The individual’s employer, a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, requested a security clearance on the individual’s behalf. The ensuing background investigation revealed information about the individual that raised security concerns. In an attempt to resolve those concerns, the local security office (LSO) summoned the individual for an interview with a personnel security specialist in December 2013.
On September 10, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored. During a periodic re-investigation of the individual, the LSO received information that the individual had several unresolved collection accounts and was delinquent in federal and state tax filings. The LSO suspended the individual’s access authorization due to security concerns arising under Criterion L.
On September 5, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual should not be granted access authorization. A Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns under Criterion I for his alcohol consumption and Criterion H for his mental health. The LSO subsequently referred the individual to meet with a psychiatrist for an examination. The DOE psychiatrist diagnosed the individual with alcohol abuse disorder and major depressive disorder. After conducting a hearing and evaluating the
On August 27, 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 financial irregularities. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he accumulated his outstanding debt and failed to file his Federal and state tax returns because his wife had several surgeries which led to her addiction to pain medication and failure to find employment. He stated that she l
On August 27, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Decision in which she concluded that the DOE should not restore an individual’s suspended DOE 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 August 1, 2014, an Administrative Judge issued a Decision in which he determined that an individual’s access authorization should be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved security concerns under Criteria F, J, H, and L regarding the Individual’s treatment for Alcohol Dependency and a falsification concerning illegal drug use contained in a 2011 Questionnaire for National Security Position (QNSP).
On August 1, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a Decision finding that the individual’s security clearance should be restored after determining that the documentary and testimonial evidence showed that the individual had demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation from her habitual use of alcohol to excess and her past pattern of alcohol abuse.
On July 30, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be not restored. A Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns regarding his financial irresponsibility. After the interview, the LSO cited to the individual for his: 1) outstanding federal and state tax debt totaling $70,105.08; 2) delinquent and unpaid debts totaling $370,280.04; 3) pattern of financial irresponsibility; and 4) failure to report his 2013 wage garnishment with the Internal Reve
On July 25, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that the DOE should not grant DOE access authorization to an individual. As security concerns under Criterion L of 10 CFR Part 710, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited the individual’s failure to file Federal and state tax returns for 2008 through 2012. The Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved these concerns. The individual explained that she had been unable to obtain documentation of her income in 2009 and 2010.