Personnel Security Decision  (10 CFR Part 710)

On February 12, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which she concluded that the DOE should not restore an individual’s suspended DOE access authorization.  A DOE Operations Office referred the individual to administrative review citing as security concerns the individual’s purported pattern of financial irresponsibility, as well as his omission of certain required information on a security questionnaire.  After conducting a hearing, convened at the individual’s request, and evaluating all relevant evidence, the AJ concluded that the individual sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by his omissions on the security questionnaire.  In that regard, the AJ found that the individual’s omissions were not intentional, but rather were attributable to a lack of awareness of the state of his finances at the time he completed the form and carelessness in ensuring he had the necessary information to complete the form, and the omissions were unlikely to recur in the future.  However, the AJ further determined that the individual had not resolved the security concerns raised by his pattern of financial irresponsibility.  In this regard, the AJ found that, although the individual had made progress in righting his finances, he remained in a precarious financial position as of the date of the hearing.  Therefore, the AJ was unable to conclude that the individual’s financial difficulties were in the past and unlikely to recur such that they did not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment.  Accordingly, the AJ found that the DOE should not restore the individual’s suspended security clearance.  OHA Case No. PSH-14-0102 (Diane DeMoura)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On February 9, 2015, OHA issued a decision denying an Appeal from a FOIA determination issued by the DOE Office of Information Resources (OIR).  In the Appeal, Alon Refining Krotz Springs Inc. (Alon), challenged an OIR determination withholding portions of Alon’s request for documents relating to its July 19, 2011, and April 3, 2013, petitions for hardship relief under 40 C.F.R. § 80.1441 of the renewable fuel standard (RFS).  Specifically OIR cited the deliberative process privilege as justifying the invocation of FOIA Exemption 5. Upon an examination of the withheld material, OHA determined that it was predecisional and deliberative in nature, in that it was generated prior to a decision on Alon’s petitions, and reflected the give-and-take of the deliberative process. As such, the redacted material was covered by the deliberative process privilege and Exemption 5. OHA consequently affirmed OIR’s use of Exemption 5 to withhold the redacted information.  OHA Case No. FIA-15-0002