Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On May 7, 2015, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns regarding a mental illness, which included manic episodes with psychotic features.  These occurrences led a DOE-consultant psychologist to conclude that the individual was properly diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder, an illness that, in his opinion, causes or may cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability (Criterion H).  Although the individual complied with her medications and had not suffered any manic episodes in the past year, the DOE-consultant psychologist felt that the illness was not in control and was not likely to respond to the current treatment.  Moreover, because her symptomatic behavior raised questionable judgment concerns under Criterion L, her failure to mitigate the Criterion H concerns likewise failed to mitigate the Criterion L concerns.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0008 (William M. Schwartz)

Freedom of Information Act Appeal (FOIA)

On May 7, 2015, OHA issued a decision denying an appeal from a FOIA determination issued by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In the Appeal, Citizen Action New Mexico (CANM) challenged NNSA’s determination not to expedite the processing of the Appellant’s FOIA request. The FOIA provides that expedited processing is to be offered only when the requester demonstrates a “compelling need,” or when otherwise determined by the agency. OHA concluded that the Appellant did not demonstrate a compelling need, and therefore denied the Appeal. OHA Case No. FIA-15-0022
  
On May 4, 2015, OHA remanded to the National Nuclear Security Administration a FOIA Appeal filed by Shawn Hughes (Appellant). In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged a determination by the NNSA that Sections 91 and 92 of the Atomic Energy Act, or 42 U.S.C. §§ 2121-2122, provided a legal basis for withholding portions of the requested records under Exemption 3 of the FOIA.  In considering the Appeal, OHA found that the NNSA had not articulated how Sections 91 and 92 supported the withholding of the requested information.  OHA therefore remanded the request to the NNSA so that it could either release the information withheld under Exemption 3 or provide an adequate justification for withholding it. OHA Case No. FIA-15-0017