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).