Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

PSH-18-0052

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On September 14, 2018, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored.  In January 2018,  the Individual informed the Local Security Office  (LSO) that a Bench Warrant had been issued for his arrest because he had failed to appear for a criminal court proceeding. A background investigation on the Individual revealed that the Individual was arrested and charged with several acts of domestic violence and twice received a bench warrant for failing to appear at his scheduled court hearings. The Individual's most recent criminal charge of Felony Battery occurred in 2016. The individual also engaged in criminal conduct separate from allegations of domestic violence. Between 2015 and 2016, the Individual was cited for speeding on four separate occasions.  Also, in 1999, the Individual was charged with Possession of Marijuana.  Notwithstanding the possession charge, the Individual continued to use marijuana daily or monthly until 2006. He also used cocaine daily during the same period. During the hearing, the Individual asserted that in each domestic violence incident, he was not the aggressor and applied force in order to repel attacks. He stated that he participated in a six-month intervention program in which he talked about anger management and received group therapy. He also explained that he participated in five sessions of counseling where he learned how to identify red flags in potential romantic partners. With respect to his speeding tickets, the individual explained that he took care of the fines associated with the citations and that he has not been stopped for speeding since 2016.

Regarding his drug use, the individual explained that he has since changed his life, and has not used drugs since 2006. The Administrative Judge found that the Individual did not mitigate the security concerns related to his criminal conduct because the criminal charges are recent and are still pending. She also found that the Individual's conduct does not appear to be unusual as the Individual has been involved in at least two similar physical incidents with romantic partners. The Administrative Judge found that while the Individual's illegal drug use may have occurred over a decade in the past, the recency and severity of his remaining criminal conduct preclude a finding that the Individual is successfully rehabilitated due to the passage of time. She concluded that the evidence in this case established that the Individual has committed criminal offenses which provide a continuing basis for concern. The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-18-0052 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman).

PSH-18-0049

Personnel Security; Access authorization Not Restored; Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct)

On September 13, 2018, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. Because of his military service, the Individual held a clearance from another agency, which prompted DOE to grant him an equivalent DOE clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the individual's drug involvement and personal conduct. The Individual had been terminated from two positions, one for insubordination and one for theft. He had been investigated and disciplined for mistreatment of patients while he was a healthcare worker. He also had failed to disclose his prior drug use, which occurred while he held a security clearance, to the agency that had originally granted his clearance. The Individual refused to disclose it to them as he believed it was not important.

At the hearing, the Individual expressed regret for his past mistakes, but did not present evidence that his judgment and decision-making skills had improved. He also maintained his refusal to notify the agency that had granted his clearance of his prior drug use, despite having knowledge of that agency's zero tolerance drug policy. This demonstrated an ongoing unwillingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Because doubt remained as to the Individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment, the Administrative Judge found that he had not mitigated the security concerns under Guidelines E and H. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual's security clearance should not be restored. OHA Case No PSH-18-0049 (Janet R.H. Fishman).

PSH-18-0050

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On September 13, 2018, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an Individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored. To support invoking Guidelines G, I, and J, the Local Security Office cited, among other concerns, a DOE Psychologist’s determination that the Individual met the criteria for a diagnosis of Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder in Early Remission; the DOE Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual demonstrated stalking behaviors which comprise a condition which can impair his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness; and a July 2017 physical altercation involving the Individual’s ex-wife which resulted in a stipulated protection order. Despite the DOE Psychologist’s testimony that the Individual was rehabilitated from her prior alcohol-related diagnosis, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not mitigated the Guideline G security concerns because the Individual  had not yet completed his alcohol treatment and had recently relapsed. The Administrative Judge similarly found that the Individual had not mitigated the Guideline J security concerns considering the seriousness of the July 2017 incident and short period of time that had elapsed since the incident. Based on the DOE Psychologist’s testimony that the Individual does not demonstrate symptoms of a current problems and the ex-wife’s testimony that her interactions with the Individual have positively changed, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had mitigated the Guideline I security concerns. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-18-0050 (Brooke A. DuBois).