Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Personnel Security; access authorization restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On August 17, 2018, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual’s access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be restored. A background investigation on the Individual revealed that the Individual had failed to previously disclose that he participated in an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) in 2013 related to his excessive alcohol consumption.  A DOE consulting psychologist (DOE Psychologist) evaluated the Individual and diagnosed him with Alcohol Use Disorder, not yet in Sustained Remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Although the Individual progressively reduced his consumption of alcohol in the years following his participation in the IOP, and drank three (3) or fewer beers per month at the time of the psychological evaluation, the DOE Psychologist found that the Individual’s decision to drink alcohol despite it causing him physical pain due to gout and creating personal strife with his family supported her diagnosis. The Individual testified at the hearing that he accepted that he was an alcoholic, was completely abstinent from alcohol, was attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, had secured an AA sponsor, was engaged in counseling with a psychologist (Individual’s Psychologist) for his Alcohol Use Disorder, and was pursuing other health and wellness measures. The Individual’s Psychologist testified that the Individual was meeting treatment recommendations and that his prognosis was good. After observing the entire hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that she now believed that the Individual was rehabilitated and that his prognosis was good. The DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual had met all of her treatment recommendations, except for duration of abstinence from alcohol. While the Individual had not, as of the date of the hearing, completed the one (1) year of abstinence recommended by the DOE Psychologist, the DOE Psychologist opined that she took into account the Individual’s progressive reductions to his drinking in the years following his participation in the IOP. According to the DOE Psychologist, the Individual’s sustained commitment to reducing his drinking reduced the risk that he would return to problem drinking, and obviated the need for him to demonstrate a full year of abstinence. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual mitigated the security concerns asserted by the LSO. The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual’s access authorization should be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-18-0043 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman, 202-287-1499).

Personnel Security; access authorization granted; Guideline I (Psychological Conditions)

On August 14, 2018, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be granted. A background investigation on the Individual revealed that the Individual had a history of failing to meet his financial obligations and suffered from memory lapses and muscle tics as a result of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) stemming from his service in the U.S. Army. The Individual disclosed, during a personnel security interview conducted by the local security office, that he had incurred significant gambling losses.  A DOE consulting psychologist (DOE Psychologist) evaluated the Individual and concluded that the Individual's differing accounts of his gambling and physical and mental health, depending on the circumstances, reflected a lack of candor and formed a constellation of a personality condition which impaired his judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. The Individual offered the testimony of his own psychologist (Individual's Psychologist) at the hearing. The Individual's Psychologist opined that the Individual did not have a personality condition, and that his varying accounts of his PTSD symptoms were due to an escalation in symptoms after a series of traumatic events in the Individual's life followed by a reduction in symptoms after the Individual obtained treatment. The Individual also presented evidence establishing that some instances of lack of candor put forth by the DOE Psychologist in her report were the product of misunderstandings of the facts by the DOE Psychologist.

The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual's prior emotional instability was a temporary condition brought on by unique events in the Individual's life, that the situation had been resolved, and that there were no indications of a current problem. The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-18-0042 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman, 202-287-1499).

Personnel Security; access authorization restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On August 14, 2018, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be restored. In 2017, the Individual reported to the local security office (LSO) that he had been arrested and charged with Reckless Driving and Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUI). During a personnel security interview, the Individual disclosed that he had used illegal drugs in the past, described how he began drinking heavily after a breakup with a girlfriend in 2015, and admitted to having hired a prostitute while intoxicated. A DOE consulting psychologist (DOE Psychologist) evaluated the Individual and concluded that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild, in Early Remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and that the Individual was a habitual and binge consumer of alcohol. At the hearing, the Individual, acknowledged his Alcohol Use Disorder and explained that he believed he used alcohol to cope with depression. The Individual testified that he had abstained from alcohol for eleven (11) months, and described how counseling, AA meetings, and newfound support networks helped him to cope with depression through means other than alcohol. The Individual's friends, family, and new girlfriend testified as to his abstinence from alcohol and illegal drugs, and his positive attitude towards maintaining his sobriety. The Individual's Counselor testified that the Individual had completed counseling and that his prognosis was good. The Individual also offered the testimony of his own psychologist, who testified that the Individual's treatment regimen and improved network of supportive persons provided him with the resources to manage his drinking problem and that his prognosis was good. After observing the entire hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that he now believed that the Individual was rehabilitated and that his prognosis was good. The DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual had met all of his treatment recommendations, except for duration of abstinence from alcohol. While the Individual had not, as of the date of the hearing, completed the one (1) year of abstinence recommended by the DOE Psychologist, the DOE Psychologist testified that he nevertheless considered the Individual rehabilitated in light of the Individual's progress in addressing the causes of his drinking and development of a support network that would help him avoid returning to problem drinking. The Administrative Judge concluded that, in light of the testimony by the DOE Psychologist and other evidence in the record as to the Individual's rehabilitation from his alcohol problem, the Individual had mitigated the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline G. The Administrative Judge also concluded that the Individual mitigated the security concerns under Guideline J because his criminal conduct was largely the product of his alcohol consumption, and the Individual's progress in addressing his Alcohol Use Disorder made it unlikely that the Individual would engage in criminal conduct in the future. The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. OHA Case No.  PSH-18-0045 (Steven Fine, 202-287-1490).

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On August 14, 2018, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an Individual’s DOE access authorization should not be granted. To support invoking Guidelines E, F, I, and J, the Local Security Office cited (1) the Individual’s omission of relevant information from the criminal history and financial records section of his 2016 QNSP; (2) the Individual’s failure to file and pay personal and business taxes for multiple years and his numerous accounts turned over to collections; (3) a DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual’s anger and tendency to misrepresent his behaviors is a condition which may impair his judgment and reliability; and (4) the Individual’s lengthy criminal history, which includes warrants for non-payment of court fees. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he did not intend to make payments on his debt until he pays off his substantial tax liability, that he still has at least one outstanding bench warrant, and that he had only recently participated in a therapy intake session. When testifying about his criminal history and the omitted information from his QNSP, the Individual generally shifted the blame to others. At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that his diagnosis of the Individual had not changed upon hearing the testimony. The Administrative Judge also observed the Individual demonstrating the same characteristics the DOE Psychologist found concerning. After carefully considering the totality of the record, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns raised under any of the cited guidelines. More specifically, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual was not taking any steps to address his financial or outstanding criminal issues nor had he sought meaningful treatment as recommended by the DOE Psychologist. Because the Individual’s lack of candor on the QNSP related to his criminal history and financial issues, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns invoked under Guideline E, F, I,   or J. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual’s access authorization should not be granted.  OHA Case No. PSH-18-0046 (Brooke A. DuBois).