The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor and is an applicant for DOE access authorization. DOE Exhibit (“Ex.”) 3. During the application process, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in June 2013, and participated in a November 2013 Personnel Security Interview (PSI). DOE Exs. 7, 8. After the PSI, the local security office (LSO) referred the Individual to a DOE consultant-psychologist (“the DOE psychologist”) for an evaluation. The DOE psychologist evaluated the Individual in December 2013, and issued a report. DOE Ex. 6. In a February 2014 Notification Letter, the LSO informed the Individual that there existed derogatory information that raised security concerns under 10 C.F.R. §§ 710.8 (h) and (j) (Criteria H and J, respectively). See DOE Ex. 1 (Summary of Security Concerns). The Notification Letter also informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the security concerns.
The Individual requested a hearing on this matter. DOE Ex. 2. The LSO forwarded his request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and I was appointed the Administrative Judge. At the hearing, the DOE counsel introduced nine exhibits into the record (DOE Exs. 1-9) and presented the testimony of one witness, the DOE psychologist. The Individual testified on his own behalf, and offered the testimony of three additional witnesses: his uncle, his brother, and a long-time friend. The Individual did not submit any exhibits. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-14-0032 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”).
Diane DeMoura - Administrative Judge