The individual is an employee of a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, and has possessed a DOE accessauthorization for over twenty years. As a result of information that he disclosed to the DOE in connection withan arrest, the individual was asked for additional information at a Personnel Security Interview conducted in September 2001 (the 2001 PSI). Subsequently, the individual was referred to a psychiatrist (hereafter the “DOEConsultant Psychiatrist”), who conducted a psychiatric evaluation of the individual in March 2002. Following this evaluation, the individual’s access authorization was suspended and in August 2002, the Manager of the DOE’slocal Operations Office issued a Notification Letter to the individual. In this Notification Letter, the Operations Office finds that the individual’s information has raised security concerns under Sections 710.8(h), (j) and (l) ofthe regulations governing eligibility for access to classified material. With respect to Criteria (h) and (j), theOperations Office finds that the individual was evaluated by a DOE Consultant Psychiatrist, and that in a May 14,2002 report this psychiatrist indicated his opinion that the individual suffers from Alcohol Dependence in early fullremission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The Operations Office also finds that the individual’s alcoholism is a mental condition which in the opinion of the DOE Consultant Psychiatrist, causes, ormay cause, a significant defect in the judgment or reliability of the individual.With respect to Criterion (l), the Operations Office cites certain information as indicating that the individualengaged in unusual conduct. Specifically, the Operations Office refers to the individual’s admission that he wasarrested on July 11, 2001, for Larceny, and that this incident occurred while- 2 -1/ However, the individual does contest one piece of information provided by the DOE to the DOE Consultant Psychiatrist and cited in his Report. This Report states that “the subject had an alcoholrelated arrest that was resolved in a September 17, 1992 review.” The individual contends that he had no alcohol related arrests prior to the July 2001 arrest for larceny. According to the DOECounsel, the reference to the alleged 1992 arrest appeared in an OPM background investigation of the individual conducted several years ago, and that more recent background checks do no tinclude this arrest. Hearing Transcript (hereinafter “TR”) at 35. He also stated that due to there moteness in time of this alleged arrest, it was not of concern to the DOE. TR at 20. In histestimony, the DOE Consultant Psychiatrist stated that although he considered the alleged 1992 arrest in making his diagnosis, its absence would not have changed the diagnosis of alcohol dependence and early full remission. TR at 34. Under these circumstances, I will not consider the alleged 1992 arrest in making my determination in this matter.he was intoxicated. The Operations Office also finds that just prior to this incident, the individual admits to havingoperated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
Kent S. Woods - Hearing Officer