Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Granted; Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption)

On October 31, 2019, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. During his background investigation, information was revealed that the Individual admitted to drinking four-and-a-half ounces of vodka nightly since October 2017, admitted to drinking to intoxication two to three times per month since 2013; admitted that in 2007 he violated his probation on multiple occasions by drinking alcohol; and admitted to being written up for violating a school policy prohibiting underage drinking in 2006. Additionally, a DOE-consultant psychiatrist concluded that the Individual habitually consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. At the hearing, the Individual produced evidence that he had stopped consuming alcohol approximately 40 days prior to the hearing and had begun to recently begun seeing a therapist and participating in a support group for addiction recovery. The DOE Psychiatrist testified at the hearing that despite the Individual’s efforts at recovery, he had not shown sufficient evidence of recovery. Given the evidence in the record, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of treatment such that the Guideline G concerns had been resolved. Consequently, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual should not be granted a security clearance. OHA Case No. PSH-19-0044 (Richard A. Cronin, Jr.).

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Denied; Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F) (Financial Considerations)

On October 31, 2019, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should be denied.  The Local Security Organization (LSO) accused the Individual of failing to provide truthful and candid information in a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) that the Individual had filed with the LSO.  Specifically, the LSO alleged that the Individual had failed disclose his failure to file his Federal tax returns for tax years 2015 and 2016.  At the hearing, the Individual submitted evidence showing that he had in fact filed his Federal tax returns for both tax years prior to his submission of the QNSP.  The AJ accordingly found that the Individual had not failed to provide truthful and candid information in the QNSP, and that therefore the LSO’s allegations under Guideline E were based upon an invalid factual basis. However, the LSO also alleged that the Individual had failed to file his federal tax return for tax year 2017, and had failed to file his state tax returns for tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.  At the hearing conducted by the AJ, the Individual presented evidence showing that he had recently filed each of these delinquent tax returns.  However, the AJ found that the Individual’s filing of all of his outstanding tax returns did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns raised by the Individual longstanding pattern of failing to comply with his financial and legal tax obligations. The AJ found that, by failing to file his tax returns for an extended period, from 2011, through 2017, the Individual has exhibited poor judgment, shown that he cannot be relied upon, and shown that he cannot be considered trustworthy.  The AJ further found that the only explanation provided by the Individual for his failure to file his taxes is troubling; since he claimed that he believed that he was owed a refund for each of these years and considered these alleged unclaimed refunds to be assets, when actually owed taxes for most of these tax years, and his tax liability for those years actually exceeded his unclaimed refunds by approximately $3,500. The AJ further found that the Individual was actually experiencing financial hardship during this period, which he believed suggested that either the Individual’s explanation was not credible, or that he exhibited poor judgment by failing to utilize these resources. Accordingly, the AJ found that the Individual had failed to mitigate the security concerns raised under Guideline F. Accordingly, the AJ found that the Individual's access authorization should be denied. OHA Case No. PSH-19-0040 (Steven L. Fine).