Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On October 8, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s request for a security clearance should not be granted. Processing of the individual’s original application for access authorization was suspended in 2009 due to criminal charges pending against him for Aggravated DWI (which he failed to report on his QNSP). The unresolved security concerns from his 2009 application were re-opened when the individual applied in 2014 for access authorization in conjunction his employment with a different DOE contractor. While the LSO was processing his 2014 application, the individual self-reported that he had been charged with Battery as a result of an incident in his residential community’s hot tub. The LSO referred the individual to a DOE consulting psychologist (twice) who opined that (1) the individual had narcissistic tendencies and (2) met the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alcohol-Related Disorder. Amongst the security concerns raised under Criterion L, the Administrative Judge found the individual failed to sufficiently mitigate: deliberate omissions and false statements in the DOE during the security clearance process (including claiming to be abstaining from alcohol consumption in both 2009 and 2014 while he was actively consuming); five job terminations for failure to follow workplace rules; and eight arrests or criminal citations which were alcohol related. With respect to Criterion J, the security concerns were adequately mitigated as a result of the DOE psychologist’s opinion that the individual did not warrant a diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Dependence, and that he is not a user of alcohol habitually to excess.  With respect to the Criterion H security concerns, the Administrative Judge found: (1) the individual’s present claim of alcohol abstinence was uncorroborated and, in the opinion of the DOE psychologist which was found reasonable, the individual’s reported five months of abstinence and his participation to date in an alcohol treatment program were insufficient to evidence adequate reformation and rehabilitation; and (2) individual’s expert witnesses failed to specifically address (and therefore do not mitigate) the LSO’s concerns with respect to the individual’s judgment and reliability arising from his narcissistic tendencies.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0055 (Wade M. Boswell)

On October 8, 2015, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual's access authorization should be restored.  The individual was arrested in January 2015 for domestic assault, a charge that was later dismissed.  He admitted, however, that he had been drinking alcohol before the arrest. After an interview conducted by the Local Security Office, at which he described his past and current alcohol consumption patterns, he was referred to a DOE consultant psychologist for an evaluation.  In her evaluative report, the psychologist diagnosed the individual with Alcohol Abuse and recommended six months of abstinence and counseling, and participation in Alcoholics Anonymous and Al-Anon meetings. After receiving a copy of the evaluation report, the individual complied with all of the psychologist’s recommendations.  He also researched and read extensively on-line about alcohol addiction and abuse.  At the hearing, which took place after the completion of about three and one-half months of abstinence, the DOE psychologist expressed her opinion that the individual had met her recommendations, except that he had not yet completed six months of abstinence.  She found it appropriate in this case to permit an exception to her recommendation of six months of abstinence, given the lack of severity of the individual’s Alcohol Abuse and the high likelihood of long-term compliance, including continued abstinence, which appeared to be the individual's option.  The Administrative Judge therefore determined that the individual had resolved the security concerns raised by his alcohol use.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0059 (William Schwartz)