PSH-20-0011 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

You are here

On February 24, 2020, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he determined that an Individual's DOE access authorization should not be granted.  The Individual had a history of nine arrests, including five alcohol-related arrests. In addition, the DOE had obtained information indicating that the Individual habitually consumed alcohol to a level of intoxication that could be expected to impair his judgment and reliability.

At the hearing conducted by the AJ, the Individual testified that he last used alcohol 14 days prior to the hearing.   The Individual also testified that he does not believe he has a problem with alcohol, and has not completed an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) program or intensive outpatient treatment program, although a DOE Psychologist's report included treatment recommendations for participation in AA or a sobriety  treatment  program.  The Individual also admitted that he had initially underreported his alcohol use during his clinical interview, until the Psychologist informed him he would be sent to laboratory testing.  At the hearing, the Individual failed to produce adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation with regard to his habitually excessive alcohol consumption.  Noting  that  the  Individual  testified  that  his last use of alcohol occurred just 14 days ago, and that the Individual has not received  any  treatment for his alcohol issue and had not  participated  in  AA,  the  AJ  found  that  the  Individual has not resolved the security concerns arising under Guideline G.

Turning to the security concerns raised under Guideline J, by the Individual’s extensive criminal history, the AJ found that the Individual failed to take responsibility for any of the arrests. Instead, the AJ found, the Individual attributed each of his arrests to the actions of others or the capriciousness or incompetence of the arresting officers.   The AJ further found that the Individual's accounts of the incidents leading to his nine arrests were lacking in credibility. The AJ noted  that  these  offenses  were  not  restricted  to  any  particular  period in the Individual's life, and in some cases the Individual refrained from engaging in  unlawful  conduct for years at a time only to reoffend. He also noted that the record contains court records that reflect that while some of his charges were dismissed, those charges do not completely exonerate the Individual. Therefore, the AJ concluded that the Individual has not shown sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline J.

Accordingly, the AJ found that the individual's access authorization should not be granted.  OHA Case No. PSH-20-0011. (Steven L. Fine).