Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On November 6, 2014, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual should not be granted a security clearance.  In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns under Criteria H and J.  Specifically, the Administrative Judge concluded that the individual had not mitigated the DOE’s concerns regarding his use of alcohol, which included frequent intoxication and had resulted in two alcohol-related arrests.  These facts led a DOE psychologist to conclude that the individual consumed alcohol habitually to excess, to a degree that causes or may cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability.  Although the individual had recently begun complying with the DOE psychologist’s recommendations for rehabilitation, the duration of his abstinence and treatment fell far short of the recommended full year of rehabilitation.  OHA Case No. PSH-14-0074 (William M. Schwartz)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On November 7,  2014, OHA issued a decision granting an Appeal filed by Great Lakes Wind Truth (the Appellant) of a determination that the DOE’s Golden Field Office issued to it regarding the Appellant’s September 2014 FOIA request.  In its determination, GO identified and released various documents responsive to the Appellant’s request, withholding some in their entirety, releasing others in their entirety, and withholding portions of the remaining documents, pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3, 4, 5, and 6.  In its Appeal, the Appellant challenged the applicability of Exemptions 4 and 5 to two specific documents.  Upon review of the documents, OHA concluded that GO did not provide an adequate determination with respect to the two documents at issue.  Specifically, GO marked every page of the two documents as “Redacted Exemption 4” and “Redacted Exemption 5” without indicating which exemption applied to which portions of the withheld information.  OHA determined that the matter should be remanded to GO.  On remand, GO should issue another determination with respect to the two documents at issue informing the Appellant which specific portions of the documents it withheld pursuant to Exemption 4 and which it withheld pursuant to Exemption 5, and explaining how each exemption applies to the withheld information.  OHA Case No. FIA-14-0066

Contractor Employee (“Whistleblower”) Protection Program (10 CFR Part 708)

On November 3, 2014, OHA issued a decision denying a jurisdictional appeal filed by Dr. Paul M. Cole, Ph.D (Dr. Cole), a former Oak Ridge Institute for Science Education (ORISE) fellow at the Department of Defense Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.  Dr. Cole appealed the Oak Ridge Office, Employee Concerns (EC) Manager’s September 30, 2014, dismissal of a whistleblower complaint that he filed under 10 CFR Part 708, the DOE Contractor Employee Protection Program.  OHA upheld the EC Manager’s dismissal of Dr. Cole’s Complaint after finding that Dr. Cole did not meet the regulatory definition of “an employee” because he was not performing work directly related to activities at a DOE-owned or -leased facility.  Accordingly, the OHA found that DOE has no jurisdiction over his Complaint.    OHA Case No. WBU-14-0011