Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On April 7, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual should not be granted access authorization. During a background investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) obtained information about the individual’s finances that raised security concerns. Specifically, the LSO learned that the individual owed over $15,000 in unpaid federal taxes and over $20,000 in delinquent debt. At the hearing, the individual claimed that his difficulties were due primarily to periods of unemployment and under-employment. After reviewing this testimony and the record as a whole, the Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the individual had also engaged in irresponsible behavior that had contributed significantly to his financial problems. The AJ also concluded that the individual had not established a pattern of responsible financial behavior that was sufficient to resolve the DOE’s security concerns. Specifically, he concluded that the individual had failed to make any significant progress regarding his indebtedness. Consequently, he concluded that the individual had not successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns regarding his finances.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0102 (Robert B. Palmer)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeals

On April 4, 2016, OHA granted in part and denied in part a FOIA Appeal filed by Wynship Hillier from a determination issued by the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged whether the website to which NNSA directed him contained the entire requested document. OHA found that NNSA properly directed the Appellant to the requested document in the public domain, but that it did not properly identify and justify withholding certain information from the responsive document. OHA Case No. FIA-16-0022 

On April 4, 2016, OHA issued a decision denying a FOIA Appeal filed by Alex Wellerstein, from a determination issued to him by the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration. In his Appeal, Dr. Wellerstein challenged the DOE’s use of FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6 to withhold information from six documents it found to be responsive to his FOIA request.  Because Exemption 3 was applied to withhold classified information, the Appeal was referred to the Office of Classification for processing.  That Office reviewed the withheld information and provided a report to OHA in which it continued to withhold the previously redacted information.  It explained that the Office of Classification had determined that Exemption 3 continued to apply to the information withheld under that exemption since it was properly classified, under current classification guidelines, as Secret Restricted Data under the Atomic Energy Act.  On the basis of the report provided, OHA upheld the earlier determination to withhold portions of the requested document and denied the Appeal.  OHA Case No. FIC-15-0005 

On April 7, 2016, OHA issued a decision granting in part a FOIA Appeal filed by the National Security Archive from a determination issued to it by the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In its Appeal, the National Security Archive challenged the DOE’s use of FOIA Exemptions 1 and 5 to withhold information from a document it found to be responsive to the FOIA request.  Because Exemption 1 was applied to withhold classified information, the Appeal was referred to the Office of Classification for processing.  That Office reviewed the withheld information and provided a report to OHA in which it continued to withhold much of the previously redacted information but determined that some of the previously withheld material did not fall within that exemption.  It explained that it had determined that Exemption 1 continued to apply to most of the information withheld under that exemption, as it was properly classified as National Security Information (NSI) under Executive Order 13526.  On the basis of the report provided, OHA upheld the earlier determination regarding those portions of the requested document currently determined to be NSI.  OHA also remanded to NNSA those portions of the document that were determined no longer to be covered by Exemption 1 for a new determination as to whether they may be released or should be withheld under a different provision of the FOIA.  OHA Case No. FIC-16-0002