Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On September 22, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s access authorization should be restored.  Pursuant to criterion (k) of part 710.8 and the Bond Amendment, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited the individual’s positive drug test for marijuana during a random urinalysis in January 2015, while holding a security clearance, and his ingestion of steroids from 1988 to 1989 and marijuana from 1978 to 1981.  Under criterion (l), the LSO cited the individual’s failure to report that he ingested marijuana until after he received the results of his urine test, which was about a week after he ingested marijuana in January 2015.  The Administrative Judge credited his testimony that his ingestion of marijuana was accidental as he believed that he was consuming a Rice Krispy treat, which, unbeknownst to him, contained medical marijuana.  There was testimony that the Rice Krispy treat he consumed did not have any label indicating that it contained marijuana and that both he and his wife did not realize their son would bring medical marijuana to their home.  The Administrative Judge concluded that he therefore had no knowledge that he was ingesting marijuana at the time and it was an isolated incident.  The individual also completed a chemical dependency early recovery program, met with a counselor and participated in drug testing to comply with any requirements of him to maintain his access authorization.  The Administrative Judge stated that as the individual found out that he ingested marijuana, he should have reported it, and his failure to report demonstrated a lapse in judgment by the individual; however, she did not find it significant enough to warrant him a security risk, particularly given the testimony by him, his wife and his son.  In consideration of the above and the regulatory factors, the Administrative Judge found that the individual resolved the security concerns related to his marijuana use and failure to report his marijuana use under criteria (l) and (k) and the Bond Amendment, and she decided that the individual’s access authorization should be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-15-0056 (Shiwali Patel)

On September 22, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should be restored.  The LSO had alleged that the individual’s admission that he had taken one of his dog’s prescription pain pills (Tramadol) constituted illegal drug use which raised significant security concerns about the individual’s judgment, reliability and trustworthiness, even though the individual had a prescription for the same pain medication (which he had left at the office).  The Administrative Judge found that the individual’s action exhibited less than perfect judgment, and technically violated the laws concerning use of prescription medication by substituting his dog’s prescription medication for his own.  Notwithstanding, the Administrative Judge determined that the doubts raised by his action are not substantial, and do not demonstrate a significant deficit in judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.  Therefore, the Administrative Judge concluded that the security concerns were resolved.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0057 (Steven L. Fine)

On September 24, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which she concluded that the DOE should not restore access authorization to an individual. A DOE Operations Office referred the individual to administrative review citing as security concerns under 10 C.F.R. § 710.8, paragraphs (f) and (l), the individual’s failure to provide complete and truthful answers on his QNSPs, his financial difficulties, and his criminal background. After conducting a hearing, convened at the individual’s request, and evaluating all relevant evidence, the AJ concluded that the individual’s claims that he was not aware of his extensive criminal record and numerous collection accounts were not credible, and that serious security concerns remained about his falsification, illegal behavior and financial irresponsibility. Therefore, the AJ found that the DOE should not restore the individual’s security clearance.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0052 (Ann Augustyn)

Freedom of Information Act Appeal

On September 25, 2015, OHA denied in part and remanded in part a FOIA Appeal filed by Robert H. Leyse (Appellant) from a determination issued to him by the DOE’s Idaho Operations Office (IOO). In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the adequacy of the DOE’s search for responsive documents. OHA found that IOO had conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents. However, OHA also found that the request should have been referred to the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) and so remanded the request to OIR for referral to NE.  OHA Case No. FIA-15-0051