Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On May 11, 2015, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored. OPM investigators discovered during a periodic reinvestigation of the individual that he had stolen money from a Sports Venue where he worked part-time (outside of the DOE complex). The individual acknowledged during an interview with the LSO that he had stolen cash on at least four occasions from the Sports Venue in retaliation for management changes in the workplace environment, in an amount aggregating $540. The LSO suspended the individual’s access authorization citing Criterion L. Subsequently, the individual was charged with two misdemeanors and one felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to the felony, the misdemeanors were dismissed, he was ordered to pay $1035 in restitution to the Sports Venue and he was placed on probation for three years. In mitigation of the security concerns, the individual primarily argued that his criminal behavior was the result of a testosterone implant that he received immediately preceding his thefts. The Administrative Judge found such argument was speculative and insufficient to remove doubt. Further, the Administrative Judge noted that several inconsistencies in the individual’s account of the thefts further evidenced the individual’s unreliability and untrustworthiness. OHA Case No. PSH-14-0109 (Wade M. Boswell)

On May 14, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he concluded that the DOE should not restore an individual’s access authorization.  A DOE Operations Office referred the individual to administrative review, citing as security concerns under 10 CFR Part 710, paragraphs (f) and (k), the individual’s history of illegal drug involvement and conflicting statements about that involvement to the DOE. After conducting a hearing, convened at the individual’s request, and evaluating all relevant evidence, the AJ concluded that the criterion (k) drug involvement concerns had been mitigated by the passage of time and the individual’s changed life circumstances, but that the frequency and recency of his falsifications outweighed the mitigating information offered by the individual. Therefore, the AJ found that significant security concerns under criterion (f) remained unresolved, and that the DOE should not restore the individual’s security clearance.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0013 (Robert B. Palmer)