Personnel Security Hearing
Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline E (Personal Conduct) Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)
On February 28, 2020, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted. In the course of an investigation into the Individual, the Local Security Office (LSO) determined that the Individual had omitted information pertaining to a past termination, a past history of marijuana use, and his arrest record, which consisted of one drug-related offense. The Administrative Judge did not find the Individual endeavored to mislead the investigators with regard to his past termination, as the Individual did disclose that he had been "let go" from a prior position. However, the Administrative Judge found the Individual's explanations for his failure to disclose his past marijuana use and arrest record unconvincing based on the admissions in the Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) and Triggered Enhanced Subject Interview (TESI), which indicated the Individual had omitted this information so as not to jeopardize his chances of obtaining his clearance. Further, the Individual did not put forth any evidence that he made prompt or good faith efforts to correct the omission, concealed this information based on the advice of a professional or legal counsel, obtained counseling to change his behavior, or that the omission was a minor offense.
The Administrative Judge found that the Individual had sufficiently mitigated Guideline H concerns. The Individual testified that he had not engaged in drug use since his drug-related offense in approximately 2013 or 2014, and submitted a negative toxicology report to evidence his voluntary abstinence. The Individual also signed a letter of intent not to use drugs and completed and online drug and alcohol awareness course. The evidence provided established that the behavior happened so long ago, that it is unlikely to recur.
Based on the significant passage of time, the Individual's pursuit of higher education, and good employment record, it was also determined that the Individual sufficiently mitigated the Guideline J concerns presented by the LSO. The Individual's drug-related offense took place in 2013 or 2014, during which time the Individual was enrolled as a student in a technical institute. The Individual continued to receive various certifications and joined a professional organization. The record does not reveal any other criminal offense, charge, or arrest. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0019 (Steven Fine).
Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Granted; Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and J (Criminal Conduct)
On February 24, 2020, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he determined that an Individual's DOE access authorization should not be granted. The Individual had a history of nine arrests, including five alcohol-related arrests. In addition, the DOE had obtained information indicating that the Individual habitually consumed alcohol to a level of intoxication that could be expected to impair his judgment and reliability.
At the hearing conducted by the AJ, the Individual testified that he last used alcohol 14 days prior to the hearing. The Individual also testified that he does not believe he has a problem with alcohol, and has not completed an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) program or intensive outpatient treatment program, although a DOE Psychologist's report included treatment recommendations for participation in AA or a sobriety treatment program. The Individual also admitted that he had initially underreported his alcohol use during his clinical interview, until the Psychologist informed him he would be sent to laboratory testing. At the hearing, the Individual failed to produce adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation with regard to his habitually excessive alcohol consumption. Noting that the Individual testified that his last use of alcohol occurred just 14 days ago, and that the Individual has not received any treatment for his alcohol issue and had not participated in AA, the AJ found that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns arising under Guideline G.
Turning to the security concerns raised under Guideline J, by the Individual’s extensive criminal history, the AJ found that the Individual failed to take responsibility for any of the arrests. Instead, the AJ found, the Individual attributed each of his arrests to the actions of others or the capriciousness or incompetence of the arresting officers. The AJ further found that the Individual's accounts of the incidents leading to his nine arrests were lacking in credibility. The AJ noted that these offenses were not restricted to any particular period in the Individual's life, and in some cases the Individual refrained from engaging in unlawful conduct for years at a time only to reoffend. He also noted that the record contains court records that reflect that while some of his charges were dismissed, those charges do not completely exonerate the Individual. Therefore, the AJ concluded that the Individual has not shown sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline J.
Accordingly, the AJ found that the individual's access authorization should not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0011. (Steven L. Fine).
Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline I (Psychological Conditions)
On February 28, 2020, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual’s access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. As part of a reinvestigation for his security clearance, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in March 2017. In response to one of the financial questions, the Individual indicated that he had failed to file his taxes for a number of years. Subsequently, the Local Security Office (LSO) asked him to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI). The LSO also referred him for a psychological evaluation. A psychologist (Psychologist) determined that the Individual has an emotional, mental, or personality condition that can impair his judgment reliability, stability, or trustworthiness. The Individual testified that at the time of the hearing, all of his tax returns have been filed, and he has no outstanding issues with the IRS. However, the Psychologist concluded that it is “likely” that the Individual's procrastination “will happen again in bills or in taxes." The Individual had a decade-long history of failing to file his taxes in a timely manner and had not yet demonstrated that he could reliably file them within the established timeframes. Further, the Individual demonstrated procrastination throughout the hearing process. As such, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline F or Guideline I. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0021(Katie Quintana).