Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On August 27 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s request for a security clearance should not be granted.  A Local Security Office conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about his alcohol-related incidents, alcohol use and misrepresentations.  The individual’s behavior raised security concerns under Criteria H, J and L.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not presented sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns associated with his diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence, his alcohol use and his alcohol-related incidents.  She was persuaded by the testimony of the DOE psychologist that the individual has not yet achieved adequate rehabilitation and that the individual still has a current alcohol problem.   The Administrative Judge also found that the individual had not mitigated the DOE’s security concerns raised under Criterion L which related to the individual’s misrepresentations.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0034   (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman)

On August 24, 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 section 710.8, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited the individual’s admission that from 2007-2008, he used medical marijuana on 10-12 occasions.  Under Criterion L, the LSO stated that the individual did not disclose that he used drugs in his Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSPs) in 2011 and 2014.  The individual suffered from severe migraines since he was young and tried various pharmaceutical drugs without success.  In 2007, the individual, having never previously used marijuana or any other illegal drug, visited a treatment facility for his headaches and obtained a doctor’s recommendation and prescription for medical marijuana.  The individual used medical marijuana for approximately eight months, believing that it was legal, until he realized that it did not alleviate his pain or reduce his migraines. The Administrative Judge credited the individual’s testimony that when completing his QNSPs, he thought that he did not illegally use any drugs and therefore, believed that he answered truthfully to the questions asking about illegal drug use.  The individual also presented the testimony of a few colleagues who stated that they were not aware of the DOE’s view on medical marijuana and that they believed that the individual exercised good judgment and was very reliable.  For these reasons, the Administrative Judge found that the individual resolved the security concerns related under Criteria K and L, and she decided that the individual’s access authorization should be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0045 (Shiwali Patel)

On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual's access authorization should be restored.  The individual was charged with computer crimes after being placed on administrative leave by a former employer.  After the Local Security Office (LSO) conducted an interview with the individual, it determined that he had not resolved the LSO’s security concerns under Criterion L arising from the criminal charges.  At the hearing, the individual explained the factual bases for the charges and for their dismissal at the state court level.  The Administrative Judge found that the record did not substantiate that the individual had in fact committed any of the charged offenses, and that the individual had resolved the security concerns raised by the charges.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0042 (William Schwartz)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On August 26, 2015, OHA issued a decision denying a FOIA Appeal filed by Mr. Raymond W. Stephens, Jr. (Appellant) from a determination issued to him by the DOE’s Oak Ridge Office (ORO). In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the adequacy of the search for responsive documents. OHA found, however, that the search by ORO was reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents. OHA further found that the Office of Information Resources (OIR), which initially received the request, properly sent the request to ORO.  Accordingly, OHA denied the Appeal. OHA Case No. FIA-15-0042