Personnel Security Decision  (10 CFR Part 710)

On December 19, 2014, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s request for a DOE security clearance should be denied.  A local security office (LSO) referred the individual’s request for a security clearance to administrative review after the individual was diagnosed with Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) by a DOE psychiatrist, and the LSO found that the individual had engaged in unusual conduct that tended to show that he was not honest, reliable or trustworthy.  In the latter regard, the LSO found that the individual had admitted to:  (1) cheating on tests while in college, (2) illegally downloading music and video games from internet sites, (3) improperly downloading sensitive information from his employer’s computer to a personal thumb drive, (4) misappropriating logon and password information to obtain paywall-protected services without authorization, and (5) attempting to access his in-laws’ cable TV account without their permission in order to obtain free services.  In considering the record and testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the individual was not receiving adequate treatment for his mental disorder, and the individual had failed to present sufficient mitigating evidence to overcome the security concerns associated with his pattern of dishonest behavior.  OHA Case No. PSH-14-0072 (Robert Palmer)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On December 15, 2014, OHA issued a decision denying a FOIA Act Appeal filed by Torres Consulting and Law Group, LLC (Appellant) of a determination issued by the Richland Operations Office.  In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged Richland’s withholdings under FOIA Exemption 4.  In considering the Applicant’s contentions, OHA found that Richland properly withheld the information under Exemption 4, as the information consisted of contractors’ commercial and financial information, the release of which would cause the contractors substantial competitive harm.  OHA therefore denied the Appeal.  OHA Case No. FIA-14-0084

Alternative Fuel Transportation Program (10 CFR Part 490)

On December 18, 2014, OHA issued a decision denying an Appeal filed by the Washington State Fleet Operations (Washington) of a determination issued by DOE on November 10, 2014, under the DOE Alternative Fuel Transportation Program (AFTP), 10 CFR Part 490.  In its determination, the AFTP denied a request filed by Washington for 149 exemptions from the its Model Year (MY) 2013 alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) purchase requirements under the AFTP.  Washington’s Appeal was based upon its claims that: (1) it lacks available alternative fuel, and (2) that it purchases “high mileage hybrid vehicles instead [of AFVs] to reduce our fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.”  After carefully considering the Appeal, OHA found Washington’s contentions to be without merit.  Specifically, OHA found that alternative fuels were in fact available for 149 of its fleet vehicles and that exemption relief was not available for Washington’s purchases of high mileage hybrid vehicles, based upon the specific three grounds for exemption relief set forth in the regulations.   OHA Case No. AFV-14-0001