You are here

PSH-13-0103 - In the Matter of Personnel Security

On January 29, 2013, the Individual completed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) to a Local Security Office (LSO).  In this QNSP, the Individual admitted that he had used a neighbor’s internet connection without permission on several occasions in 2010 and 2011, and had downloaded copyrighted software and media to his computer without permission from the copyright holders from 2000 through 2006.  Exhibit 7 at 18-19.  On February 14, 2013, the Individual was interviewed by an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator.  During this interview, the Individual stated that he has “struggled with an addition to pornography since he was 11 years old.”  Exhibit 9 at 62.  The LSO conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the Individual on May 9, 2013, and then referred him to a DOE Psychologist who diagnosed the Individual as suffering from Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder (OSPD), a condition that the DOE Psychologist opined can cause significant defects in his judgment or reliability.  Exhibit 6 at 8. 

Unable to resolve the security concerns raised by the Individual’s conduct, and the OSPD diagnosis, the LSO initiated administrative review proceedings by issuing a letter (Notification Letter) advising the Individual that it possessed reliable information that created a substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance.  In the Notification Letter, the LSO set forth the derogatory information at issue and advised that the derogatory information fell within the purview of potentially disqualifying criteria set forth in the security regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8, subsections (h) and (l).

The Notification Letter informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before a Hearing Officer in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization.  The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded his request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA).  The Director of OHA appointed me as the Hearing Officer in this matter on September 9, 2013.  

At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(e) and (g), I took testimony from the Individual, his spouse, a DOE personnel security specialist, and the DOE Psychologist.  See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-13-0103 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”).  The LSO submitted nine exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 11.  The Individual submitted seven exhibits, marked as Exhibits A though G.

Steven Fine - Hearing Officer