You are here

Security Cases

RSS
April 20, 2016
PSH-16-0006 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On April 20, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved the security concerns arising from her financial delinquencies.  The Local Security Office determined that in September 15, 2015, the individual had 11 delinquent debts totaling $20,764 on her credit report.  At the hearing, the individual did not dispute the debts.  She identified the largest debts as student loans, for which her wages a

April 19, 2016
PSH-15-0101 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On April 19, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored. The local security office (LSO) had conducted personnel security interviews with the individual in both 1991 and 1999 to address financial matters. In 2014, the individual disclosed on a QNSP both collection debt and delinquent debt; he stated he had received offers to settle the collection debt and had made arrangements to settle those accounts with money he had saved.

April 14, 2016
PSH-16-0004 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On April 14, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  A Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the individual to address concerns under Criterion L regarding his delinquent debts and deliberate misrepresentations on his QNSP.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the individual did not sufficiently mitigate the DOE’s concerns as to his delinquent debts and as to his honesty and trustworthiness

April 7, 2016
PSH-15-0102 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On April 7, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual should not be granted access authorization. During a background investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) obtained information about the individual’s finances that raised security concerns. Specifically, the LSO learned that the individual owed over $15,000 in unpaid federal taxes and over $20,000 in delinquent debt. At the hearing, the individual claimed that his difficulties were due primarily to periods of unemployment and under-employment.

March 23, 2016
PSH-15-0078 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 23, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  A DOE consulting psychiatrist evaluated the individual and concluded that he met the DSM 5 criteria for Unspecified Neurocognitive Disorder on the basis of observed impairments in memory and attention and variable performance on certain cognitive tests.  The DOE psychiatrist determined that this is an illness, though mild, that may cause a significant defect in the individual’s judgment or reliability and was not amenable to treatment.  The

March 17, 2016
PSH-15-0076 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 17, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he found that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved security concerns under Criteria G and L regarding a number of security infractions for mishandling classified information. The individual presented testimony and documentary evidence establishing that with regard to several of the incidents, the individual had not actually violated security rules.

March 11, 2016
PSH-15-0086 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 11, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual's request for access authorization should not be granted.  In March 2015, as part of a background investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about the individual’s criminal conduct.  The derogatory information fell within the purview of Criterion L. 

March 10, 2016
PSH-15-0080 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 10, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual's request for access authorization should not be granted.  In April 2015, as part of a background investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about the individual’s misrepresentations and criminal conduct.  The derogatory information fell within the purview of the Bond Amendment and Criteria F and L.  As support of its invocation of the Bond Amendment, the Notification Letter cited the individual’s 18-month

February 26, 2016
PSH-15-0096 In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On February 26, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual's access authorization should not be restored.  During a personnel security interview and a credit report review, the Local Security Office found that the individual had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2005 and a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2015, and had exhibited a long pattern of financial irresponsibility.  During the hearing, the individual explained the circumstances that led to his two bankruptcies.  He readily acknowledged his financial issues and testified that he and his wife we

February 22, 2016
PSH-15-0100 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On February 22, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual's access authorization should be restored.  According to the Notification Letter, the individual had failed to file federal income tax returns for the years 2012 through 2014.   The individual explained that his Certified Public Accountant, who had filed his taxes for him for the previous 11 years, suddenly stopped practicing, and the individual had considerable difficulty finding a replacement.  He was not aware, until his personnel security interview in August 2015, that his inaction