Energy.gov

On November 29, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he concluded the DOE should not restore an individual’s access authorization.   A Local Security Office (LSO) cited concerns raised by the individual’s use of alcohol habitually to excess and an opinion by a DOE consultant psychologist (DOE psychologist) that the individual’s excessive use of alcohol was an illness or mental conditions that causes or may cause a significant defect in judgment and reliability.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Hearing Officer found

On November 5, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.

On November 8, 2013, a Hearing Officer determined that an individual’s security clearance should be restored. In reaching this determination, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns under Criteria H, J, and L.

On November 7, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a Decision in which she concluded that the DOE should not restore an individual’s suspended DOE access authorization.  A DOE Operations Office referred the individual to administrative review under 10 C.F.R.

On November 6, 2013, a Hearing Officer determined that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns under criterion (h), but had not addressed the criterion (l) concerns.

On November 1, 2013, a Hearing Officer issued a Decision in which he determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had not resolved security concerns regarding the Criterion L concerns arising from his lengthy history of financial irresponsibility and his failure to timely comply with an information request regarding his financial status.

On October 29, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should be restored.  The Record showed that the individual had two DUIs and that a DOE Psychologist also diagnosed him with Alcohol-Abuse.

On October 10, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored.  The Record showed that the individual had a DWI, an arrest for an outstanding warrant for arrest, and an alcohol-related termination of employment.  A DOE Psychologist also diagnosed the individual with Alcohol-Abuse.  The Hearing Officer found that the Individual had not shown that he was reformed or rehabilitated from his Alcohol-Abuse.  Nor had the individual mitigated the security concerns raised by his criminal activity since that

On October 25, 2013, a Hearing Officer determined that an individual’s security clearance should be restored. In reaching this determination, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns under criteria (h) and (j). Specifically, the Hearing Officer concluded that the individual had demonstrated rehabilitation from Alcohol Use Disorder NOS, and that she was no longer a user of alcohol habitually to excess. She did this by demonstrating eight and one-half months of responsible alcohol use and continuing professional counseling.

On October 23, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a Decision in which she concluded that the DOE should not restore an individual’s suspended DOE access authorization.  A DOE Operations Office referred the individual administrative review under 10 C.F.R.