Summary of Decisions - April 19, 2021 - April 23, 2021

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH) 

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On April 19, 2021, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be restored. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol consumption. Under Guideline G, the LSO alleged that (1) the DOE Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Mild, in early remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation; (2) the Individual was charged with three counts of Aggravated Assault and one count of Reckless Endangerment, and according to the Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) the Individual stated he had consumed approximately ten to twelve beers and was intoxicated at the time of the incident.

At the hearing, the witnesses testified, who either are or were involved in the Individual's recovery, to the Individual's strong participation in an aftercare program and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. The Individual's AA sponsor confirmed that the Individual is working on steps ten through twelve of the program. The record established that the Individual enrolled in an intensive outpatient treatment program in June 2019, completed an aftercare program in August 2019, repeatedly tested negative for alcohol and other illicit substances, and faithfully attended AA meetings, despite the ongoing pandemic. Both the Individual's Psychologist and the DOE Psychiatrist provided the opinion that the Individual has been reformed or rehabilitated. The Individual's Psychologist noted that the Individual has internalized the principles of AA, and that he has complied with all treatment recommendations.

Based on credible testimony from lay witnesses, the Individual, and two experts, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had mitigated all security concerns stated in the Notification Letter. The Administrative Judge therefore concludes that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-21-0014 (Janet Fishman)

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct)

On April 23, 2021, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in which he represented that he had resigned from a position with a municipal government agency (the Former Employer) because he "joined the union." The Individual denied having left any previous employer in the seven years prior to completing the QNSP by mutual agreement following allegations of misconduct. During an interview conducted as part of a background investigation by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Individual represented that he had "no issues" while employed by the Former Employer and was eligible for rehire.

However, OPM's background investigation revealed that the Individual had resigned his position with the Former Employer after the Former Employer confronted him about financial mismanagement of his department, including writing checks to himself and to "cash," and that he was not eligible for rehire. The OPM background investigation also discovered that the Former Employer had discovered pornographic material on the Individual's work computer after he resigned, including graphic images of the Individual and women with whom he was communicating online. In a second interview with an OPM investigator, the Individual asserted that he did not believe that he was required to identify the investigation of financial mismanagement as the basis for his resignation because he was never disciplined by the Former Employer and attributed his resignation to dissatisfaction with the working environment and his desire to obtain a better position. The Individual told the OPM investigator that he had not violated the Former Employer's IT policies and that the pornographic material discovered on his work computer was attributable to prior users and unsolicited photos he received from women. In response to a letter of interrogatory issued to him by the local security office, the Individual admitted that the investigation of his financial irregularities was "a big factor" in his decision to resign from the Former Employer and that he was responsible for the pornographic material found on his work computer.

At the hearing, the Individual renewed his assertion that he had not intended to mislead the OPM investigator and that he had left his position with the Former Employer for numerous reasons besides the investigation of his financial management. Additionally, the Individual attributed his exchanging pornographic images via his work computer to mistakes in his personal life and represented that the conduct would not recur because of counseling and changes to his behavior. The Individual offered the testimony of a friend, a church associate, and a Licensed Professional Counselor to show that he was an honest and trustworthy person who would not have intentionally mishandled the Former Employer's finances and that he had made changes to his life so that he would not pursue extra-marital sexual communications in the future. However, none of the Individual's witnesses displayed a full understanding of the Individual's alleged misconduct. The Administrative Judge found the Individual's assertion that he had resigned from the Former Employer for multiple reasons, and had not intended to hide the investigation of his financial mismanagement, was evasive and indicative that the Individual had not mitigated the security concerns under Guideline E related to his honesty. Moreover, the Administrative Judge noted that the Individual had not disclosed his omissions until confronted with the facts and that his misconduct was significant and likely to recur. Therefore, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not mitigated the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline E and that he should not be granted access authorization. OHA Case No. PSH-21-0018 (Steven L. Fine).