Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On September 14, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision restoring an individual’s access authorization. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved security concerns under Criterion J regarding his alcohol use.  After an evaluation, a DOE psychologist concluded that the individual suffered from Alcohol-Related Disorder NOS.  During a personnel security interview conducted in November 2015, the individual admitted to consuming one to two glasses of wine nightly in order to help him sleep.  He was prescribed a sleep medication aide from his primary care physician.  However, he admitted that he additionally consumed alcohol four to five work nights in order to assist in sleeping.  The individual further admitted that this pattern of almost nightly usage has been taking place since 2010.  During the hearing, the individual acknowledged that he consumed alcohol at night to help him fall asleep.  He testified that he has sleep apnea and wanted to discontinue his use of sleeping pills because he did not like taking the medication.  The individual testified that, as recommended by the DOE psychologist, he has addressed his sleep apnea problem.  His physician has changed the individual’s medication and he is now using a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine to address is sleep apnea.  After listening to the testimony at the hearing, the DOE psychologist testified that he was pleased that the individual has followed his recommendations and taken steps to address the concerns related to his alcohol use.  He noted that it has been six months since the individual last consumed alcohol habitually at night to fall asleep.  He further noted that the individual is using a CPAP machine and taking a lower dose of medication to address his sleep apnea.  Given the individual’s current level of alcohol consumption as well as the steps he has taken to address alcohol concerns, the DOE psychologist opined that the individual has achieved adequate rehabilitation and has a good prognosis.  Accordingly, the Administrative Judge determined that the individual had resolved the Criterion J concerns and that the individual’s access authorization should be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-16-0041 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman)

On September 13, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  The Local Security Office (LSO) had suspended the individual’s access authorization, based on Criterion L, citing numerous delinquent debts, as well as an established pattern of unwillingness and inability to satisfy debt, as evidenced by past garnishments, car repossessions, and a past bankruptcy.  At the hearing, the individual presented evidence that his current debts had been discharged by bankruptcy, just prior to the hearing.  The Administrative Judge found that, while the bankruptcy resolved the concerns raised by the delinquent debts, the individual had done nothing to resolve the concerns regarding his established pattern of unwillingness or inability to satisfy debts.  Accordingly, he determined that sufficient information existed to support the LSO’s reliance on Criterion L.  He determined that the individual had failed to meet any of the mitigating criteria contained in Adjudicative Guideline F: The pattern of behavior in question had continued until the recent past; the conditions that resulted in the financial problems were well within the individual’s control (indeed, the individual acknowledged that he continued to take loans, because the terms seemed favorable); the individual had not received counseling for the problem (and in fact, seemed reluctant to accept assistance in formulating a budget); and the individual had made no substantive effort to resolve the past financial issues.  The Administrative Judge further determined that, while the bankruptcy resolved the delinquent debts, there was not yet a “sustained pattern of financial responsibility” sufficient to demonstrate that a recurrence was unlikely.  Accordingly, he determined that the individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-16-0056 (Neil Schuldenfrei)