PSH-20-0016 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

You are here

On March 2, 2020, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should be not be restored.  The Local Security Organization (LSO) alleged that the Individual had failed to file his Federal and state tax returns for tax year 2017.  In addition the LSO alleged that the Individual had five outstanding delinquent debts.  At the hearing conducted by the AJ, the Individual presented evidence showing that he had in fact filed both his Federal and state tax returns for tax year 2017, thereby resolving the security concerns raised by the LSO’s allegations that he had not filed those tax returns. 

However, the Individual, at the hearing, admitted that he still had outstanding debts with four of the creditors cited in the LSO’s allegations.  The Individual contended that he had entered into a payment agreement with three of these creditors.  The Individual further contended that he had begun making regular payments to the fourth creditor, who verbally agreed not to pursue further collection actions as long as the Individual continued making these regular payments.  After the hearing, the Individual submitted additional documentation.  This documentation showed that the fifth debt cited by the LSO no longer appears in his credit report.  This documentation further showed that the Individual had made payments to two of the remaining creditors.    

The AJ found that the Individual had not shown that he had entered into formal payment plans with each of the remaining four creditors.  Noting that in one case, the Individual’s description of the Deferred Payment Agreement at the hearing differed substantially from the actual language of the agreement.  Moreover, the AJ further found that the Individual’s testimony at the hearing, and subsequent documentary submissions, did not provide sufficient evidence that that Individual would be able to continue making payments to the four outstanding creditors while staying current on his other financial obligations.    

Accordingly, the AJ found that the Individual had failed to mitigate the security concerns raised under Guideline F, and therefore found that the Individual's access authorization should be not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-20-0016 (Steven L. Fine).