Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On January 15, 2015, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual's access authorization should not be restored.  During a personnel security interview in April 2014 and a credit report review, the Local Security Office (LSO) learned that the individual had a number of delinquent debts, charge-off accounts, collection accounts as well as unfiled state and Federal tax returns.  During the hearing, the individual acknowledged his delinquent debt and unfiled tax returns, but stated that his debt and tax issues stemmed from his partial divorce in 2009 which has not yet been finalized due to a child support dispute.  Specifically, with respect to his unfiled taxes, he explained that when he filed his taxes after his divorce, his refunds were garnished for back child support.  He further testified that he had planned to use his refund money toward paying down his debt, but rather got himself into more debt when his refunds were garnished.  The individual testified that he intends to file his taxes once his divorce decree is finalized and the child support dispute between him and his ex-wife is resolved.  Likewise, with respect to his delinquent debt, the individual testified that he will not know the portion of debt he owes until his divorce is finalized.  The Administrative Judge found that the individual did not present evidence to sufficiently resolve his financial problems because she was not convinced that the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.  Even though he did not know the exact amount of debt he would owe after his divorce is finalized, the individual had not contacted credit companies or attempted to make any partial payments.  With respect to his unfiled taxes, the Administrative Judge found the individual’s testimony that he did not understand his duty to file his taxes as required by law not to be credible.  Rather, she was convinced that the individual chose to not file his taxes or even for extensions simply because he wanted to avoid having his refunds garnished for back child support, which represented a disregard for the law.  Therefore, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not sufficiently resolved the Criterion L security concerns. OHA Case No. PSH-15-0074 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman)

On January 13, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that the individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  After the individual was arrested in January 2014 for a domestic violence offense, a Local Security Office (LSO) summoned the individual for a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) in April 2014.  After the PSI, the LSO referred the individual to a DOE psychologist for an agency-sponsored evaluation. The DOE psychologist concluded at that time that the individual did not manifest an alcohol use disorder and the individual was able to maintain his access authorization.  However, during the individual’s reinvestigation the next year, new information was received that caused the DOE psychologist to revise his assessment and conclude that the individual did have an alcohol use disorder.  While the individual presented the testimony of a chemical dependency professional who concluded that the individual did not have an alcohol use disorder, the Administrative Judge credited the DOE psychologist’s opinion as he adequately explained why he changed his diagnosis of the individual from his first assessment in 2014 – the individual resumed consuming alcohol despite his expressed commitment that he would abstain and there was new, damaging information about the individual’s alcohol use in police reports and interviews with neighbors that the DOE psychologist did not have when he previously met with the individual.  Considering that the individual did not meet the recommended length of abstinence, did not acknowledge his problems with alcohol, and displayed other significant issues with regard to his reliability and trustworthiness, the Administrative Judge found that the individual did not resolve the concerns regarding his alcohol consumption and concluded that his access authorization should not be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0071 (Shiwali Patel)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On January 11, 2015, OHA granted in part and denied in part a FOIA Appeal filed by Julie Reddick from a determination issued by the DOE Office of Information Resources (OIR). In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the redactions made in the responsive document under FOIA Exemption 4.  OHA found that the some of the redactions were inappropriate and remanded the document to OIR for a new determination.  OHA Case No. FIA-15-0067