Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On September 29, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s request for a DOE access authorization should be granted.  The local security office had alleged that the individual’s marriage to an undocumented immigrant for a non-sensitive nation constituted criminal activity and association with a criminal.  Citing Federal court precedent, the Administrative Judge found that, as a general rule, it is not a crime for an undocumented immigrant to remain in the United States, and that cohabitating with an undocumented immigrant does not constitute criminal conduct.  Further, since the individual’s husband is making efforts to acquire legal residence, the Administrative Judge determined that the individual’s cohabitation with him did not raise significant concerns regarding her honesty, reliability and trustworthiness.  Therefore, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the security concerns raised by DOE.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0058 (Steven L. Fine)

On October 2, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he concluded that the DOE should not restore access authorization to an individual. A DOE Operations Office referred the individual to administrative review citing as security concerns under 10 C.F.R. § 710.8, paragraph (l) the individual’s failure to provide complete and truthful answers during a Personnel Security Interview regarding his 2014 arrest on five counts of Harassment. After conducting a hearing, convened at the individual’s request, and evaluating all relevant evidence, the AJ concluded that the individual’s statements during the PSI about the incidents in question were inconsistent with the police reports submitted into evidence by the DOE, and that serious security concerns remained about his falsification and illegal behavior. Therefore, the AJ found that the DOE should not restore the individual’s security clearance.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0054 (Robert B. Palmer)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On October 1, 2015, OHA denied a FOIA Appeal filed by Michael Isikoff (Appellant) from an interim response issued to him by the DOE’s Office of Information Resources. In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the denial of his request for expedited processing. In support of his expedited processing request, the Appellant contended that there existed an urgency to inform the public because the subject of his FOIA request related to a potential issue in the presidential election. OHA found, however, that the Appellant had not established an urgency to inform the public and therefore denied the Appeal. OHA Case No. FIA-15-0053