You are here

Summary of Decisions - March 10, 2014 – March 14, 2014

March 14, 2014 - 3:12pm


Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On March 14, 2014, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual’s security clearance should be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns regarding her conduct under Criterion L. Specifically, the Hearing Officer concluded that the individual had mitigated the DOE’s concerns regarding her association with a person involved in criminal conduct, in this case, her boyfriend, who had a record of criminal offenses and currently cohabited with her.  OHA Case No. PSH-13-0135 (William M. Schwartz)

On March 13, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored.  The individual, who had a history of alcohol-related arrests, was diagnosed by a DOE psychologist with Alcohol-Related Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS).  At the hearing, the individual attempted to show that he would not use alcohol in the future.  However, the record showed that the individual had repeatedly provided inaccurate information to DOE security officials and had not begun treatment, and had only abstained from using alcohol for 5 months.   Accordingly, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by his alcohol use and the DOE psychologist’s findings.  OHA Case No. PSH-13-0137 (Steven L. Fine)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On March 13, 2014, OHA issued a decision denying an (Appeal) from a FOIA determination issued by the Idaho Operations Office (IOO). The Appellant appealed the IOO’s determination that the requested winning bid amount on a subcontract was not an agency record.  IOO informed OHA that the requested information was maintained by its contractor, Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA), as BEA created the records with that information and DOE has not received them. Moreover, pursuant to the contract between DOE and BEA, DEAR 970-5204-3, clause (b)(3), the winning bid amount is also deemed part of a contractor-owned record. Thus, OHA concluded that the requested winning bid amount was not an agency record and denied the Appeal.  OHA Case No. FIA-14-0016