PSH-20-0058 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

You are here

On September 11,  2020,  an  Administrative  Judge  determined  that  an  Individual  should  not  be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The  Individual  is  employed  by  a  DOE contractor in a position that required her to hold a DOE security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's personal conduct, financial circumstances, past drug use, and past criminal conduct. Under Guidelines E and J, the LSO cited past charges and  citations  related  to  the  Individual's  operation of a motor vehicle while her license was  suspended,  and  a  warrant  for  the  Individual's arrest that remained outstanding for approximately two years. Under Guideline F,     the LSO cited the Individual's delinquent debts, for which she had not yet established  any  payment schedules. Under Guideline H, the LSO cited evidence of  the  Individual's  past  marijuana use.

At the hearing, the Individual  and  three  other  witnesses  testified.  One  of  the  witnesses  was the Individual's longtime friend, and the other two witnesses were relatives of the Individual.      The witnesses testified to the fact that the Individual has  made  considerable  progress  in  changing her circumstances. The record established the fact  that  the  Individual  resolved  all  legal matters, including the outstanding warrant, to have her license reinstated in August  2020.  The record also provided that  the  Individual  last  used  marijuana  in  December  2015,  no  longer associates with the Individuals she did at the time she used marijuana, and that she has established payment schedules for her delinquent debts. Although the  Individual  had  made  strides in mitigating the listed security concerns, the Individual's  judgement  remained  in  question. Specifically, the Individual failed to resolve the matter of her  outstanding  warrant  in     a timely fashion, and she continued to drive despite her suspended license when she could not secure transportation. Additionally, at the time of the hearing, the Individual could not

produce a history of payments  made  pursuant  to  established  payment  schedules  to  confirm  that she was making good faith efforts  to  adhere  to  said  schedules.  Based  on  the  testimony and evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that although the Individual had mitigated Guideline H concerns, she had failed to mitigate the concerns stated in the Notification Letter  under Guidelines E, F, and  J.  The  Administrative  Judge  therefore  concluded  that  the Individual should not be granted  access  authorization.  OHA  Case  No.  PSH-20-0058 (  Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman).