On January 19, 2023, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual should not have his access authorization restored 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) discovered information regarding the Individual that included numerous allegations of harassment and abuse, which resulted in eight separate Orders of Protection filed against the Individual. Based on the information the LSO gathered regarding the various filings, the LSO informed the Individual that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance because the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline J of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined the following. The LSO appropriately invoked Guideline J by listing the several petitions for and orders of protection filed against the Individual by different individuals from 2009 through 2021. The AJ also concluded that the Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns for the following reasons. First, the most recent order for protection was issued approximately a year and a half before the hearing date, and it expired four months before the hearing. Relatively little time had elapsed since then, especially considering the Individual's record of being accused every few years of engaging in criminal conduct toward individuals with whom he has a relationship. Given the repeated nature of the allegations, the evidence in the record did not demonstrate that the criminal conduct arose from unusual circumstances such that it was unlikely to recur. The record did not demonstrate successful rehabilitation because the record did not contain evidence of restitution, job training or higher education, or significant constructive community involvement; and the above findings substantially outweighed the impact of the Individual's reported good work performance and his compliance with the terms of the most recent order for protection. Second, the record did not include evidence that established that the Individual was pressured or coerced into committing the instances of conduct listed by the LSO. Third, the record contained several allegations, from multiple sources, that the Individual engaged in abusive, harassing, and threatening behavior. The number, frequency, and similar nature of the allegations against the Individual weighed in favor of finding that there was reliable evidence that he committed the underlying acts despite his excuses and explanations. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline J security concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0006, Thompson)