On March 29, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The Individual is employed as a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. During the period in question, the Individual held a security clearance. In three Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) the Individual any use of illegal drugs. Additionally, In two of the QNSPs the Individual failed to disclose that he was involved in an automobile accident where he had been driving impaired by using alcohol. When these facts were eventually revealed by the Individual, he asserted to officials interviewing him that the omissions were due to oversights in completing the forms and his belief that since he had not been cited for an alcohol -related offense, he was not required to reveal the fact his accident involved his use of alcohol.
When applying for a position at DOE and to his security clearance to be continued at DOE the Individual admitted in 2021 that he did bit reveal his drug use because he thought it would affect his chances of getting the DOE position. Regarding Guideline E, the Administrative Judge found that only one of the mitigating facts listed in the Adjudicatory Guidelines was applicable to the Individual and that factor was outweighed by the fact that the Individual held a security clearance for three years yet did not reveal the information in question and the fact that the Individual provided several somewhat conflicting reasons for his failure to reveal the information. Given the need for complete candor in the security clearance process, along with the other evidence in the record, the Administrative Judge could not find that the Individual had resolved the Guideline E concerns.
Regarding the Guideline H concerns, the record indicated that the Individual had used marijuana only on a limited number of occasions and that his last use had occurred over six years ago . Consequently, the Administrative Judge found that the Guideline H security concern raised by the Individual's use of marijuana had been resolved. Nonetheless, given the fact that the Guideline E concerns had not been resolved, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual's security clearance should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0048, Cronin)