Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On March 1, 2015, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he restored an individual’s access authorization. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved security concerns under Criterion L regarding several security rule violations occurring a number of years ago, and two instances where the individual had viewed pornography on a government issued laptop. The individual presented testimony from a former supervisor and a manager indicating that some of the security violations had been the result of a lack of specific training and the existence of confusion among employees regarding proper procedures. The supervisor and manager also testified that the individual has a changed attitude with regard to any situation where he is unclear regarding proper security procedure. With regard to the two instances of viewing pornography two years prior to the hearing, the individual realizes that he made a serious error in judgment. An examination by a DOE-contractor psychiatrist indicated that the individual did not suffer from any psychiatric disorder. The individual also presented evidence regarding his realization of consequences of a future incident, and his efforts to help his fellow employees learn from his experience. After reviewing all of the evidence, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had presented sufficient evidence to resolve the concerns raised by his past security incidents. Consequently, the Administrative Judge found that the individual’s security clearance should be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0095 (Richard Cronin)

On March 3, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be restored.  The individual was hospitalized after becoming ill at work and, while hospitalized, was diagnosed with liver disease as a likely consequence of long-term daily alcohol consumption.  The local security office (LSO) was notified by the individual’s employer that the individual had been deemed neither physically nor psychiatrically fit to return to work and, thereafter, the LSO referred the individual to a DOE psychiatrist for evaluation.  The DOE psychiatrist opined that the individual met the diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence and alcohol use disorder.  Following the individual’s hospitalization, he completed a 28-day inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program, followed by a 12-week intensive outpatient program (IOP) for alcohol treatment.  As of the date of the hearing, the individual had been abstinent from alcohol for 13 months and continued to attend weekly aftercare meetings sponsored by his IOP, monthly counseling sessions with his employer’s employee assistance program (EAP), and three-to-five meetings per week of Alcoholics Anonymous.  He testified that he intends to not consume alcohol at any time in the future.  The individual’s EAP counselor stated that the individual’s prognosis for continued sobriety is good; the DOE psychiatrist testified at the hearing that the individual was still in the early stages of recovery, but that if he maintained the present structure of his treatment he was unlikely to relapse. On this basis, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the security concerns regarding his use of alcohol under Criteria J.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0097 (Wade M. Boswell)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On February 29, 2015, OHA denied a FOIA Appeal filed by Yogi Shan from a determination issued by the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy. In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the withholding of information from a responsive document pursuant to FOIA Exemption 6.  Upon review, OHA found that the withholding was appropriate. OHA Case No. FIA-16-0019