Summary of Decisions - August 23, 2021 - August 27, 2021

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Personnel Security; access authorization not granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct ) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On August 24, 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 2017 and disclosed that he was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) Causing Injury in 2014. The Individual was sentenced to a five-year probation pursuant to which he was ordered not to consume alcohol. In August 2018, during an interview with an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator, the Individual said that he had not consumed alcohol since his 2014 arrest for DUI. However, the Individual's wife revealed to an OPM investigator that he consumed alcohol to intoxication on a bi-monthly basis in violation of his probation. In a written submission to the local security office (LSO), the Individual admitted that he violated the terms of his probation by consuming alcohol, but represented that he only did so on special occasions and in moderation. The Individual met with a DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) for a clinical interview and the DOE Psychologist requested that the Individual undergo alcohol testing. Based on the results of the alcohol testing, as interpreted by a medical doctor, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual habitually consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and recommend that the Individual abstain from alcohol for twelve months and pursue treatment. At the hearing, the Individual's wife testified that the Individual consumed an average of two to three alcoholic drinks weekly, became intoxicated four or five times in the past year, and was last intoxicated approximately one month prior to the hearing. The Individual denied that he consumed alcohol to intoxication based on his personal definition of intoxication and represented that he only consumed alcohol on special occasions based on an expansive definition of "special occasion." A toxicologist retained by the Individual testified that the DOE Psychologist and medical doctor drew improper inferences from the alcohol testing and that the results were consistent with moderate alcohol consumption. A DOE expert on alcohol testing conceded that the toxicologist's interpretation of the alcohol testing was sound. The DOE Psychologist withdrew his opinion that the Individual habitually consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment based on the new information regarding the alcohol testing. The Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's explanations for providing misleading information concerning his alcohol consumption were unreasonable and indicative of an intent to deceive . Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline E. Although the DOE Psychologist withdrew his opinion, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's regular consumption of alcohol in violation of the terms of his probation for the DUI offense and lack of insight into his problematic alcohol consumption presented unresolved concerns under Guideline G. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. Case No. PSH-21-0071 (Phillip Harmonick)

Personnel Security; access authorization not restored; Guideline I (Psychological Conditions)

On August 24, 2021, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. On January 10, 2020, during an interview with an OPM investigator, the Individual volunteered that he believed that three of his colleagues who he thought to be of Chinese descent were trying to sabotage a project on which he had worked in 2011 and to gain information to provide to the Chinese government. The Individual expressed fear that the interview room might be "bugged" and that his life would be in danger if his colleagues learned of his disclosures. The Individual subsequently contacted an FBI agent concerning his suspicions. The FBI agent notified the local security office that the Individual was "long on accusations but woefully short on substance that could be followed up on." The Individual met with a DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) for an evaluation. The DOE Psychologist diagnosed him with Delusional Disorder, Persecutory Type, Continuous under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition, and opined that this condition impaired his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. At the hearing, a psychiatrist who the Individual retained for an evaluation opined that the Individual was improperly diagnosed with Delusional Disorder. The psychiatrist argued that the DOE Psychologist could not be certain that the Individual's beliefs were false, and that his suspicions were better explained as the product of the Individual's cultural conservatism and patriotism than delusions. The Individual testified that he was not certain that his colleagues were engaged in espionage on behalf of the Chinese government, but that he believed that their behaviors justified his suspicions. The DOE Psychologist asserted that the Individual's paranoid suspicions were so unlikely to be true that they constituted delusions that impaired his judgment and reliability. The Administrative Judge determined that the Individual did not demonstrate insight into the paranoia he displayed over innocuous behaviors by his colleagues and that the DOE Psychologist's opinion better explained the Individual's beliefs and conduct than the psychiatrist's. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline I and that his access authorization should not be restored. Case No. PSH-21-0074 (Phillip Harmonick)

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

On August 26, 2021, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be denied. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold a DOE security clearance. During a background investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) discovered that the Individual had consumed a bottle of wine about 20 nights per month for about two years. During the hearing, the Individual reported that she had not consumed alcohol for nine months and had completed an intensive outpatient program for substance abuse. However, she also reported that she had not continued attending therapy after completing the program and needed to have a non-alcoholic wine daily. The Administrative Judge determined that doubts remained regarding the Individual's future alcohol use and that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-21-0080 (Kristin L. Martin).

Personnel Security; access authorization not granted; Guideline I (Psychological Conditions)

On August 26, 2021, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) and disclosed that he: resigned from a job in 2017 after being told that he would be fired for committing a safety violation, used marijuana on an irregular basis from 2001 until 2017, failed to timely file tax returns or pay taxes, fell into delinquency on child support payments, had two financial accounts referred to collections, and was arrested and charged with numerous criminal offenses from 2000 to 2012. An investigation by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) revealed numerous omissions from the QNSP, including that the Individual: was fired from a job in 2017 after a positive drug test following a workplace accident, used marijuana more frequently than he admitted, was delinquent on seven financial accounts which he did not disclose on the QNSP, was ineligible for rehire by five employers for whom he had worked in two years, and failed to disclose foreign financial interests that he was required to disclose on the QNSP. The Individual met with a DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) for an evaluation. The DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual would have met the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5), but for a lack of information about his conduct before age 15. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual had a personality disorder or personality disorder traits which impaired his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. At the hearing, the Individual offered written information from two mental health professionals who did not diagnose him with any conditions under the DSM-5.

However, the Individual did not establish that the mental health professionals had access to the same information as the DOE Psychologist concerning his history of derogatory conduct. The Individual testified that he had resolved his financial delinquencies, no longer used marijuana or associated with persons who do, had not engaged in criminal conduct for many years, and that many of the instances in which he allegedly provided false information or failed to disclose information were misunderstandings or errors. The Individual did not offer any documentation for his claims or supporting testimony from character witnesses with knowledge of his conduct outside of work. The DOE Psychologist opined that his diagnosis was unchanged, but that the Individual would have made significant progress if his representations as to changing his behavior were validated. The Administrative Judge determined that the mental health professionals who provided positive evaluations of the Individual did not establish knowledge of the full extent of the Individual's derogatory conduct, and therefore that their opinions did not outweigh the more informed opinion of the DOE Psychologist. Additionally, the Individual did not sufficiently demonstrate that the irresponsibility and deceitfulness that informed DOE Psychologist's opinion had abated. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline I and that his access authorization should not be restored. Case No. PSH-21-0068 (Phillip Harmonick)