Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On January 3, 2019, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an Individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored. To support invoking Guideline G, the Local Security Office cited, among other things, the DOE Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual meets the criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe not in Remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and the Individual’s continued consumption of alcohol, despite a recommendation after treatment that he abstain from alcohol and his own concerns about his drinking habits. After the hearing, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not mitigated the security concerns based on the Individual’s recent relapses, including one the week before the hearing, the Individual’s failure to follow any of the DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendations, and the DOE Psychologist’s affirmation of his previous diagnosis that the Individual had an alcohol use disorder. Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not mitigated the Guideline G security concerns, and accordingly, determined that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-18-0072 (Brooke A. DuBois).

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Denied; Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct)

On January 3, 2019, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be denied. A background investigation on the Individual revealed that the Individual misrepresented the name and whereabouts of his father, an undocumented immigrant who had entered the U.S. without authorization, on his electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP). The Individual's father was previously deported and had re-entered the U.S. without authorization. The Individual's father was arrested approximately eight months after the Individual's misrepresentation on the e-QIP for helping other undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses. During an interview with an investigator shortly after his father's arrest, the Individual admitted that he had lied about his father to prevent him from being discovered and deported. The Individual explained that he had lied because his mother relied upon his father for economic support that she would be in economic jeopardy without his father's income, and that family came before job-related responsibilities. At the hearing, the Individual presented the testimony of four co-workers and one family member who all testified as to the Individual's reliability and trustworthiness. The Individual testified that he had matured since his misrepresentation on the e-QIP, promised to be truthful in the future, and argued that his father's recent deportation mitigated any security risks related to his father's immigration status. The Administrative Judge noted that the Individual only admitted that he had lied about his father's whereabouts after his father's arrest, when doing so would not reveal his father to authorities, and then only at the urging of a colleague. The Administrative Judge also determined that the Individual might be placed in the same situation again if his father once again re-entered the U.S. without authorization, and that the Individual had not demonstrated that circumstances had changed such that he would not lie about his father's whereabouts in the future. The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-18-0070 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman).