PSH-17-0087 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 6, 2018, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored. To support the Guideline E security concerns, the Local Security Office (LSO) relied upon the individual’s omission from his 2015 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) that he had illegally purchased and used two Schedule IV controlled substances.  Also, the LSO relied upon the individual’s omission from his 1998, 2004, 2010, and 2015 QNSPs that he consulted with a healthcare professional regarding his anxiety and depression.  In addition, the LSO relied on the individual’s desire to hide his drug purchases from his wife.  To support the Guideline H and Bond Amendment security concerns, the LSO relied upon the individual’s diagnosis by a DOE psychologist that the individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for Opioid Use Disorder, mild, in early remission, and Sedative, Hypnotic or Anxiolytic Use Disorder (Anxiolytic Use Disorder), mild, in early remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.  The LSO also relied on the individual’s purchase and use of two controlled substances from a foreign online pharmacy without a prescription, which he knew was illegal, along with his transport of one of the drugs on a federal facility and finally that the individual violated his 1988 drug certification.    To support the Guideline J security concerns, the LSO raised the individual’s illegal purchase and use of the two controlled substances, along with his transport on a federal facility.  After carefully considering the totality of the record, the Administrative Judge found that the individual’s clearance should not be restored.  The individual did not mitigate the concerns raised under Guideline E regarding his omissions from his QNSPs.  As to the concerns raised under Guidelines H and J and the Bond Amendment, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had mitigated the concern raised by the opinion of the DOE psychologist he was suffering from Opioid Use Disorder, mild, and Anxiolytic Use Disorder, mild.  Both the DOE psychiatrist and the individual’s psychiatrist opined that the individual was rehabilitated and reformed from his diagnoses.  Because the individual was rehabilitated and reformed and the remaining security concerns arose from his illegal drug use, which ceased a year prior to the hearing, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had mitigated the concerns arising under the Bond Amendment and Guidelines H and J.  Consequently, based on all of the above, the Administrative Judge found that the individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-17-0087 (Janet R. H. Fishman).