Security) initiated formal administrative review proceedings, informing the individual that his security clearance was being suspended pending the resolution of certain derogatory information it received that created substantial doubt regarding his continued eligibility. This derogatory information is described in a Notification Letter subsequently issued to the individual by the DOE Operations Office on November 12, 1999, and falls within the purview of potentially disqualifying criteria set forth in the security regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8. More specifically, Enclosure 2 of the Notification Letter alleges that the individual "has been, or is a user of alcohol habitually to excess, or has been diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist as alcohol dependent or as suffering from alcohol abuse." 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j). This assessment was set forth in the report of a DOE consultant psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist), who reviewed the individual’s personnel security file and conducted an examination of the individual.

In a letter received by the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) on December 8, 1999, the individual exercised his right under Part 710 to request a hearing in this matter. 10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b). On December 16, 1999, I was appointed as Hearing Officer in this case. After conferring with the individual and the appointed DOE Counsel, 10 C.F.R. § 710.24, a hearing date was established. At the hearing, the DOE Counsel called as witnesses the individual, the DOE Psychiatrist, and a contractor personnel manager. In addition to testifying in his own behalf, the individual called several witnesses, including: 1) a licensed clinical psychologist (Clinical Psychologist), 2) a physician specializing in internal medicine (Medical Specialist), 3) his supervisor, 4) two co-workers, 5) a close friend, and 6) his wife. The transcript taken at the hearing will be hereinafter cited as "Tr.". Various documents that were submitted by the DOE Counsel and the individual during this proceeding constitute exhibits to the hearing transcript and will be cited as "Exh.".

Summary of Findings

The following factual summary is essentially uncontroverted. However, I will indicate instances in which there are disparate viewpoints regarding the information presented in the record.

The determination to suspend of the individual’s security clearance stemmed from DOE Security receiving information that on May 3, 1998, the individual voluntarily admitted himself to an alcohol detoxification facility (Detoxification Center) where he attended a seven-day treatment program for alcohol dependence. This information was of particular concern since in granting the individual an access authorization, DOE Security’s background investigation of the individual revealed a history of excessive alcohol use. In 1976, the individual was detained by police for A Minor in Possession of Alcohol. The individual was also arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) on two occasions, first in January 1986 and then in August 1994. Following the August 1994 DWI, DOE Security stated its concerns to the individual regarding his alcohol consumption and referred him to his employer’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for counseling. The individual attended eleven EAP counseling sessions, and then underwent a period of alcohol abstinence during the next few years. However, the individual resumed drinking during 1997, coincidental with his undertaking a more stressful work assignment.

According to the individual, his alcohol consumption was excessive only on rare occasions during 1997, and it was not causing him difficulty at home or at work. Nonetheless, the individual determined that his alcohol consumption had again become substantial to the degree that it might place his security clearance in jeopardy. Therefore, on May 3, 1998, the individual voluntarily admitted himself to the Detoxification Center, accompanied by his wife and father. Prior to going to the Detoxification Center, the individual telephoned his work supervisor and informed the supervisor of his intention to admit himself into the Detoxification Center for one week of inpatient treatment.

The individual maintains that he has remained completely free from alcohol since May 3, 1998. According to the individual, he left the Detoxication Center with a new understanding of his alcoholism, acknowledging now that he is an alcoholic and consequently must remain abstinent. The individual regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings three times a week after leaving the Detoxification Center. During the last year, however, the individual’s AA attendance sometimes dropped to one or two meetings per week particularly during the summer months as a result of his greater participation in activities with his son. In addition, the individual’s wife now takes college courses at night, and the individual must therefore remain at home with his son on those evenings. Since leaving the Detoxification Center, the individual has openly discussed his AA attendance and commitment to sobriety with his supervisor and co-workers, expressing pride in his accomplishment in maintaining abstinence.

DOE Security conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) with the individual on June 9, 1998, and again on January 7, 1999, and determined that the individual should be referred for evaluation by the DOE Psychiatrist. Based upon his review of the individual’s security file and a one-hour psychiatric examination, the DOE Psychiatrist issued a report dated September 8, 1999, in which he diagnosed the individual with Alcohol Abuse. During the hearing, however, the DOE Psychiatrist changed his diagnosis to Alcohol Dependence based upon his supposition that during the period prior to entering the Detoxification Center, the individual had failed to heed likely warnings from his physician that his use of alcohol was damaging his liver. The DOE Psychiatrist further concluded in his report that the individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation. In reaching this determination, the DOE Psychiatrist found “of greatest significance” an isolated abnormal elevation in the individual’s Gamma Glutamyl Transferase (GGT) liver enzyme level, based upon a blood test taken by the DOE Psychiatrist. According to the DOE Psychiatrist, this abnormality strongly suggests that the individual has continued to use alcohol, despite the individual’s claim to the contrary. The DOE Psychiatrist was also concerned that the individual’s AA attendance had waned in the months immediately prior to his examination of the individual, and found the individual evasive and vague in describing his past alcohol use. The DOE Psychiatrist therefore believes the individual is still somewhat in denial, a further impediment to the individual’s rehabilitation. In order for the individual to achieve rehabilitation, the DOE Psychiatrist recommended an initial intensive treatment of 90 AA meetings in 90 days, followed by at least a meeting or two per week, for long-term treatment of approximately a year or two in duration.

II. Analysis

A DOE administrative review proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 is not a criminal matter, in which the burden is on the government to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0078, 25 DOE ¶ 82,802 (1996). In this type of case, we are dealing with a different standard designed to protect national security interests. A hearing is "for the purpose of affording the individual an opportunity of supporting his eligibility for access authorization." 10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b)(6). Once DOE Security has made a showing of derogatory information raising security concerns, the burden is on the individual to come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE 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. § 710.27(d). This standard implies that there is a strong presumption against the granting or restoring of a security clearance. See Dep't of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) ("clearly consistent with the national interest" standard for the granting of security clearances indicates "that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials"); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).

I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions of the parties, the evidence presented and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing convened in this matter. In resolving the question of the individual's eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided by the applicable factors prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c): the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the voluntariness of the participation; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; the likelihood of continuance or recurrence; and other relevant and material factors. After due deliberation, it is my opinion that the individual’s access authorization should be restored since I have concluded that such restoration would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). The specific findings that I make in support of this determination are discussed below.

A. The Individual’s Alcohol Use

The record presents ample evidence to support the determination of the DOE Security that the individual "has been, or is a user of alcohol habitually to excess, or has been diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist as alcohol dependent or as suffering from alcohol abuse." 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j). The individual admits his past history of alcohol use, and the circumstances which led him to admit himself into the Detoxification Center. Having reviewed this history and examined the individual, the DOE Psychiatrist diagnosed the individual with Alcohol Abuse, later changing his diagnosis to Alcohol Dependence consistent with the diagnosis of the Detoxification Center. Tr. at 91. This diagnosis is a serious matter since an individual who drinks habitually to excess can exhibit less than complete reliability, stability and good judgment, which are important components for access to classified information or special nuclear material. Under the influence of alcohol, an individual may unwittingly divulge information or may conduct themselves in less than a socially acceptable manner, perhaps even engage in criminal activity. For these reasons, Hearing Officers in DOE security clearance proceedings have consistently found that the habitual excessive use of alcohol raises important security concerns. See, e.g., Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0177, 27 DOE ¶ 82,752 (1998); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0015, 25 DOE ¶ 82,760 (1995); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0042, 25 DOE ¶ 82,771 (1995). Accordingly, I will turn to whether the individual has presented adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation, or other mitigating circumstances, to overcome the legitimate security concerns of DOE.

B. Mitigating Evidence

The individual insists that he has remained alcohol-free since the day he entered the Detoxification Center on May 5, 1998. However, the DOE Psychiatrist doubts this assertion based upon the results from the blood test administered when he examined the individual in September 1999, showing an elevated GGT liver enzyme level. According to the DOE Psychiatrist, the GGT liver enzyme test result “most likely suggests, but does not prove, that [the individual] is continuing to drink excessively.” Report of DOE Psychiatrist (Exh. 5) at 12. The DOE Psychiatrist perceived the individual as still in denial with regard to his alcohol use and was concerned that the individual had reduced his attendance at AA meetings during the month prior to the examination. These matters are discussed below. As there explained, I have concluded that the GGT liver enzyme test result obtained by the DOE Psychiatrist was an aberration and should be accorded little weight. Instead, I find that the individual has presented convincing evidence in support of his claim that he has remained abstinent during the past two years after his release from the Detoxification Center, and has further established adequate evidence of reformation and rehabilitation.

1. GGT Liver Enzyme Test Result

The blood test results from the laboratory (Lab #1) utilized by the DOE on the sample taken in September 1999 showed that the individual had a GGT liver enzyme level of 51 on a reference normal range of 5 - 40. The GGT liver enzyme test is a commonly used test for detecting liver disease since ongoing liver damage will result in abnormally high levels of this enzyme in the blood. Tr. at 78-79; Exh. 40. Thus it also is a commonly used test for detecting alcoholism, which damages the liver when excessive, although alcoholism is merely one of a variety of causes of liver damage. Id.; Exh. 36. As uniformly confirmed by the DOE Psychiatrist and other medical experts, the GGT liver test is highly sensitive in detecting liver disease but highly unspecific in revealing the cause. Tr. at 83-84; 247-48; Exh. 37.

The DOE Psychiatrist observed, however, that there is increased probability that alcohol is responsible for the individual’s elevated GGT level because the individual has a history of alcohol abuse. Tr. at 85. In addition, the DOE Psychiatrist testified that his follow-up testing of the individual’s blood sample ruled out other most common causes, e.g., hepatitis and diabetes, thus leaving alcohol as the “obvious first candidate” for the individual’s elevated GGT liver enzyme reading. Tr. at 86-87. Reputable medical journals indicate that an elevated GGT level caused by excessive use of alcohol will generally return to normal within two to eight weeks after abstinence. Tr. at 81; Exh. 37, 40. On this basis, the DOE Psychiatrist does not accept the individual’s claim that he has remained abstinent since May 1998. Tr. at 82. The DOE Psychiatrist stated that while it is possible that the individual’s GGT level is receding at a substantially lower rate than typical, “another possibility is the reason that it persists is that his drinking persists, and that’s certainly a much more likely phenomenon.” Tr. at 88. Notwithstanding, I find the GGT liver enzyme test unreliable in this instance.

First, the validity of the particular laboratory test obtained by the DOE Psychiatrist is suspect. The individual was tested by a different laboratory (Lab #2) on August 13, 1999, less than one month prior to the test taken by the DOE Psychiatrist. Lab #2's blood test results show that the individual had a normal GGT liver enzyme level of 64, on a reference normal range of 0 - 82. Exh. 31. The individual was again tested by another laboratory (Lab #3) on February 18, and on March 13, 2000, and registered normal GGT liver enzyme readings of 52 and 48, respectively, on a reference normal range of 8 - 78. Exh. 39, 44. When asked about these disparate readings, the DOE Psychiatrist conceded that due to the variances in the types and calibration of testing machinery and the differing reference samples used to determine the normal range, it is possible that the same blood sample that he tested as having a high GGT level could have been tested as normal by another laboratory. Tr. at 163.(2)

The individual presented results of blood tests taken at various times over the past few years, and a graph plotting his GGT level. Exh. 31, 33. This data shows that the individual’s GGT level was 611 on a test taken in February 1998, prior to entering the Detoxification Center, but thereafter his GGT level declined to 94 on a blood sample taken in January 1999, to 64 on the sample taken in August 1999, to 51 on the sample in September 1999, and to 52 and 48 on the samples taken in February and March 2000, respectively. Id. As previously indicated, all of the individual’s recent GGT readings have fallen within the normal range of the testing laboratory, with the exception of the one test result (51) obtained by the DOE Psychiatrist in September 1999. All of this data was examined by the Medical Specialist who specializes in internal medicine (gastroenterology) including liver disease. Exh. 43. In the opinion of the Medical Specialist, the clear indication of the individual’s steadily declining GGT levels “over a period of time with no spikes and no elevations” is that alcohol use has been discontinued. Tr. at 245. The Medical Specialist was not concerned by the period of time it took for the individual’s GGT level to return to normal since leaving the Detoxification Center. According to the Medical Specialist, this “may vary in an individual according to how well their liver responds to the removal of the offending agent. If there is underlying liver disease, any cirrhosis or long-term liver disease, or liver disease from another etiology, that [GGT level] may take a lot longer to clear. It’s not so much important in this instance how quickly it cleared, but the fact that it continually drops.” Tr. at 246- 47.(3) The Medical Specialist disagreed with the assertion of the DOE Psychiatrist that alcohol was the likely suspect because he had eliminated the other principal causes, e.g., hepatitis, as the cause of the individual’s elevated GGT level. According to the Medical Specialist: “[M]y training and all of the books I have read would require a liver biopsy in order to rule out other potential sources before you came to that conclusion. You cannot just identify alcohol as the source.” Tr. at 253.(4)

In addition, the DOE Psychiatrist’s suspicion that the individual has resumed drinking was not corroborated by other principal blood test indicators for detecting excessive alcohol use. The DOE Psychiatrist conceded under cross-examination that the individual’s ALT and AST liver enzymes, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and HDL cholesterol levels were all within the range of normal. While there was a slight elevation in the individual’s uric acid and triglyceride levels, the DOE Psychiatrist conceded that these elevations were insignificant and should be discounted. Tr. at 171-72. Of even greater significance is the ratio of the individual’s GGT level to the level of his alkaline phosphatase (ALK) liver enzyme. Reference to this ratio is a common device for determining whether alcohol is the cause of an elevated GGT liver enzyme level, with a ratio of greater than 1.4 being suggestive of alcohol-related liver disease. Tr. at 143-44; see Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0177, 27 DOE ¶ 82,752 at 85,511 n. 3 (1998). The individual’s GGT/ALK ratio was .89 on the blood test taken in January 1999, .51 on the blood test taken in August 1999, and .42 on the blood test taken by the DOE Psychiatrist in September 1999, all substantially below the 1.4 ratio signaling liver disease caused by consumption of alcohol. Exh. 34.

After reviewing various laboratory results of blood samples taken from the individual since leaving the Detoxification Center, the Medical Specialist concluded in his testimony:

If you were to put those laboratories [i.e., laboratory results] before any credible physician in the United States, they could only come to the conclusion that there is no alcohol use going on. There is a complete resolution of the AST, the ALT, and now the [GGT level]. If there was any excessive alcohol use, or even some alcohol use at this stage I think we would see an abnormality in all those. Again, you’re seeing a complete normalization of every one of those laboratories.

Tr. at 250. The individual’s laboratory data was also examined by another physician, also a specialist in internal medicine, who did not testify at the hearing but concurred with the Medical Specialist in his report: “[T]he specific laboratory testing obtained leads me to conclude that there is no laboratory evidence of continued or recurrent alcohol use by [the individual] at this time.” Exh. 37 at 2. I must attach considerably more weight to the opinions of these two medical experts who specialize in the field of internal medicine including liver disease, than to the suspicions of the DOE Psychiatrist who admittedly is not a hepatologist but has only general medical training regarding liver dysfunction. Tr. at 134.

Accordingly, I have concluded that the one elevated GGT level in the isolated laboratory blood test obtained by the DOE Psychiatrist does not constitute reliable evidence that the individual has resumed drinking since leaving the Detoxification Center. Instead, as discussed in the succeeding section, the record presents compelling evidence that the individual has indeed remained abstinent during the past two years and achieved adequate rehabilitation from his past alcohol use to overcome the concerns of DOE Security.

2. Reformation and Rehabilitation

In order for the individual to achieve adequate evidence of reformation and rehabilitation, the DOE Psychiatrist recommended in his report “an initial period of intensive treatment on the order of ninety AA meetings in ninety days, followed by at least a meeting or two per week, for a long-term treatment of approximately a year or two in duration.” Exh. 5 at 12. At the hearing, the DOE Psychiatrist affirmed this recommended treatment program, only adding with respect to the individual’s AA meetings that “three times a week would be preferable.” Tr. at 130. These guidelines described by the DOE Psychiatrist are consistent with other cases involving diagnoses of excessive alcohol use, finding that DOE Security’s concerns may be mitigated by evidence of the successful completion of a viable alcohol treatment program combined with a minimum of one year of abstention from alcohol. See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0245, 27 DOE ¶ 82,795 at 85,783 (1999), citing Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0167, 26 DOE ¶ 82,801 (1997); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0226, 27 DOE ¶ 82,780 (1998); see also Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0221, 27 DOE ¶ 82,792 at 85,763 (1999). I have concluded on the basis of the record before me that the individual has met his burden in this regard.

The individual struck me as completely truthful and very convincing in asserting that he has not consumed any alcohol since the day he entered the Detoxification Center in May 1998, that he understands the concerns of DOE Security and that he remains fully committed to his continued abstinence. Tr. at 17-19, 58-59, 64-65. The individual’s wife was very sincere and equally persuasive in corroborating the individual’s testimony, affirming that since May 1998, “I have not seen him have one drop of alcohol, absolutely no alcohol.” Tr. at 227.

More clinically relevant, however, is the testimony of the Clinical Psychologist who examined the individual in separate sessions totaling approximately nine and one- half hours, and administered a battery of psychological tests, during the recent weeks prior to the hearing. On the basis of his clinical interviews and testing,(5) the Clinical Psychologist was convinced that the individual has not consumed any alcohol during the two years since leaving the Detoxification Center. Tr. at 101-02. The Clinical Psychologist therefore diagnosed the individual in sustained full remission from his alcohol dependence,(6) having achieved greater than 12 months of complete sobriety. Id. The Clinical Psychologist further stated his belief that the individual has now achieved rehabilitation: “I concluded rehabilitation is present, [there] is no avoidance or denial of a drinking problem, [the individual] is admitting that he has a problem[;] AA attendance, and it’s my understanding that he is currently attending approximately three times a week, counseling and/or detox treatment, abstinence, and the presence of some family support system. To me he’s met those criteria. . . . [M]y professional opinion is that he has met the criteria for rehabilitation.” Tr. at 100-01.

As indicated by his diagnostic conclusion, the Clinical Psychologist disagrees with the view of the DOE Psychiatrist that the individual is in denial with regard to his difficulties with alcohol, stating: “[The individual] has admitted to me that he is an alcoholic, and that he has struggled with alcohol for many, many years . . . and I see him facing up to it and admitting that he has a problem.” Tr. at 99-100. This assessment that the individual is not in denial is shared by those closest to him. The individual’s wife testified that the individual does not attempt to minimize or deny his problem, but has openly reached out and discussed his problem with others who also may be experiencing a problem with alcohol. Tr. at 226. The individual’s supervisor and co-workers uniformly testified that the individual has openly discussed his AA attendance, exhibiting pride in his accomplishment and continued sobriety. Tr. at 111, 201, 215.

The Clinical Psychologist was also satisfied with the individual’s level of AA attendance of 2-3 meetings per week. Tr. at 102-03. While the DOE Psychiatrist expressed concern with the individual’s AA attendance prior to his examination,(7) the DOE Psychiatrist conceded that during the first year after leaving the Detoxification Center, the individual had exceeded the number of AA meetings recommended by the DOE Psychiatrist in his report. Tr. at 186. Regarding AA and the individual’s other support mechanisms, the Clinical Psychologist stated: “I think he’s been very positive in terms of the concepts of the 12-step [AA] program and efforts to maintain his rehabilitation. I would also add that I think the kind of reawakening in him as I understand it of his spirituality, his belief in God, his religious beliefs over all should supplement the AA program and help him in his continued sobriety.” Tr. at 104. The added elements of strong family support and encouragement as well as the individual’s religious convictions were also corroborated by the individual’s wife during her testimony. Tr. at 225, 229.

Finally, I very impressed by the fact that it was the individual, on his own volition, who decided to seek help and enter the Detoxification Center. The individual’s wife confirmed that it was entirely the individual’s decision and he was not under any compulsion. Tr. at 224. The individual’s supervisor further corroborated this account, testifying that on that day, he was surprised when the individual telephoned him and informed the supervisor of his determination to enter the Detoxification Center. Tr. at 113, 115. According to the supervisor, the individual was not bemoaning his decision but informed the supervisor that he was notifying him in order that the supervisor would pass on the information to all concerned, including DOE. This type of responsible behavior tends to confirm the individual’s commitment to put his alcohol problem behind him. The individual’s supervisor added this compelling perspective: “[The individual] has done great with this problem, I think he’s overcome it, I think he’s beat it down, and he’s won. And holding his clearance, taking it away from him just sends a message to other people like him that you can’t seek help, that you can’t try to be a better worker, that you can’t try to better yourself.” Tr. at 114.

III. Conclusion

As explained in this Opinion, I find that DOE Security properly invoked 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j) in suspending the individual’s access authorization, having received the report and diagnosis of a board-certified psychiatrist. However, I have determined that ample evidence exists and has been presented to overcome DOE Security’s concerns. I therefore find that the holding of an access authorization by the individual would not endanger the common defense and security and would be consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I find that the individual’s access authorization should 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. 20585-0107, 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. 10 C.F.R. § 710.28(b). The address where submissions must be sent for purposes of serving them on the Office of Security Affairs is as follows:

Director

Office of Safeguards and Security, NN-51

Office of Security Affairs

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

Fred L. Brown

Hearing Officer

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: April 26, 2000

(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 an access authorization or security clearance.

(2)A medical expert in this area who examined the individual’s data (but did not testify at the hearing) explained in his submission:

The “normal” range of the test is a statistical determination of the range of values that would include 95% of healthy population. Thus by definition, 5% of a healthy or “normal” population will have values outside of that range. The normal range is determined by each laboratory based upon values obtained by testing normal volunteers. Therefore differing ranges among labs may reflect differing populations tested, different test methodologies or instruments used, or random variation. Values from one lab may not be precisely duplicated in another lab even when the same sample is retested.

Exh. 37 at 1.

(3)Counsel for the individual noted that in a similar case, a medical expert expressed the view that a DOE psychiatrist was unjustified in assuming that an individual had resumed drinking simply on the basis of an elevated (80) GGT level: “He’s not a hepatologist [liver specialist], he’s a psychiatrist . . . it is not infrequent that a person’s liver enzymes do not come back down to normal after they’ve been an alcoholic. Our best hope is that they’ll come someplace close to normal.” Tr. at 137-38, quoting Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0203, 27 DOE ¶ 82,773 at 85,649 (1998).

(4)Under cross examination, the DOE Psychiatrist conceded that a liver biopsy would be the only way to ensure that the individual does not have liver damage from his past use of alcohol, which may have prolonged the subsiding of his GGT level. Tr. at 138-39.

(5)Apart from his personal interview, the Clinical Psychologist found the Alcohol Use Inventory Test he administered to the individual to be very insightful. According to the Clinical Psychologist, it would be “suspicious” and “very hard” for someone to misrepresent the findings across the inventory of 24 scales which comprise this test. Tr. at 106. The Clinical Psychologist stated: “I didn’t see anything in the profile analysis of the Alcohol Use Inventory that would suggest that [the individual] was using.” Id.

(6)When I questioned the DOE Psychiatrist concerning this assessment, the DOE Psychiatrist confirmed that the only reason that he does not find the individual in complete remission is his suspicion that the individual has not remained abstinent during the preceding one year period, based upon the elevated GGT level shown on the laboratory blood test results he received. Tr. at 196. As discussed in the preceding section of this Opinion, however, I find that the isolated GGT liver enzyme test taken by the DOE Psychiatrist provides tenuous support for his supposition that the individual resumed drinking, which is obliterated by more reliable clinical evidence that the individual has indeed remained abstinent.

(7)The DOE Psychiatrist was concerned that just prior to the time that he saw the individual in September 1999, the individual’s AA attendance was down to one meeting per week. Tr. at 129. However, the individual’s wife corroborated the individual’s testimony that his AA attendance had gone down during the summer months because his wife is taking college courses at night requiring him to remain at home with his 9-year-old son, and he also was spending greater time with his son, taking him to baseball practice and games. Tr. at 31, 225. The individual testified and provided supporting evidence that he has now again increased his AA meetings to 2-3 per week. Tr. at 32; Exh. 30. The individual’s friend, who attends many of these meetings with the individual, testified that the individual is an active participant in the meetings and has been “pretty inspirational to other people.” Tr. at 211.