Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On February 22, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual's access authorization should be restored.  According to the Notification Letter, the individual had failed to file federal income tax returns for the years 2012 through 2014.   The individual explained that his Certified Public Accountant, who had filed his taxes for him for the previous 11 years, suddenly stopped practicing, and the individual had considerable difficulty finding a replacement.  He was not aware, until his personnel security interview in August 2015, that his inaction violated the law; he thought he would merely be subject to penalties and interest assessment.  By the time of the hearing, he had secured the services of a tax preparation service that was preparing his federal tax returns for the years in question.  He had also engaged a new CPA, who will file his delinquent state tax returns on the basis of the federal returns and assume responsibility for the individual’s future obligations regarding his taxes.  The Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the security concerns raised by his poor judgment, because his poor judgment had been exerted only within a very limited area of his life and was highly unlikely to recur.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0100 (William Schwartz)

On February 26, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual's access authorization should not be restored.  During a personnel security interview and a credit report review, the Local Security Office found that the individual had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2005 and a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2015, and had exhibited a long pattern of financial irresponsibility.  During the hearing, the individual explained the circumstances that led to his two bankruptcies.  He readily acknowledged his financial issues and testified that he and his wife were irresponsible in getting their finances under control prior to their second bankruptcy.  Since filing his second bankruptcy in 2015, the individual testified that he is more responsible regarding his finances.  He testified that he has attempted to save money and to be more financially stable by selling some of his possessions to pay his expenses. The Administrative Judge found that the individual’s financial problems date back at least 10 years and were not largely beyond his control.  Although the individual testified about a couple of stressful situations, including an increase in expenses for his daughter who has special needs as well as a decrease in his wife’s income, the Administrative Judge was not convinced that the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.  The individual admitted that he did not pay attention to the family’s finances as his wife was the family bookkeeper.  In light of the individual’s long-standing financial issues, the Administrative Judge was not convinced that he has established a pattern of financial responsibility at this time.  Therefore, the Administrative Judge found that the individual did not present sufficient evidence to resolve his financial problems, and their associated concerns at this time.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0096 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman)

Application for Stay

On February 23, 2016, OHA granted an Application for Stay filed by Alcatel-Lucent USA (Alcatel).  Alcatel requested a stay of enforcement of DOE's February 2014 Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies (Conservation Standards), with respect to a shipment of external power units imported by Alcatel that landed in the United States on February 11, 2016, one day after the compliance date of the Conservation Standards. In granting Alcatel’s stay request, OHA found that Alcatel and satisfied the five criteria for the approval of a stay specified in OHA procedural regulations, including that:  (1) Alcatel had demonstrated irreparable injury, (2) denial of relief would result in an immediate hardship to Alcatel, (3) granting a stay was desirable for public policy reasons, (4) it was impossible for the firm to fulfill the requirements of the Conservation Standards, and (5) there was a strong likelihood of Alcatel prevailing on the merits with respect to its accompanying Application for Exception from the Conservation Standards.  See 10 CFR § 1003.43(b).  OHA therefore granted Alcatel’s Application for Stay. OHA Case No. EXS-16-0009