Personnel Security Hearing (10 CFR Part 710)

On September 29, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he found that an individual’s access authorization should be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved security concerns under Criteria K and L regarding his use of Adderall and marijuana as well as his selling Adderall on two occasions. The individual presented the testimony of a therapist that the individual’s use of Adderall and marijuana was limited and that the individual was unlikely to use illegal drugs in the future. The individual’s involvement with Adderall was connected with his attempt to stay awake longer in order to complete his course work and research project in college. On two occasions, he sold Adderall to another person for five dollars as was the custom among the students at his college. The individual also presented evidence that he had not used any illegal substance since January 2015. Given the testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved concerns raised by the Criteria K and L derogatory information. Additionally, the therapist testified that, after examining the individual, he found that the individual was not a user of illegal drugs nor an addict. Consequently, the Administrative Judge found that the individual was not barred by the Bond Amendment from possessing a security clearance. OHA Case No. PSH-16-0062 (Richard Cronin)     

On September 29, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should be restored.  In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the security concerns arising from the diagnosis of a DOE psychologist that the individual suffers from a cognitively distorted perception which comprises a mental condition which causes, or may cause, a significant defect in judgment or reliability.  In addition, the Local Security Office (LSO) found that the individual had engaged in questionable conduct when he knowingly consumed alcohol even though his Driving Under the Influence release agreement stated that he must be abstinent.  The individual’s witnesses testified that the individual is extremely trustworthy and honest.  The individual testified that he was in denial regarding alcohol use, and also admitted that he had misled his co-worker to believe that he had misunderstood the release agreement.  After hearing all the testimony, the DOE psychologist testified that the individual no longer had a mental condition.  She was particularly impressed with the individual’s admission that he had misled his co-worker.  Therefore, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the Criteria H and L concerns.  OHA Case No. PSH-16-0064 (Janet R. H. Fishman)

On September 30, 2016, an Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s access authorization should be restored. The individual was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and was referred to a DOE psychologist for an evaluation. The DOE psychologist determined that the individual was a user of alcohol habitually to excess, and his clearance was suspended. The individual requested a hearing. At the hearing, the individual demonstrated that he had abstained from alcohol usage for approximately four months as of the date of the hearing, and had participated in court-ordered DUI education classes and in a voluntary alcohol treatment program. After reviewing the testimony, including the favorable testimony of the DOE psychologist, and the record as a whole, the AJ determined that the individual was no longer a user of alcohol habitually to excess. Consequently, he concluded that the individual had successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns.  OHA Case No. PSH-16-0063 (Robert B. Palmer)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On September 29, 2016, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a Decision and Order concerning a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed by Caroline Lucas, MP, from a determination issued to her by the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In her Appeal, Ms. Lucas challenged the DOE’s use of Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold information from documents it found to be responsive to the FOIA request.  Because Exemptions 1 and 3 were applied to withhold classified information, the Appeal was referred to the Office of Classification for processing.  That Office reviewed the withheld information and provided a report to OHA in which it continued to withhold much of the previously redacted information but determined that some of the previously withheld material could now be released.  It explained that it had determined that Exemptions 1 and 3 continued to apply to most of the information previously withheld from disclosure, as it was properly classified as National Security Information (NSI) under Executive Order 13526 and as Restricted Data under the Atomic Energy Act.  On the basis of the report provided, OHA upheld the earlier determination regarding those portions of the requested documents currently determined to be NSI and Restricted Data. OHA Case No. FIC-15-0006

On September 29, 2016, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a Decision and Order concerning a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed by Yogi Shan from a determination issued to him by the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In his Appeal, Mr. Shan challenged the DOE’s use of Exemptions 3 and 6 to withhold information from documents it found to be responsive to the FOIA request.  Because Exemption 3 was applied to withhold classified information, the Appeal was referred to the Office of Classification for processing.  That Office reviewed the withheld information and provided a report to OHA in which it continued to withhold the previously redacted information.  It explained that it had determined that Exemption 3 continued to apply to the information, as it remained properly classified as Secret Restricted Data under the Atomic Energy Act.  On the basis of the report provided, OHA upheld the earlier determination.  OHA Case No. FIC-16-0001