Summary of Decisions - December 04, 2023 - December 08, 2023

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) On December 4, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. In September 2022, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions in which he misstated why he had previously been denied a security clearance and failed to report previous alcohol -related diagnosis and treatment. He was subsequently diagnosed with an Alcohol Use Disorder by a DOE Psychologist. At the hearing, the Individual testified that his omissions from his QNSP were due to the fact that he did not recall the events in question. He also disputed the DOE Psychologist's diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder. He further admitted that he had not taken any steps to attempt to mitigate these concerns. The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual did not bring forth sufficient evidence to mitigate the Guideline E and Guideline G concerns. Accordingly, he concluded that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0109, Cronin)

Access Authorization denied; Guideline G On December 4, 2023, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted. The Individual had a history of five alcohol-related arrests. A DOE Psychologist also found that the Individual had been binge consuming alcohol to an extent that his judgment was impaired. The AJ found that the Individual had only showed that he had been abstaining from alcohol use for a period of five months and that that period of remission was not sufficient to show that the Individual had mitigated the concerns arising the Individual's five alcohol-related arrests and his use of alcohol . The AJ therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. ( OHA Case No. PSH-23-0127, Fine)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline I ( Psychological Conditions), Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) On December 4, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's personal conduct, psychological conditions, and drug involvement. Regarding the Guideline E allegations, the LSO alleged that the Individual made a number of omissions on his 2020 and 2021 QNSPs and engaged in conduct that demonstrate a pattern of rule violations and dishonesty. Regarding the Guideline I allegations, the LSO alleged that the Individual received inpatient mental health treatment in 2018, was taken to a hospital for treatment in 2008, and that a DOE Psychologist recommended twelve weeks of therapy . Regarding the Guideline H allegations, the LSO alleged that the Individual disclosed in 2018 that he smokes marijuana on the weekends and tested positive for the substance. At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf and a DOE Psychiatrist testified for the agency. The Individual provided various reasons for the omissions, stating among other things, that another person completed his 2021 QNSP on his behalf. He denied the current use of drugs but did not provide any evidence to corroborate his testimony. Finally, the Individual had a history of noncompliance with medical treatment, a history of alleged threats of suicide involving firearms, and mental health diagnoses in 2018. Although the Individual was receiving individual therapy, the Administrative Judge could not be reassured that he would comply with current treatment recommendations. The Individual failed to mitigate the stated concerns (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0132, Rahimzadeh)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) On December 8, 2023, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization should be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) suspended the Individual's security clearance after it discovered that he had been charged with a Battery Against a Household Member in October 2022 after consuming alcohol and a DOE consultant -psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, in early remission. At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined the LSO appropriately invoked Guidelines G and that the Individual put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline G concerns. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-23- 0106, Thompson) (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0106, Thompson III)

Access Authorization granted, Guidelines G and J On December 8, 2023, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be restored. The Individual A DOE Psychologist found that the Individual had met the DSM -5 criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe (AUD). In addition, the Individual had been arrested for Domestic Violence after an incident had occurred while the Individual was severely intoxicated. In addition to his arrest, a local social services agency that had investigated the incident had found that the Individual was responsible for an incident of child abuse or neglect. The AJ found that the Individual had showed that he had been abstaining from alcohol use for a period of ten months, had attended an Intensive Outpatient program, received individual counseling, and obtained Psychiatric treatment for his AUD. The Individual had also attended domestic violence education classes. The AJ found that the incident had resulted from the Individual's extreme intoxication at the time that the incident occurred. The AJ therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0126, Fine)