* 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 24, 2002
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALSHearing Officer’s Decision
Name of Case: Personnel Security Hearing
Date of Filing: January 14, 2002
Case Number: VSO-0519
This Decision concerns the continued eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (the individual) for access authorization(1) 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.” A Department of Energy (DOE) office received information that raised questions about his eligibility, and was unable to resolve those questions informally. The individual requested a hearing on this matter, at which I presided. As explained below, I have determined that the individual’s access authorization should be restored.
I. Background
The individual is an employee of a contractor at a DOE facility whose access authorization has been suspended. The local DOE security office (SO) issued a Notification Letter to the individual on December 11, 2001. 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, behavior which, under 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j), raises substantial doubt regarding his continued eligibility for access authorization. This allegation is based on statements the individuals has provided to the SO in 1995, 2000, and 2001. In those statements the individual admitted that over the course of the past seven years, he has been convicted of Driving under the Influence of Alcohol, consumed, during some of that time, as much as a pint to a pint and a half of vodka every evening, attended Alcoholics Anonymous, and received medical treatment for
depression and alcohol abuse, including two hospitalizations and one long-term inpatient rehabilitation session.
Because of these security concerns, the individual’s access authorization was suspended. The individual filed a request for a hearing on the concerns raised in the Notification Letter. The SO transmitted the individual's hearing request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), the OHA Director appointed me as Hearing Officer in this case, and I convened a hearing.
At the hearing, the individual testified on his own behalf, and called several witnesses, including two of his doctors, a coworker, his sister, his teenage son, and his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor. Counsel for the SO called no witnesses. The SO submitted 11 written exhibits, and the individual submitted six written exhibits, five in advance of the hearing, and the sixth at the hearing itself.
II. Standard of Review
The applicable DOE regulations state that "[t]he decision as to access authorization is a comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting or continuation of access authorization will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest." 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). In resolving questions about the individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I must consider the relevant factors and circumstances connected with the individual’s conduct. These factors are set forth in § 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 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 potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; [and] the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
A DOE administrative review proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 is authorized when the existence of derogatory information leaves unresolved questions about an individual’s eligibility for access authorization. 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), i.e., demonstrating that restoring his access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest." 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). 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. After carefully considering the factors set out in § 710.7(c) and all the evidence in the record in this proceeding, I am convinced that this individual's access authorization should be restored, for the reasons discussed below.
III. Findings of Fact and Analysis
The individual admits the facts alleged in the Notification Letter, including the diagnosis of alcohol abuse. The hearing focused on his assertion that mitigating circumstances warrant restoration of his access authorization. Before turning to the issue of mitigation, it would be helpful to explain the circumstances underlying the concerns in the Notification Letter.
During most of his adult life, the individual has been a social drinker. Transcript of Hearing (Tr.) at 16 (testimony of individual, unless otherwise noted). Apart from an arrest for DUI in 1994, the individual had experienced no adverse consequences from his consumption of alcohol before 2000. Id. In February 2000, however, his older brother died. Id. Because his father had died when the individual was a child, his brother had played an important role in his life. The loss of his brother depressed him and caused him to start “bury[ing his problems] in the bottle,” by drinking as much as a pint or more of vodka each evening on a daily basis. Id. at 21- 23, 123. Although he was for the most part maintaining his work schedule and caring for his children, he stopped attending some of his children’s sports events. Id. at 22, 95 (testimony of sister). In the fall of 2000 and winter of 2001, his condition deteriorated to the point that he was admitted for inpatient care three times. The first was a 28-day stay at an alcohol rehabilitation center, id. at 24, and the other two were short-term hospitalizations for treatment of depression and alcohol counseling. Id. at 24, 141 (testimony of family physician). The individual has also attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and aftercare meetings sponsored by the alcohol rehabilitation center with varying degrees of regularity. Id. at 28. After his 28-day rehabilitation session, his family helped him find a psychiatrist, who began treating him aggressively for severe depression and anxiety. Id. at 39-41 (testimony of psychiatrist), 97 (testimony of sister). He experienced a serious relapse in February 2001, when he stopped taking his medications and resorted to heavy drinking. Id. at 42 (testimony of psychiatrist). Since that relapse, the individual has been abstinent. Id. at 26-27, 41-44 (testimony of psychiatrist).
At the hearing, the individual presented the testimony of a number of witnesses in support of his contention that the security concerns raised in the notification letter have been resolved. Two physicians testified that severe depression had led to alcohol abuse, but also that successful treatment of these conditions has allowed the individual to maintain his abstinence for 14 months. His AA sponsor explained how he supports the individual in his effort to remain sober. His sister and son outlined the family’s deep involvement in the individual’s well-being. All of these witnesses attested to the individual’s motivation and attitude concerning his commitment to remain alcohol-free, and their testimony is set forth below. In addition, coworkers and friends testified that none of them has seen any evidence that the individual has consumed any alcohol since February 2001, in either work or social settings. See, e.g., Tr. at 81-84 (testimony of coworker-friend).
The individual’s family physician testified about the two brief hospitalizations that followed his 28- day inpatient treatment in October 2000. Apparently, after returning home from the treatment center, the individual resumed drinking. The physician hospitalized the individual to treat his depression and counsel him on alcoholism. Id. at 141. His alcohol abuse was severe enough that he was not able to work. Id. at 145. By working with his psychiatrist, the individual stopped drinking alcohol, which, according to the family physician, is what is necessary for recovery. Id. at 146. The physician credited the strong family support and the individual’s own insight into the causes of his depression for his success at remaining sober. Id. at 143. In his opinion, the individual has now recovered from alcohol abuse:
[The individual]’s back to his old self now. I mean, I see his whole family. His children play sports at the same high school my son’s at. I see him at his outings. He’s always sober, and he’s just made a complete turnaround. . . . Hopefully, [a relapse or recurrence is] not going to happen. I mean, anybody can backslide, but usually if you’re going to see it, you’re going to see it before now.
Id. at 146-47.
The psychiatrist testified that he began seeing the individual in November 2000. Id. at 39. In his opinion, the individual’s alcohol abuse was caused by depression over his brother’s death and, more remotely, by unresolved issues stemming from his divorce from his children’s mother roughly ten years ago. Id. at 40, 51. Shortly after the individual started treatment with the psychiatrist, he stopped taking the medications he had been prescribed. Id. at 52. His depressive symptoms reappeared and he turned to alcohol, which led to the two hospitalizations described above. Id. at 42. The psychiatrist then prescribed Revia, a medication to relieve alcohol cravings, in addition to the anti-depressants already prescribed, and informed his patient that he must follow the medication regimen strictly to achieve any results. In addition, he informed him that he would terminate him as a patient unless he complied with instructions. Id. at 42-43. (He stopped taking Revia in July 2001 with medical supervision, while continuing to maintain his sobriety. Id. at 58.) The psychiatrist testified that since that relapse, 14 months before the hearing, the individual has abstained from alcohol, taken his medications, remained free from depression, and “has made a very honest and concerted effort to keep himself sober.” Id. at 44, 46, 47-48. The psychiatrist also testified that the individual has the critically important self-motivation to recover, as well as the family support and counseling for dealing with future stressful circumstances. Id. at 52, 57. Finally, although he was unwilling to declare that his patient was fully recovered, he testified that he was impressed that the individual had been abstinent for 14 months. Id. at 59.
When the individual’s AA sponsor first agreed to be his sponsor, it was clear to the sponsor that the individual was not committed to being sober. Id. at 76. Ever since the individual convinced his sponsor that he was serious in his commitment, which was around February of 2001, the sponsor can vouch for the individual’s sobriety. Id. at 67. Aside from requiring him to attend 90 AA meetings in 90 days, the sponsor also demanded that the individual check in with him in person every day for the first few weeks, allow the sponsor to make unannounced visits to his home at any time and rummage through his home and truck for signs of alcohol, and stop associating with his hard-core drinking friends. Id. at 65-69. The sponsor believes that the individual is properly motivated to avoid drinking in the future. Id. at 67. Although he recognized the possibility that any alcoholic can start drinking again, he testified that the individual is well positioned to remain sober, in his experience as a sponsor of many AA members: “The odds of [the individual’s resorting to alcohol] are close to nil, and the reason being is once you cross your first year of program and you adhere to it and you do what you’re supposed to and you change your patterns, your success rate is a lot greater.” Id. at 67.
The individual’s son and one of his sisters testified about the individual during 2000 and after February 2001. Despite the individual’s efforts to keep his drinking a secret, mainly by restricting it to after his children were settled down for the night, id. at 30-31 (testimony of individual), his son and daughter were aware that he was drinking too much. Id. at 112-13. He was less involved in their lives, id. at 112, and in particular failed to attend their sporting events with his usual regularity. Id. at 95, 120. The family tried to get him to seek professional help, and eventually found his current psychiatrist. Id. at 96. The son and the sister further testified that they have not seen any evidence that the individual has consumed any alcohol since February 2001, and that since then, he has resumed his active role in raising his children. Id. at 98, 106, 116, 120.
Based on my evaluation of the above evidence, in conjunction with the demeanor of the witnesses and the rest of the record in this case, I find that the individual has mitigated the national security concerns that the SO has raised with respect to the individual’s alcohol abuse. The evidence obtained from medical experts indicates that the alcohol abuse arose as a reaction to a chain of life circumstances– divorce and, more recently, the death of a brother, which led to depression– which the individual now has under control through counseling and medication. Based on the testimony of his psychiatrist, his physician, his AA sponsor, his family, his coworkers and friends, and the individual himself, it is reasonable to conclude that the individual has been sober since February 2001. The evidence in the record indicates, further, that the individual has been engaged in various forms of treatment, most consistently, active participation in Alcoholics Anonymous and the care of a psychiatrist, since then as well. At this point, the individual is taking anti-depressant medication, and there is a risk that the individual might stop taking it. He did once before, in the fall and winter of 2000-2001, and he became severely depressed and resorted to drinking. Nevertheless, I find it highly unlikely that the individual will stop taking his medication or resume drinking, for the reasons set forth below.
The individual has demonstrated a great deal of insight into his alcohol problem. He recognizes that it stems from depression. He is committed to staying on anti-depressant medication, because he prefers his present life to how he felt before. Id. at 129-30. His psychiatrist and his physician both testified that his motivation for remaining alcohol-free is strong. He testified that his reason for abstaining from alcohol was his children, and that he first recognized he had a problem with alcohol when he realized that they knew about it. Id. at 31. He now maintains that he has no interest in even the “occasional drink.” Id. at 33.
The individual has a solid support system to encourage him to control his depression and remain abstinent. Not only did his psychiatrist and his AA sponsor testify that they will help him maintain his goals but they threatened to disassociate themselves from him should he fail. Id. at 43, 74. In addition, it is clear from the testimony that his family physician and his close-knit family are near at hand to ensure that he maintains his sobriety.
Finally, there is the unchallenged evidence that the individual has maintained his sobriety for the 14 months preceding the hearing. In this case no medical evidence was presented concerning how long the individual must maintain sobriety before he can be considered rehabilitated or reformed from alcohol abuse. The psychiatrist was “impressed” that the individual had been abstinent for 14 months. The physician testified that he thought the individual was rehabilitated. Id. at 143. On the basis of those medical opinions and the lay opinions of the many witnesses, I find that the individual is rehabilitated and reformed from his alcohol abuse at this time. An important factor in my finding is the evidence that the individual has faced some stressful situations, including the breakup of a long-term relationship with a girlfriend, in the past year. The individual described one of these incidents as being the most stressful event in his life. Id. at 152. The individual and his sister each testified that at other points in his life such stresses would have led him to alcohol, but now he had coped with these crises in an appropriate manner without resorting to alcohol. Id. at 105, 149-153.
As I stated above, I am called upon to make a predictive assessment of the likelihood that restoring the individual’s access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest." 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). In formulating this assessment, I consider not only the evidence, discussed above, that relates to the individual’s history of alcohol consumption and the steps he has taken to date to mitigate that pattern of behavior, but also his future intentions regarding alcohol. The individual has made his future intentions clear, not only in words but in his behavior over the last 14 months. Based on the evidence produced in this case, and particularly on the medical opinions received at the hearing and the testimony attesting to his recent successes in coping with stresses, I find that the risk that the individual will lose his sobriety in the future is so low that it does not raise a substantial security concern. I therefore find that the evidence presented in this proceeding has mitigated the SO’s security concerns under Criterion J.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the entire record in this proceeding, I find that the individual has resolved the security concerns raised under 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j). I conclude that the individual has mitigated the concern that he suffers from alcohol abuse. For the reasons explained in this Decision, I find that the individual has shown that restoring his access authorization will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I recommend that the individual's access authorization be restored.
William M. Schwartz
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: June 24, 2002
(1) Access authorization is defined as an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a).