Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On August 1, 2015, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved security concerns under Criterion L regarding lack of candor and failure to comply with rules. The individual had misused his government issued credit card by making unauthorized purchases, and also provided apparently misleading answers to questions concerning his misuse of the credit card. Of the two Criterion L concerns raised by the DOE, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had mitigated some but not all of the allegations regarding his lack of candor, and had failed mitigate his failure to comply with DOE rules concerning use of his government-issued credit card particularly for non-official trips. The Administrative Judge found that the individual, however, had sufficiently mitigated security concerns related to financial irresponsibility since the financial pressures which led to his misuse of the card, his spouse’s illnesses and the need to make repairs on a rental property, had been resolved and were unlikely to recur. Nevertheless, because the individual had not resolved all of the Criteria L security concerns, the Administrative Judge found that the individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0010 (Richard Cronin)  

On July 30, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  A Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the individual to address concerns under Criterion L regarding his delinquent debts and failure to supply requested documents.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the individual did not sufficiently mitigate the DOE’s concerns as to his delinquent debts, but that he mitigated the DOE’s concerns as to his honesty and trustworthiness for failing to provide certain requested documents to the personnel security specialist after his PSI.  The individual’s financial problems have been ongoing for years as he had delinquent accounts for many years.  Due to these problems, the DOE has had several PSIs with him in the past to address those concerns.  He also owed approximately $31,000 in taxes to the IRS that he knew about since 2012 and had several delinquent accounts.  By time of the hearing, he had accumulated new debts and only recently started to enter into a payment plan with the IRS and other creditors.  The Administrative Judge was not convinced that the individual’s financial problems would not recur as he also had a negative monthly balance as of the time of the hearing.  Furthermore, the individual did not yet establish a pattern of financial responsibility even though he recently obtained assistance from a debt solutions company, which was after his PSI and only a few months before the hearing.  For these reasons, the Administrative Judge could not find that the individual ha resolved the security concerns related to his financial irresponsibility.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0028 (Shiwali Patel)

Freedom of Information Act Appeal (FOIA)

On July 28, 2015, OHA denied in part and remanded in part a FOIA Appeal filed by the Center for Public Integrity and Mr. Alexander Cohen (Appellants). The Appeal related to a FOIA request filed by the Appellants seeking records on an investigation by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) regarding allegations that officials at Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) improperly sought to influence federal and Congressional officials to award the Sandia a non-competitive contract extension. In a determination responding to that request, OIG released one document in which it redacted identifying information for multiple individuals in the federal government and in the private sector pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C) of the FOIA. Analyzing the redactions under Exemption 7(C), which provides broader privacy protections than Exemption 6, OHA found that release of the redacted information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy for the individuals involved. Accordingly, it denied the Appeal in part. However, OHA also remanded the Appeal so that OIG could review (1) whether to release any information in the document that it had released elsewhere in the document, and (2) whether any additional information could be released without compromising the identity of the individuals.  OHA Case No. FIA-15-0035 

Privacy Act Appeal

On July 31, 2015, OHA issued a decision denying a Privacy Act Appeal filed by Rolf E. Carlson, PhD from a determination issued to him by the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the denial of his request to amend or correct his Personnel Security File (PSF). NNSA denied the request to amend the Appellant’s PSF because his employer had withdrawn its request for his security clearance before the administrative process had been completed.  OHA agreed with NNSA’s determination, finding that under statutory guidelines, amendment of his PSF was not appropriate because the challenged information is no longer relevant or necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. Therefore, OHA denied the Appeal. OHA Case No. PAA-15-0001