PSH-24-0111 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On June 28, 2024, an Administrative Judge denied an Individual's access authorization.

The Individual was contacted on social media by a person claiming to be a famous actress. The profile picture was a picture of the actress and the person was familiar with the actress's movies so he assumed he was talking to the actual actress. He began an online romantic relationship with her . At the online person's request, the Individual sent her over $ 3,800 in money and gift cards using money from the bank account of a non-profit organization on whose board he served.

In December 2023, the Individual told another board member about his embezzlement; she immediately told the Individual's wife. An altercation ensued during which the Individual caused minor bodily harm to one of his children. The Individual was arrested and charged with Simple Assault and a temporary protection order was issued against the Individual, prohibiting him from having contact with his wife and two adult sons. The day that he was released from jail, the Individual called a manager at his workplace outside his chain of command and left him a voicemail telling him about the arrest, but he did not report the arrest to his supervisor or the Local Security Office (LSO) and did not complete the required reporting forms until confronted about his arrest by the LSO. He resisted completing the forms because he questioned whether the request was an email phishing scam, but eventually submitted the forms. He later admitted that he had been afraid that reporting his arrest could result in DOE learning about his embezzlement.

At the hearing, the Individual testified that he still was not sure who he had been talking to online but when asked did not rule out that it could have been the actress. He testified that he could not explain why he questioned the legitimacy of the LSO's email but sent thousands of dollars to a stranger online. He presented evidence that he had repaid the non -profit for the stolen money. As of the hearing, the protective orders were still in place.

The Administrative Judge found that the Individual's criminal issues were not resolved and found that the Individual's theft of funds and lack of candor were not unlikely to occur in the future. She found that the Individual's behavior still cast doubt on his judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability . Accordingly, the Administrative Judge denied the Individual's access authorization. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0111, Martin)