Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On March 10, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual's request for access authorization should not be granted.  In April 2015, as part of a background investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about the individual’s misrepresentations and criminal conduct.  The derogatory information fell within the purview of the Bond Amendment and Criteria F and L.  As support of its invocation of the Bond Amendment, the Notification Letter cited the individual’s 18-month imprisonment, from 1991-1993, on a conviction of a probation violation for Possession of a Controlled Substance.  To support its reliance on Criterion F, the LSO alleged that the individual deliberately omitted information from a September 2014 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) regarding his past employment and history of criminal conduct.  Under Criterion L, the LSO cited the individual’s alleged misrepresentations and his pattern of criminal conduct that includes 51 charges and arrests.  During the hearing, the individual testified convincingly that he took the QNSP seriously and was not attempting to hide anything, but overlooked and misread some questions, and forgot other details regarding his arrest history.  However, he testified that he has matured, no longer associates with individuals from his past and is serving as a role model for is teenage son.  The Administrative Judge therefore found that the apparent misrepresentations or omissions on his QNSP occurred under unique circumstances that are not likely to recur and do not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and good judgment.  However, with respect to the individual’s criminal conduct, the Administrative Judge found that, in light of the individual’s long history of arrests, the individual has not yet demonstrated a sufficient period of rehabilitation.  Therefore, the Administrative Judge found that security concerns remain regarding the Bond Amendment and Criterion L. OHA Case No. PSH-15-0080 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman)

On March 11, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual's request for access authorization should not be granted.  In March 2015, as part of a background investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about the individual’s criminal conduct.  The derogatory information fell within the purview of Criterion L.  To support its reliance on Criterion L, the LSO alleged that the individual has a pattern of criminal conduct, citing over 10 charges and arrests.  During the hearing, the individual readily acknowledged his long history of criminal conduct, including his numerous charges and arrests.  However, he testified that he has made substantial positive changes in his life, had learned from his mistakes and is an honest and trustworthy individual.  The Administrative Judge found, however, that in light of the individual’s long pattern of criminal behavior and an unresolved criminal charge, the individual has not yet demonstrated a sufficient period of rehabilitation.  Therefore, the Administrative Judge found that security concerns that remain regarding Criterion L.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0086 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On March 9, 2016, OHA granted in part a FOIA Appeal filed by the National Security Archive (Appellant) from a determination issued to it by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In its determination, the NNSA withheld the entirety of a letter written by a former Director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory pursuant to Exemption 1 of the FOIA as well as the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5. The Appellant challenged NNSA’s withholdings under both FOIA exemptions.  OHA, reviewing only the material withheld under the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5, found that the deliberative process privilege was applicable because the letter was both predecisional and deliberative. OHA further found that a discretionary disclosure of the letter would not be in the public interest.  However, OHA also found that portions of the letter may not be Exemption 5 material and may be reasonably segregable. Accordingly, OHA granted the Appeal and remanded the matter to the NNSA to determine whether any information could be released.  OHA Case No. FIA-16-0020