Energy.gov

On December 31, 2014, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  Following the individual’s employer receipt of a garnishment notice from the IRS with respect to the individual, the LSO reviewed the individual’s security file which revealed a history of financial issues and questionable disclosure.

On December 23 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Decision in which she concluded that the DOE should not restore an individual’s access authorization.  A DOE Operations Office referred the individual to administrative review under 10 C.F.R. Part 710, citing as security concerns under 10 C.F.R.

On December 23, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be restored.  The LSO suspended an individual’s access authorization for falsification on a QNSP (Criterion F) and for financial irresponsibility (e.g., delinquent debt, collection debt, charge-off debt, lien on residence for non-payment of homeowner association fees and non-payment of federal income taxes for 2011 and 2012) (Criterion L).

The following facts are undisputed. The individual’s employer, a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, requested a security clearance on the individual’s behalf. In response to that request, the local security office (LSO) conducted an investigation of the individual. During the course of that investigation, the LSO obtained information about the individual that raised security concerns. In order to resolve these concerns, the LSO summoned the individual for an interview (PSI) with a personnel security specialist in January 2014.

On December 4, 2014, 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 his alcohol use and diagnosis by a DOE psychologist that he suffered from alcohol use disorder, mild.  At the hearing, the Individual testified that he continues to consume alcohol, having two beers the evening prior to the hearing, consuming six to ten beers a week, and having been intoxicated three m

On December 2, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Decision in which he concluded that the DOE should not grant an individual access authorization. After conducting a hearing, convened at the individual’s request, and evaluating all relevant evidence, the AJ concluded that the individual had not mitigated the security concerns raised under the Bond Amendment (50 U.S.C. § 3343) regarding his criminal convictions and incarceration.

On December 1, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that the DOE should not restore an individual’s DOE access authorization.  As security concerns under Criterion H of 10 CFR Part 710, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited a DOE psychologist’s determination that the individual showed a lack of remorse for her financial irresponsibility and deceitfulness, traits that, in his opinion, constituted a mental condition that could cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability.  As security concerns under Criterion L of 10 CFR Part 710, the LSO cited th

On November 26, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be granted.  The DOE alleged that the Individual deliberately provided false or misleading information on a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP), provided false or misleading information on a Pre-Employment/Pre-Clearance Suitability Investigation form (the Pre-Employment Form) submitted to his employer; had exhibited an “inability to work with women”; had exhibited an inability to follow rules or regulations; and had a history w

On November 21, 2014, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns under Criteria H and J.

On November 17, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored.  The individual had been diagnosed by a DOE Psychologist with Gambling Disorder.  In addition, the individual had nine outstanding collections accounts, totaling $3,132, and one “charge off” account for $17,957, which she failed to disclose in her most recent  Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP).