Summary of Decisions - January 06, 2025 -January 10, 2025

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)  

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On January 6, 2025, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual was arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) in November 2023. The Individual subsequently met with a DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) who opined that the Individual habitually or binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual participate in substance abuse treatment, attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, and permanently abstain from alcohol. At the hearing, the Individual presented evidence that he had completed treatment as recommended by the DOE Psychologist and testified that he intended to attend AA meetings and abstain from alcohol use going forward. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual had complied with his recommendations and had a good prognosis for avoiding problematic alcohol use in the future. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had resolved the security concerns under Guidelines G and J. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0180, Harmonick)

Access Authorization Granted; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

On January 8, 2024, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization should be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Local Security Office found that the Individual's failure to file federal and state tax returns from tax years 2017 to 2022 created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. After the hearing, the AJ determined that the Individual had put forth sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns given, among other things, he had electronically filed or filed via mail his 2017 to 2022 federal and state tax returns. Accordingly, the AJ determined that the Individual's access authorization should be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0194, Fishman)

Personnel Security, Access Authorization Denied (Guideline I)

On January 10, 2025, an Administrative Judge issued a decision recommending that an Individual's access authorization be denied. The Individual had been diagnosed by a DOE Contractor Psychologist with Delusional Disorder and Adjustment Disorder. At the hearing, the Individual presented evidence that a psychiatrist had evaluated him and found that his paranoia was subclinical because his beliefs were not incontrovertibly contradicted by the facts and because his behavior was non-bizarre. The DOE Contractor Psychologist presented testified that non-bizarre behavior is one of the diagnostic criteria for Delusional Disorder and that contradiction by facts does not have to be incontrovertible for a belief to be delusional. The Individual testified that he was being target and threatened by former colleagues and a foreign government but was unable to show reasonable facts that supported his beliefs. The Administrative Judge held that the Individual's psychological condition impaired the Individual's judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability. Accordingly, she recommended that his access authorization be denied. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0160, Martin)

Access Authorization Denied; Guidelines D and E

On January 10, 2025, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored.

A DOE element had issued a report (the Report) finding that the Individual abused his authority as a Federal employee while mentoring and overseeing contract employees; sexually harassed contract employees; engaged in behaviors, sexual remarks, and innuendos that violated DOE policy for unprofessional and offensive conduct that can reasonably be considered to adversely affect the work environment; and created a hostile work environment. The Individual contended that the report was inaccurate and was issued in order to retaliate against him for encouraging employees to raise their EEO concerns to the appropriate officials. The AJ found that some of the findings in the Report raised security concerns and that the Individual had not shown that such allegations were unsubstantiated.

The AJ therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0187, Fine)