Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On December 1, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that the DOE should not restore an individual’s DOE access authorization.  As security concerns under Criterion H of 10 CFR Part 710, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited a DOE psychologist’s determination that the individual showed a lack of remorse for her financial irresponsibility and deceitfulness, traits that, in his opinion, constituted a mental condition that could cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability.  As security concerns under Criterion L, the LSO cited the individual’s history of financial irresponsibility.  The Administrative Judge found that the weight of the evidence demonstrated that the individual had in fact displayed remorse to her treating mental health professionals, who also found her not to be deceitful.  He therefore found that the Criterion H concerns were resolved.  On the other hand, he found that the individual had not resolved the Criterion L concerns.  At the hearing, the individual demonstrated that she was receiving therapy to address her poor financial judgment and had engaged a debt consolidation service to assist her in repaying her creditors.  Nevertheless, the Administrative Judge felt that, due to the recency of her steps toward financial responsibility, the individual had not yet sufficiently mitigated her long-term pattern of financial irresponsibility.  OHA Case No. PSH-14-0081 (William M. Schwartz)

On December 2, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he concluded that the DOE should not grant an individual access authorization. After conducting a hearing, convened at the individual’s request, and evaluating all relevant evidence, the AJ concluded that the individual had not mitigated the security concerns raised under the Bond Amendment (50 U.S.C. § 3343) regarding his criminal convictions and incarceration. Specifically, the AJ found that the individual was subject to disqualification under the Amendment because he had been convicted of a crime, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than one year for that crime, and was incarcerated as a result of that sentence for not less than one year. The AJ further concluded that the individual had not successfully mitigated the security concerns despite the fact that he had not been arrested in over 22 years, because of the seriousness of his crimes and the length and extent of his involvement in criminal activity. Therefore, the AJ was unable to conclude that granting the individual’s request for a security clearance would be consistent with the interests of national security. OHA Case No. PSH 14 0087 (Robert Palmer)

On December 4, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved the security concerns arising from his alcohol use and diagnosis by a DOE psychologist that he suffered from alcohol use disorder, mild.  At the hearing, the individual testified that he continues to consume alcohol, having had two beers the evening prior to the hearing, consuming six to ten beers a week, and having been intoxicated three months prior to the hearing.  He is receiving regular counseling; however, his counselor is not a licensed alcohol treatment professional but rather focuses on family counseling.  The DOE psychologist opined that the individual is vulnerable to returning to problematic drinking and driving after consuming alcohol.  The DOE psychologist stated that the individual should not consume more than two beers a day and those beers should be more than one hour apart.  Finally, he concluded that because the individual is comfortable with his current counselor, and she is aiding him, he should continue seeing her but should add a component of structured alcohol treatment.  The DOE psychologist concluded that the individual’s risk of relapse is high.  Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Judge concluded that the individual had not sufficiently mitigated the security associated with his use of alcohol and that his access authorization should therefore not be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-14-0079 (Janet R. H. Fishman)