Summary of Decisions - June 17, 2024 - June 21, 2024

Hydroelectric Appeal (HEA)

Appeal Denied, Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectricity Incentives Program

On June 21, 2024, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision denying two appeals by Portland General Electric (PGE) relating to the Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectricity Incentives Program (Program) authorized by Section 247 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DOE denied two applications by PGE for incentive payments under the Program because the projects in question required approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC) and PGE had not provided documentation of FERC authorization. PGE argued that it was in the process of obtaining FERC authorization for one project, and that it obtained FERC approval for the second project after submitting its application to the Program. OHA concluded that DOE had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the applications, and therefore denied the appeals. ( OHA Case No. HEA-24-0072)

Appeal Denied, Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectricity Incentives Program

On June 21, 2024, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision denying two appeals by Portland General Electric (PGE) relating to the Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectricity Incentives Program (Program) authorized by Section 247 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DOE denied two applications by PGE for incentive payments under the Program because the projects in question required approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC) and PGE had not provided documentation of FERC authorization. PGE argued that it was in the process of obtaining FERC authorization for one project, and that it obtained FERC approval for the second project after submitting its application to the Program. OHA concluded that DOE had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the applications, and therefore denied the appeals. ( OHA Case No. HEA-24-0074)

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Denied; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On June 21, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In October 2023, the Individual was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). At that time, his blood alcohol concentration registered at .10. He admitted that he consumed alcohol prior to driving. After the DWI, the Local Security Office sent the Individual for an evaluation with a DOE-consulting Psychologist (DOE Psychologist). In his December 2023 report, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual drinks habitually and binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgement regularly. He recommended that the Individual stop consuming alcohol immediately, attend a weekly substance abuse treatment program from a licensed provider for twelve weeks, attend a relapse prevention group twice a month for three months after completing the treatment program, and attend the same program monthly for another six months . The DOE Psychologist also recommended that the Individual attend either Alcoholics Anonymous ( AA) or SMART Recovery and work to progress in one of those programs.  At the hearing, the Individual and his father testified that he stopped consuming alcohol on March 13, 2024, and he had been attending AA twice a week since March 2024. The DOE Psychologist testified that he had not seen adequate evidence of reformation or rehabilitation from the Individual. He opined that the Individual's prognosis is fair and that he does not believe the Individual had an adequate understanding of the problems alcohol had caused in his life.  Accordingly, the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he had resolved the security concerns arising under Guideline G. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0070, Fishman)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct)

On June 21, 2024, 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. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information. Regarding the Guideline E allegations, the LSO learned that the Individual withheld information pertaining to his drug use within the past seven years from the QNSP . At the hearing, the Individual disclosed that he knew that he had withheld the requested information, that he decided to disclose the information to the investigator prior to being confronted, that he knew that his cohabitant had personal knowledge of his last use, and that he had withheld the information because he was concerned that it would place his employment in jeopardy. The Individual failed to mitigate the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factors (a) and (c). (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0079, Rahimzadeh)

Access Authorization not Restored; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

On June 21, 2024, 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 her to hold a security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information. Although the Individual was able to mitigate some of the stated concerns, as she was able to show that she had paid some of the accounts in full and that she had a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of some of the stated past -due debts, the Individual was not able to mitigate all of the stated concerns. The Administrative Judge could not conclude that she acted responsibly in the face of alleged financial hardship. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0091, Rahimzadeh)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

On June 18, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires possession of access authorization. The Local Security Office (LSO) received derogatory information regarding the Individual's failure to file his federal income tax returns for tax years 1998 through 2022, and his failure to file his state income tax returns for tax years 1999 through 2022. After a hearing, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline F security concerns because the Individual failed to demonstrate that he made arrangements with the appropriate tax authorities to file his delinquent tax returns. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0068, Thompson III)

Access Authorization Denied; Guideline E (Personal Conduct); Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Abuse); Guideline J (Criminal Conduct); Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

On June 20, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be denied. The Individual is seeking employment with a DOE contractor in a position that requires a security clearance. In January 2023, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) and revealed concerning information related to his employment history, illegal drug use, alcohol use, and finances. In May 2023, the Individual underwent an Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI), and in August 2023, the Individual completed a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) in which he provided further information about each of these topics. In October 2023, the Individual underwent an evaluation with a DOE-consultant psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist). The Individual provided inconsistent information through the investigative process. At the hearing, the Individual did not present any evidence aside from his own testimony, which the Administrative Judge found to lack credibility. Due to the credibility concerns and the lack of evidence to mitigate the security concerns, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not mitigated the Guideline E, H, J, or F security concerns, and she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0110, Quintana)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption); Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On June 21, 2024, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Local Security Office suspended the Individual's security clearance after it determined that the Individual had been diagnosed as meeting the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate Severity, and that he had been arrested and charged with Domestic Violence and Resisting Arrest after becoming intoxicated.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guidelines G and J. The AJ also determined that the Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline G and J security concerns. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored.  (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0056, Thompson III)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline I ( Psychological Conditions)

On June 21, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's personal conduct and psychological state. Although the record indicates that the Individual engaged a therapist per the DOE Psychologist's recommendations, the Individual failed to mitigate the stated Guideline I concerns. As the LSO alleged the same disruptive behavior under Guideline E, the security concerns presented by the Individual's behavior were address under Guideline I and not Guideline E. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0060, Rahimzadeh)