FOIA Appeal (FIA)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal; Appeal Denied; Exemption 6

On December 6, 2019 the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed by Kathleen C. Murphy (Appellant) from a final determination issued by the Department of Energy's Office of Public Information (OPI). The Appellant's FOIA request sought a copy of the internet browser history of her son, who is deceased. On Appeal, the Appellant alleged that the OPI improperly redacted portions of responsive documents, that the responsive documents were incomplete, and that the OPI needed to answer certain questions for her to interpret terms used in the documents provided to her. After review, the OHA determined that the Appellant's questions regarding technology terminology need not be answered, as answering questions is not the function of a FOIA request. OHA also determined that OPI properly withheld third-party information under Exemption 6. Further, OHA determined that although the Appellant was seeking information regarding her deceased son, the deceased still retained a privacy interest and that the Appellant had not identified any public interest in the disclosure of the redacted portions of the responsive documents that outweighed that privacy interest. Therefore, information was also appropriately redacted based on the deceased's privacy interest pursuant to Exemption 6. OHA Case No. FIA-20-0010.

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Restored; Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse); Bond Amendment

On December 5, 2019, an Administrative Judge determined that an 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. During a background investigation, the Individual volunteered that he had used one of his wife's prescribed pain tablets in a single instance of pain management. During the hearing, the Individual testified that he used the medication for its intended medical use only. Further, he acknowledged that taking his wife’s prescription medication was a mistake and a lapse in judgment due to the pain he was suffering. He indicated that he very much regretted the decision, and he would not make the mistake again. He noted that he had no intention of hiding this mistake from DOE and voluntarily revealed the information during the course of a routine security clearance reinvestigation. The Administrative Judge determined that the Individual sufficiently mitigated the Guideline H security concerns and concluded that the Bond Amendment was not applicable in this situation. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-19-0053 (Katie Quintana).

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

On December 4, 2019, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold a DOE security clearance. In applying for her clearance, the Individual completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) in December 2016. In response to one of the financial questions, the Individual indicated that she was currently over 120 days delinquent on her student loans. Subsequently, the Local Security Office (LSO) asked her to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI). The LSO determined that the Individual had 10 collection accounts, totaling $225,244, consisting of: (1) three medical debts, (2) two miscellaneous debts, and (3) five student loan debts. Additionally, the LSO determined that the Individual was 120 days past due on one of her student loans. During the hearing, the    Individual testified that she had paid two of the three medical debts in full, but was unable to find any information related to the third debt. Further, she paid both of the miscellaneous debts in full. With regard to her student loan debt, the Individual acknowledged that she had only made eight months of payments, and she had not made a payment in over five years. She stated that she is currently unsure of the exact amounts owed on the student loans. The Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline F. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-19-0057 (Katie Quintana).

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

On December 3, 2019, an Administrative Judge determined that an 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. In late May of 2018, the Individual tested positive for alcohol during a random drug and alcohol screening administered by his employer. The Individual was then referred to a Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) for evaluation. Following the evaluation, the Individual completed a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), provided by the Local Security Office (LSO) in January 2019. In response to information gathered from the LOI, a DOE consulting psychiatrist (Psychiatrist) evaluated the Individual in March 2019. The Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, in early remission, and he opined that the Individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. During the hearing, the Individual testified that he had been abstinent from alcohol for approximately sixteen months. He further showed that he had successfully completed an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program, as well as an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) and had been consistently attending aftercare. After reviewing the evidence and observing all of the testimony at the hearing, the Psychiatrist determined that the Individual had established adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The Administrative Judge determined that the Individual resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline G. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-19-0045 (Katie Quintana).