Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On May 20, 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 H and J. Specifically, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not offered any evidence to refute a DOE-contractor psychiatrist’s (DOE Psychiatrist) diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder. Further the Administrative Judge found no evidence that the individual had participated in any alcohol treatment program since the examination by the DOE Psychiatrist.  The Administrative Judge also found that the individual had not resolved Criteria L security concerns regarding the misleading answers the individual provided in a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) form regarding the extent of prior professional treatment the individual received for alcohol and emotional health issues. The Administrative Judge was not convinced by the individual’s testimony that he was confused as to what information the questions were trying to elicit. Consequently, the Administrative Judge found that the individual’s security clearance should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-15-0005 (Richard Cronin) 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeals

On May 20, 2015, OHA denied a Freedom of Information Act Appeal (FOIA) filed by Mansoor Ghassem of a determination issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding information the FBI withheld after consultation with the DOE.  In his Appeal, Mr. Ghassem challenged all the redactions taken from the responsive documents.  In this decision, OHA addressed the DOE’s application of FOIA Exemptions 3 (National Security Act) and 6 (personal privacy) to withhold the identities of employees of the DOE’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, other employees who support the intelligence community, and intelligence methodology.  OHA found that the DOE had properly withheld the redacted information pursuant to these Exemptions.  OHA Case No. FIA-15-0021 

On May 20, 2015, OHA issued a decision denying an Appeal from a FOIA determination issued by the DOE Office of Information Resources (OIR). In the Appeal, National Review (Appellant) challenged a determination by the OIR not to expedite the processing of the Appellant’s FOIA request. The FOIA provides that expedited processing is to be offered only when the requester demonstrates a “compelling need” or when otherwise determined by the agency. OHA concluded that the Appellant did not demonstrate a compelling need, and therefore denied the Appeal.  OHA Case Nos. FIA-15-0023, FIA-15-0024