Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)
Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
On March 2, 2020, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should be not be restored. The Local Security Organization (LSO) alleged that the Individual had failed to file his Federal and state tax returns for tax year 2017. In addition the LSO alleged that the Individual had five outstanding delinquent debts. At the hearing conducted by the AJ, the Individual presented evidence showing that he had in fact filed both his Federal and state tax returns for tax year 2017, thereby resolving the security concerns raised by the LSO’s allegations that he had not filed those tax returns.
However, the Individual, at the hearing, admitted that he still had outstanding debts with four of the creditors cited in the LSO’s allegations. The Individual contended that he had entered into a payment agreement with three of these creditors. The Individual further contended that he had begun making regular payments to the fourth creditor, who verbally agreed not to pursue further collection actions as long as the Individual continued making these regular payments. After the hearing, the Individual submitted additional documentation. This documentation showed that the fifth debt cited by the LSO no longer appears in his credit report. This documentation further showed that the Individual had made payments to two of the remaining creditors.
The AJ found that the Individual had not shown that he had entered into formal payment plans with each of the remaining four creditors. Noting that in one case, the Individual’s description of the Deferred Payment Agreement at the hearing differed substantially from the actual language of the agreement. Moreover, the AJ further found that the Individual’s testimony at the hearing, and subsequent documentary submissions, did not provide sufficient evidence that that Individual would be able to continue making payments to the four outstanding creditors while staying current on his other financial obligations.
Accordingly, the AJ found that the Individual had failed to mitigate the security concerns raised under Guideline F, and therefore found that the Individual's access authorization should be not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0016 (Steven L. Fine).
Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
On March 5, 2020, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual disclosed on an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing that he had been arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) on three occasions. In response to a letter of interrogatory issued to him by the local security office, and in a clinical interview with a DOE-contracted Psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist), the Individual represented that he was a moderate consumer of alcohol. However, a laboratory test ordered by the DOE Psychiatrist showed that the Individual was drinking much more alcohol than he had reported, and suggested that he was habitually consuming alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, binge consuming alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, or both. The DOE Psychiatrist recommended that the Individual demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation by abstaining from alcohol for one year, undergoing alcohol testing to provide evidence of his abstinence, participating in an outpatient counseling program, and attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had abstained from consuming alcohol for approximately three months. However, he did not follow any of the DOE Psychiatrist's recommendations as to treatment or testing and asserted that he did not believe that doing so was necessary if he could abstain from alcohol on his own. Numerous coworkers of the Individual testified that he was a reliable person and that he had told them that he was abstaining from alcohol. The DOE Psychiatrist testified that, in the absence of alcohol testing to prove the Individual's abstinence from alcohol, he had no basis to revise his opinion. The Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's testimony alone was not sufficient to establish that he had abstained from alcohol, and that even if the Individual had abstained from alcohol for three months that doing so was insufficient to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline G in light of the Individual's non-compliance with the DOE Psychiatrist's treatment recommendations. Therefore, she determined that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0024 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman).
Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
On March 5, 2020, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted. During the course of an investigation, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in July 2017 and completed a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) in May 2019. The Individual indicated in his QNSP that while serving in the military and performing a stressful job, he began consuming alcohol and over-the-counter sleep aids in an unhealthy manner. The Individual further stated that he sought treatment in 2016, and remained sober for one year. The Individual began consuming alcohol in 2017. Based on the information provided in the QNSP and LOI, the Local Security Office (LSO) had the Individual undergo a psychological evaluation. The DOE psychologist did not diagnose the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) although he was diagnosed with AUD in the past. Based on the interview conducted, the DOE psychologist determined that the Individual was habitually and/or binge consuming alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and recommended three months of outpatient treatment followed by continued monthly outpatient prevention sessions. The Individual did not follow the DOE psychologist's recommendations. The Individual argued that his problematic alcohol consumption is unlikely to recur because he is no longer under the same stressful circumstances as he was when he was in the military. However, the Administrative Judge did not find this argument convincing because the Individual is consuming enough alcohol to achieve some level of intoxication at least twice per month despite the fact he is no longer in the military and testified to having developed coping mechanisms. The Individual indicated in his testimony that as social invitations increase during warmer months of the year, his alcohol consumption increases. Additionally, the Individual will consume more alcohol than usual during holidays or other such occasions. He did not recognize that his current alcohol consumption falls within his past pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, and has not taken any action to treat the issue. Therefore, the Administrative Judge could not find that the Individual had established a pattern of modified consumption or abstinence. Accordingly, the Individual did not resolve Guideline G alcohol concerns. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0010 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman).