PSH-24-0065 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On May 21, 2024, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In completing his Questionnaire for Security Positions (QNSP) in 2021 and 2022, the Individual denied that he had outstanding, delinquent debts. At the time the Individual submitted his QNSP in 2021, the Local Security Office (LSO) discovered fourteen collection accounts listed on his credit report. And at the time the Individual submitted his QNSP in 2022, the LSO discovered eleven collection accounts listed on his credit report. Additionally, during the LSO's background investigation, the Individual's former supervisor and a coworker at a prior job stated derogatory information about his performance and attitude at a prior job. The Individual also admitted that he failed to list his employment at a prior job on both his 2021 and 2022 QNSPs. At the time the LSO issued the Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) to the Individual, three collection accounts remained on his credit report. The Individual's former work colleague testified that both herself and Individual had disagreements with management at a prior job, which may have skewed management's perception of him. The Individual and his wife testified that most collection accounts were the result of identity theft, he initiated a repayment plan for one debt, and paid the remaining the two. He also testified that he forgot to list his employment at a prior job on his QNSPs because it was not related to his career field or listed on his resume. The Individual mitigated the concerns under Guideline F, but not Guideline E. The Individual's lack of awareness regarding the collection accounts listed on his credit report at the time he submitted his 2021 and 2022 QNSPs was not a valid excuse, nor was his explanation that his employment at a prior job "slipped [his] mind" when he completed the QNSPs. Accordingly, the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he had resolved the security concerns arising under Guideline E. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0065, Fishman)