Personnel Security Decision  (10 CFR Part 710)

On April 2, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s request for a DOE access authorization should not be granted.  A local security office found that the individual owed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) $76,222.07 in unpaid back taxes, owed his state government $2,923.43 in unpaid back taxes, and had three outstanding collection accounts.  The Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the security concerns arising from his three outstanding collection accounts by submitting evidence showing that he had paid them in full.  The Administrative Judge, however, was not convinced by the individual’s contentions that he failed to pay his taxes in order to fulfill his moral obligation to support and educate his two children, and that he has a realistic plan that will allow him to satisfy his debt to the IRS and the state government.  The Administrative Judge found that the individual exhibited a profound lack of judgment, lack of trustworthiness, unwillingness to comply with laws, and unreliability, when he chose to evade his tax responsibilities in order to pay for his children’s education.  The Administrative Judge further found that the individual had not shown that his plan for resolving his financial issues is realistic.  Accordingly, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved all of the security concerns raised by DOE.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0004 (Steven L. Fine)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeals

On March 30, 2015, OHA denied a FOIA Appeal filed by David H. Dunaway, Esq., on behalf of Ms. Beverly Jean Parks from a determination issued to her by the DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office. In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the adequacy of Oak Ridge’s search for responsive documents.  However, OHA found that Oak Ridge had conducted an adequate search that was reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents.  OHA Case No. FIA-15-0012

On March 31, 2015, OHA denied a FOIA Appeal filed by Bill Streifer. In his Appeal, Mr. Streifer challenged the adequacy of the search that was performed by the DOE Office of Information Resources (OIR) in response to Mr. Streifer’s request for documents pertaining to payments made to patent holders for inventions used during the Manhattan Project. The OIR was unable to locate any responsive documents. In its decision, the OHA concluded that the search, which encompassed the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Science, the History Office, and the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, was adequate. OHA therefore denied the Appeal. OHA Case No. FIA-15-0009

On March 30, 2015, OHA denied a FOIA Appeal filed by Mr. Jim L. Sanders of Real Estate Appraisal Litigation, LLC from a determination issued to him by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the adequacy of BPA’s search for responsive documents as well as BPA’s application of FOIA Exemption 6 to withhold personal identifying information that would invade the privacy of homeowners.  In denying the Appeal, OHA found that BPA conducted an adequate search and that it had properly withheld redacted information pursuant to Exemption 6.  OHA Case No. FIA-15-0008

Contractor Employee Protection Program (10 CFR Part 708)

On April 2, 2015, the OHA issued a decision denying, due to lack of jurisdiction, an Appeal filed by Mr. Charles W. Trask III of the dismissal of his whistleblower complaint by the Whistleblower Program Manager for the Employee Concerns Program of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Mr. Trask filed the Complaint against his former employer, Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS), under the DOE’s Contractor Employee Protection Program (10 CFR Part 708). In the Complaint, Mr. Trask, an engineer, alleged that LANS had retaliated against him for reporting legal and safety issues related to a pedestrian walkway and two manholes in a parking lot area at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Whistleblower Program Manager dismissed the Complaint due to lack of jurisdiction, and Mr. Trask appealed to the OHA. The OHA found that none of the facts alleged by Mr. Trask regarding actions or decisions by LANS, even if true, could support a claim of retaliation. As a consequence, the OHA determined that his Complaint did not present issues for which relief could be granted and that it lacked merit on its face, thereby requiring a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. OHA Case No. WBU-15-0003