Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)
Office of Hearings and Appeals
July 3, 2015
minute read time
Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)
On July 2, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be granted. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved the security concerns arising from his financial irregularities. At the hearing, the individual testified that he accrued his debt because of support payments for his two children. Although he knew the debts were a concern to the DOE, he is still delinquent on a number of accounts. These financial difficulties are not isolated and involve a range of accounts and debts for varying amounts. An additional issue properly raised by the LSO was whether the individual is disqualified from holding a clearance under the Bond Amendment, as a result of his one-year incarceration. The Administrative Judge found, however, that the Bond Amendment requires an incarceration of more than one year and that, moreover, a substantial amount of time that had passed since the individual’s incarceration in the mid-1990’s. Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Judge concluded that, although the individual had resolved the concerns related to the Bond Amendment, he had not sufficiently mitigated the Criterion L concern with his financial irresponsibility. Accordingly, she concluded that the individual’s request for DOE access authorization should not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-15-0026 (Janet R. H. Fishman)
On July 1, 2015, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns under Criteria H and J. Specifically, the Administrative Judge concluded that the individual had not resolved the DOE’s concerns regarding his use of alcohol, which included frequent intoxication and had resulted in one alcohol-related arrest. These facts had led a DOE-consultant psychologist to conclude that the individual consumed alcohol habitually to excess, to a degree that causes or may cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability. Although the individual had maintained abstinence from alcohol for about five months at the time of the hearing and appeared to have gained insight into the seriousness of his pattern of alcohol consumption, the DOE psychologist noted that the individual intended to drink responsibly in the future but had not participated in any form of treatment that would enable him to understand what responsible drinking is. The Administrative Judge accorded significant weight to the DOE psychologist’s opinion and, given the absence of necessary treatment, concluded that the security concerns arising from the individual’s alcohol use had not been resolved. OHA Case No. PSH-15-0017 (William M. Schwartz)