FOIA Appeal (FIA)
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal; Appeal Denied; Adequacy of Search, Adequacy of Determination On April 1, 2020, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed by Michael Ravnitzky (Appellant) from a final determination issued by the Department of Energy's National Office of Public Information ( OPI). On Appeal, the Appellant alleged that OPI had not conducted an adequate search because it would be "odd" if the requested records did not exist. He further argued that OPI's determination did not include sufficient context. After review, OHA determined that DOE's
limited search was guided by personal knowledge that no responsive records existed and that, therefore, the search was reasonable. OHA further determined that OPI's determination letter met the minimum requirements of the FOIA. Accordingly, the Appeal was denied. OHA Case No. FIA-20-0022

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)
Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) On April 3, 2020, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on which he disclosed that, PSH-20-0031 since 1993, he had been arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) three times,
domestic violence, and marijuana possession. A DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) evaluated the Individual and, based on the Individual's report that he consumed approximately twenty-eight alcoholic drinks each week and the results of a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test which confirmed that the Individual was consuming significant quantities of alcohol, opined that the Individual habitually consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. The DOE Psychologist ecommended that the Individual abstain from alcohol for nine months, document his abstinence with PEth testing, and attend counseling. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had abstained from alcohol for approximately thirteen months, but had decided not to pursue the counseling recommended by the DOE
Psychologist based on his success abstaining on his own. The Individual also provided numerous PEth test results which were negative for traces of alcohol. However, one of the PEth tests was positive and there was a gap of over five months between tests during one period in which the Individual asserted that he had abstained from alcohol. The DOE Psychologist testified that, in his opinion, the Individual had demonstrated rehabilitation, but that the Individual was at a higher risk of relapse than he would have been had he pursued counseling. The Administrative Judge determined that the period of the Individual's abstinence was not sufficiently certain, and that the Individual had not demonstrated sufficient insight into his alcohol-related problems or efforts to address the causes of these problems, to establish that he would not relapse into problematic alcohol consumption as he had after each of his alcohol-related arrests. Thus, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not mitigated the security concerns raised by the local security office under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. As the Individual had not resolved the issues that led him to commit alcohol-related criminal offenses, the Administrative Judge likewise concluded that the risk of
the Individual reoffending in the future was too high to conclude that the Individual had resolved the security concerns asserted by the local security office under Guideline J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0031 (Richard A.Cronin, Jr ).