Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On July 15, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision finding that the DOE should not restore an individual’s security clearance after he determined that the individual had not resolved all of the security concerns at issue in the case. The case involved multiple allegations, including that the individual: (1) had admitted to another government agency that he had sexually molested his infant daughter, and had become aroused in her presence; (2) later told the DOE that he had fabricated the story regarding his infant daughter to avoid taking a polygraph; (3) had an arrest in 1987 for Driving Under the Influence; and (4) have stolen items during his youth.  The Administrative Judge first found that the individual had mitigated the security concerns premised on 10 C.F.R. Part 710.8(f) (Criterion F) regarding the individual’s statements to another government agency. The Judge found as a legal matter that the individual’s deliberate false statements to the other government agency did not fall within the scope of Criterion F because Criterion F only applies to information that is given in response to an official inquiry on a matter that relates to a person’s eligibility for a DOE access authorization. Nevertheless, the Judge held while the security concerns connected with the Criterion F are resolved, serious concerns remain under Criterion L regarding the individual’s honesty and trustworthiness on this same matter.  The Judge held that because of the nature, extent and seriousness of the lies that the individual told the other government agency, together with a litany of other inconsistent statements that he provided during the DOE’s administrative review process, the individual had not resolved the all of Criterion L concerns at issue. The Judge did find that the individual had resolved the security concerns related to the DUI arrest due to the passage of time since the occurrence of the incident.   OHA Case No. PSH-15-0003 (Wade Boswell)

On July 17, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored.  A local security office (LSO) alleged that individual had failed a polygraph examination because he lied in an attempt to cover up his misuse of his employer’s computer system to view pornographic material and sexually explicit adult content images during work hours.  In addition, the LSO asserted that the individual had “a strong desire to view pornography [that] has led to behaviors over several years that reflect defects in his judgment or reliability,” which in the opinion of the DOE psychologist, constituted an “an illness or mental condition of a nature which, . . . causes or may cause, a significant defect in judgment or reliability.”  Based upon the hearing testimony and review of the evidence, the Administrative Judge found that any security concerns arising from the individual’s alleged mental condition were resolved.  However, the Administrative Judge found that the security concerns raised by the individual’s behavior in circumventing of his employer’s computer security, intentionally providing false information, and misusing a government computer, were not resolved.  Accordingly, the Administrative Judge determined that the individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0021 (Steven L. Fine)