The individual is employed by a DOE contractor, and was granted a security clearance in connection with that employment. During a routine re-investigation of the individual, the local security office (LSO) obtained information that raised security concerns. To address those concerns, the LSO summoned the individual for an interview with a personnel security specialist in July 2014. After this Personnel Security Interview (PSI) failed to resolve the concerns, the LSO determined that derogatory information existed that cast into doubt the individual’s eligibility for access authorization.
On January 30, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be restored. The individual voluntarily entered a 30-day residential program for alcohol treatment following an “intervention” coordinated by his wife. Upon his release from the treatment facility, the LSO referred the individual to a DOE consulting psychologist for evaluation.
On January 29, 2013, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should be granted. The LSO had alleged that the individual had 12 outstanding collection accounts totaling $3,815, had two properties foreclosed upon, had a negative cash flow, and had not contacted any of her creditors regarding her 12 delinquent accounts.
On January 23, 2013, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be granted. The LSO had alleged that the Individual (1) is married to an undocumented alien; (2) continues to associate with his in-laws, who are also undocumented aliens; (3) has attempted to conceal these facts by answering “no comment” when asked about his wife and in-laws’ immigration status during a background interview, and (4) is currently in possession of an active passport issued by a foreign country, which may indicate that he has a p
On December 31, 2014, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored. Following the individual’s employer receipt of a garnishment notice from the IRS with respect to the individual, the LSO reviewed the individual’s security file which revealed a history of financial issues and questionable disclosure.
On December 23 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Decision in which she concluded that the DOE should not restore an individual’s access authorization. A DOE Operations Office referred the individual to administrative review under 10 C.F.R. Part 710, citing as security concerns under 10 C.F.R.
On December 23, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be restored. The LSO suspended an individual’s access authorization for falsification on a QNSP (Criterion F) and for financial irresponsibility (e.g., delinquent debt, collection debt, charge-off debt, lien on residence for non-payment of homeowner association fees and non-payment of federal income taxes for 2011 and 2012) (Criterion L).
The following facts are undisputed. The individual’s employer, a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, requested a security clearance on the individual’s behalf. In response to that request, the local security office (LSO) conducted an investigation of the individual. During the course of that investigation, the LSO obtained information about the individual that raised security concerns. In order to resolve these concerns, the LSO summoned the individual for an interview (PSI) with a personnel security specialist in January 2014.
On December 4, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a Decision in which she determined that an Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns arising from his alcohol use and diagnosis by a DOE psychologist that he suffered from alcohol use disorder, mild. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he continues to consume alcohol, having two beers the evening prior to the hearing, consuming six to ten beers a week, and having been intoxicated three m
On December 2, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Decision in which he concluded that the DOE should not grant an individual access authorization. After conducting a hearing, convened at the individual’s request, and evaluating all relevant evidence, the AJ concluded that the individual had not mitigated the security concerns raised under the Bond Amendment (50 U.S.C. § 3343) regarding his criminal convictions and incarceration.