Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On June 2, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she 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 the security concerns arising from his alcohol abuse diagnosis.  The individual and his witnesses testified that he has not used alcohol since five days after his arrest for Driving While Under the Influence in June 2015.  He entered and completed an outpatient treatment program.  In addition, he is attending aftercare and counseling.  His family testified that he is a totally different person since he stopped consuming alcohol.  Notwithstanding, the DOE psychologist opined that the individual could not be considered rehabilitated or reformed until he had been abstinent for one year.  Therefore, the Administrative Judge could not find that the individual had resolved the Criteria H & J concerns relating to his alcohol use.  OHA Case No. PSH-16-0009 (Janet R. H. Fishman)

On June 3, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he found that 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 Criteria H, J and L regarding his three DUI arrests, an opinion from a DOE psychologist that the individual suffered from Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Use Disorder, and the individual’s failure to fulfill his commitment made during in an earlier 2000 administrative hearing to permanently abstain from alcohol. The individual challenged the DOE psychologist’s diagnosis on several grounds including that the DOE psychologist inaccurately recorded his statements and that three of the five standardized tests administered by the DOE psychologist indicated that the individual did not have an alcohol disorder. After reviewing the evidence and testimony, however, the Administrative Judge found that the individual’s arguments, and especially in the lack of expert testimony to support his arguments challenging the methodology of the tests, were insufficient to rebut the DOE psychologist’s opinion and that the individual’s current period of abstinence and treatment were insufficient to find that the individual was reformed or rehabilitated. Consequently, the Administrative Judge found that the individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-16-0011 (Richard Cronin)

On June 2, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual's access authorization should be restored.  According to the Notification Letter, the individual had been arrested in 2015 for Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated.  The individual previously had two other alcohol-related arrests in 2010, when he was 19 years old.  A DOE psychologist determined that the individual suffered from Alcohol Related Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, and had concerns about his lack of candor in reporting his alcohol consumption, particularly preceding the 2015 arrest.  The Local Security Office determined that security concerns fell under Criteria H and J, as well as Criterion L for a number of vehicular violations mostly dating back to 2008-2010. By the time of the hearing, the individual had been abstinent for ten months, had been subject to random urinalysis testing for several months, and had attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings with a sponsor for more than six months.   He was further participating in individual counseling and aftercare.  At the hearing, the DOE psychologist determined that the individual had been adequately rehabilitated from his alcohol disorder; she further stated that she no longer had concerns about his candor.  The Administrative Judge therefore found that the concerns about his alcohol consumption were resolved.  Furthermore, he found that the individual had resolved the security concerns raised by his criminal activity:  the alcohol-related charges, because the alcohol consumption concerns had been resolved, and the non-alcohol-related charges, because of the passage of time and the individual’s development of maturity.  OHA Case No. PSH-16-0022 (William Schwartz)