PSH-22-0121 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On October 28, 2022, an Administrative Jude determined that the Individual's access authorization should be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold a security clearance to carry out specific work tasks. the Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's personal conduct. The LSO alleged that the Individual the LSO alleged that in the February 2022 QNSP, the Individual stated that she had not used any illicit substances, but it was revealed during the March 2022 ESI that she had ingested marijuana in July 2021 and that she had been less than forthcoming about this incident because she was embarrassed by the event. The LSO further alleged that although the Individual had stated in her QNSP that she had not purchased any illicit substances in the past seven years, she stated during the ESI that she had purchased "a ten pack of edible marijuana products in July 2021[,]" and that she had failed to disclose this on her QNSP due to feelings of embarrassment.

The Individual and her boyfriend testified at the hearing. While there was no doubt that the Individual was required to list her use of edibles containing THC on the QNSP, the Administrative Judge found the Individual's testimony credible on her explanation for the listing omission and the subsequent disclosure. As the Individual testified, the purchase and consumption of the substance at issue here were legal in the state she was visiting, leading her to erroneously believe that this act was not illegal . Further, the negative feelings she testified she associated with the incident -- and the fact that her lifestyle before and after the incident excluded such use -- resulted in her failing to remember the act . She credibly testified that once she was in a "face-to-face" conversation with the OPM investigator and he directly asked the question of past drug use to her, she remembered the noted incident and immediately disclosed the matter to him.

The Individual testified that during her interview with the OPM investigator, who specifically asked her about any illicit substance use within the past seven years, she voluntarily disclosed the information without first being confronted with any facts. Five days after the Individual's interview with the OPM investigator, the Individual's boyfriend, who was privy to the particulars of the incident, was interviewed by an OPM investigator and disclosed the same incident. The Individual's boyfriend, who was honest with the OPM investigator, provided no indication in his testimony that he had discussed the incident with the Individual prior to either his or her interview and revealed to her that he intended to disclose the matter to investigator. Importantly, the Individual's statements at the hearing were corroborated by her boyfriend's testimony. The Administrative Judge found that that the Individual had mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to the mitigating factor at ¶ 17(a). (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0121, Rahimzadeh)