Personnel Security Hearing (10 CFR Part 710)

On April 24, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which she concluded that the DOE should restore an individual’s access authorization.  A DOE Operations Office referred the individual to administrative review under 10 CFR Part 710, citing as security concerns the individual’s pattern of financial irresponsibility and inability to satisfy debts.  After conducting a hearing, convened at the individual’s request, and evaluating all relevant evidence, the AJ concluded that the individual had presented sufficient information to adequately mitigate the cited security concerns. Therefore, the AJ found that the DOE should restore the individual’s access authorization.  OHA Case No. PSH-14-0107 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman)

On April 23, 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 his use of alcohol, which included frequent intoxication following a sustained period of abstinence.  These facts led a DOE-consultant psychologist to conclude that the individual was properly diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence, an illness that, in his opinion, causes or may cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability.  Although the individual had recently begun complying with the DOE psychologist’s recommendations for rehabilitation, the duration of his abstinence and treatment fell short of the recommended period of rehabilitation.  The Administrative Judge determined, however, that the individual had resolved a subsidiary mental health concern regarding his alleged lack of candor.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0001 (William M. Schwartz)

On April 23, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he concluded that the DOE should grant access authorization to an individual. A DOE Operations Office referred the individual to administrative review under 10 CFR Part 710, citing as security concerns the individual’s failure to pass four polygraph examinations administered by another federal agency in 2003-2004, his admission that he initially lied but later told the full truth during his first polygraph, and his provision of false or misleading information on a 1999 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP). After conducting a hearing, convened at the individual’s request, and evaluating all relevant evidence, the AJ concluded that there was no foundation laid for the admission of the polygraph results, and that the individual’s falsification on the QNSP and lying during the initial part of his first polygraph were isolated instances of dishonesty that had been mitigated by the passage of time. Therefore, the AJ found that the individual had adequately addressed the DOE’s security concerns.  OHA Case No. PSH-14-0108 (Robert B. Palmer)