Personnel Security Hearing (10 CFR Part 710)

On July 28, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual should be granted an access authorization.  According to the Notification Letter, the individual had used marijuana at age 13, was charged with Minor in Possession (MIP) of alcohol at age 15, and has engaged in underage drinking.  When completing her QNSP at age 20, she certified that she had not used drugs illegally in the past seven years, and had not been arrested or received a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in the past seven years.  The Local Security Office determined that security concerns fell under Criteria F and L.  At the hearing, the individual testified that she had not used marijuana since age 13.  Most of her underage drinking has occurred while under the supervision of her guardian, which is permissible in her state of residence.  The individual’s unsupervised underage drinking has been infrequent, and she stopped that activity as soon as she became aware that the DOE was concerned about it.  She admitted that she omitted information about her marijuana use on her QNSP because she believed the QNSP was a job application and she feared her employer would not hire someone with past drug use.  She has been straightforward with the DOE ever since her manager advised her (after she had completed her QNSP, unfortunately) to be completely forthcoming.  As for omitting information about her MIP, the individual testified that she believed she had not been arrested and had not been required to appear in court; consequently, she did not believe that the incident needed to be reported.  Based upon the individual’s testimony and the circumstances presented, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the DOE’s security concerns.  OHA Case No. PSH-16-0039 (William Schwartz)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On July 28, 2016, OHA granted in part a FOIA Appeal filed by Michael Ravinitzky from a determination issued by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) of the Department of Energy. In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged OSTI’s decision to withhold responsive records under Exemptions 3 and 4 of the FOIA. Reviewing only the unclassified portion of the responsive records, OHA found that OSTI’s determination did not adequately describe the responsive records it withheld or its reasons for withholding those records. OHA further found that the determination did not address whether any reasonably segregable portions of the records could be released. Accordingly, OHA remanded the determination to OSTI with instructions to revise its determination. OHA Case No. FIA-16-0039