Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security - Exception for Reconsideration
Office of Hearings and Appeals
April 5, 2024
minute read time
Exception for Reconsideration (EXR)
On April 4, 2024, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision denying a Motion for Reconsideration (Motion) of a Decision and Order ( Decision) denying an application by E.L. Foust Co. for exception relief from the applicable provisions of the Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners (Final Rule) published on April 11, 2023, at 88 Fed. Reg. 21,752, and the energy conservation standards applicable to air cleaners codified at 10 C.F.R. § 430.32(ee). In it Motion, E.L. Foust Co. asserted that OHA erred because it failed to consider statements about the potential financial harm to the company, harm to consumers, and unintended consequences of the Final Rule that E.L. Foust provided in its Application. Following a review of the Motion and DOE's response, OHA found that there was no error in the Decision that materially impacted the outcome of the case. (OHA Case No. EXR-24-0001)
Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)
Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
On March 29, 2024, an Administrative Judge issued a decision stating that an Individual's security clearance should not be granted. The Individual had a history of alcohol -related arrests, including three arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol and two arrests for attempting to steal liquor from Walmart. A DOE-contractor psychologist (the Psychologist) diagnosed him with Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder and opined that he habitually or binge drank to intoxication. At the hearing, the Individual presented evidence that he had remained abstinent from alcohol for about three weeks in November and early December 2023 before relapsing. He testified that he had been abstinent for about three weeks by the date of the hearing and had attended two AA meetings in that time. The Psychologist opined that the Individual was not rehabilitated or reformed and had a poor to fair prognosis. The Administrative found that the Individual had not mitigated the Guideline G concerns and, therefore, his security clearance should not be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH24-0025, Martin)
Access Authorization Granted; Guideline I (Psychological Condition)
On April 1, 2024, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual should be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Local Security Office suspended the Individual application for security clearance after it discovered that he had been voluntarily hospitalized in 2020 and diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ( OCD), anxiety, and depression.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guideline I. The AJ also determined that the Individual put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline I security concerns. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0020, Thompson III)
Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
On April 2, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual signed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in connection with seeking access authorization. The Individual disclosed on the QNSP that he had been terminated by a former employer for time theft and disciplined by another former employer. A background investigation of the Individual revealed that he had failed to disclose on the QNSP that he left an internship under such circumstances that his manager did not recommend him for employment or access authorization, he was ineligible for rehire by another employer because he did not provide notice before resigning, and he had dropped out of a graduate studies program after approximately one month of attendance. At the hearing, the Individual acknowledged that he had acted wrongly in committing time theft, which he characterized as a relatively minor infraction, and testified that the other security concerns were based on good faith misunderstandings and circumstances that were unlikely to recur. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual's explanations for his conduct had not resolved the security concerns asserted by the local security office under Guideline E, and therefore determined that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0052, Harmonick)