Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On November 17, 2015, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual's access authorization should be granted.  According to the Notification Letter, the individual had failed to file federal income tax returns for the years 2010 through 2013.   The individual’s reason for engaging in this behavior was that he knew that his wife of 19 years feared little other than taxes, that she was refusing to agree to a divorce, and that his hope was that his refusal to file their taxes would drive her to agree to the divorce.  He was not aware, until his Personnel Security Interview in February 2015, that his inaction violated the law; he thought he would merely be subject to penalties and interest assessment.  He delayed filing his tax returns as long as possible in the hope of a concession from his wife, but ultimately filed all overdue returns together with all taxes due.  At the hearing, the individual and others testified to his general law-abiding and financially responsible nature, and to his resolve to forego such unsuccessful schemes in the future and instead follow the advice of a recently engaged attorney who will help him achieve his goal of divorce through lawful means.  The Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the security concerns raised by poor judgment, because his poor judgment had been exerted only within a very limited area of his life and was highly unlikely to recur.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0062 (William Schwartz)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On November 17, 2015, OHA denied a FOIA Appeal filed by Julie A. Reddick (Appellant) from a determination issued to her by the DOE Office of Information Resources (OIR). In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged OIR’s decision to withhold, pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 7(E) of the FOIA, a draft investigation report prepared on behalf of the Employee Concerns Program at DOE Headquarters. OHA found that Exemption 5 was applicable to the report because it was a draft document reflecting the opinions and observations of the author and was therefore both predecisional and deliberative. OHA further found that no portions of the draft report were reasonably segregable and that disclosure of the draft report would not be the public interest.  Based on the foregoing, OHA found that the entire document could be withheld under Exemption 5 and that it was not necessary to reach OIR’s decision to withhold the document under Exemption 7(E). Accordingly, OHA denied the Appeal.  OHA Case No. FIA-15-0057