Energy.gov

On July 25, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that the DOE should not grant DOE access authorization to an individual.  As security concerns under Criterion L of 10 CFR Part 710, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited the individual’s failure to file Federal and state tax returns for 2008 through 2012.  The Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved these concerns.  The individual explained that she had been unable to obtain documentation of her income in 2009 and 2010.

On July 22, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Decision in which he concluded that the DOE should restore an individual’s access authorization.

On July 22, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that the DOE should not restore an individual’s access authorization.  As security concerns under Criterion K of 10 CFR Part 710, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited the individual’s October 2013 arrest for possession of cocaine and his admission that he had used cocaine in 2011 and 2012.  The LSO also raised concerns under Criterion L regarding his questionable judgment in driving with a Blood Alcohol Content in excess of the legal limit and his criminal activity (cocaine use and driving while intoxicat

On July 17, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be granted.  A Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about his outstanding debt and alleged misrepresentations on his SF-86 forms.  In the Notification Letter, the LSO cited the: 1) the individual’s federal delinquent tax debt for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2012, totaling $40,950.45; 2) the individual’s seven collection accounts totaling $52,949.63; 3) the individu

The individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance and participate in the Human Reliability Program (HRP).  He has been employed by the DOE contractor for approximately 29 years. As a holder of access authorization, the individual is required to report certain occurrences to the DOE through his employer and, in December 2011, the individual reported that he had been fined $700 under a “super speeder” law for driving 93 miles per hour (mph) in a 55 mph zone. See Ex. 10.

On July 11, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that the DOE should restore an individual’s access authorization.  As security concerns under Criterion L of 10 CFR Part 710, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited the individual’s outstanding debts, her inability or unwillingness to pay those debts, and her failure to report certain debts to the LSO.  The Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved these concerns.  The individual accrued her outstanding debts under unusual circumstances in 2006 and 2007, and has been living within her mean

On July 3, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that the DOE should restore an individual’s access authorization.  As security concerns under Criterion H of 10 CFR Part 710, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited a DOE psychiatrist’s diagnoses of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Delusional Disorder.  The Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the concerns related to these mental health conditions.  The individual is now receiving counseling and has not experienced any symptoms of PTSD, including any suicidal ideations, for more than

On July 1, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Decision in which he concluded that the DOE should restore an individual’s access authorization. After conducting a hearing, convened at the individual’s request, and evaluating all relevant evidence, the AJ concluded that the individual had mitigated the security concerns raised under criterion (l) by his financial difficulties and his omissions from a 2013 QNSP.

On June 23, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be restored.  A Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about her failure to file her federal and state income taxes for the years 2011 and 2012.  The individual explained that she did not file her income taxes because her database malfunctioned in 2011 and she consequently lost records from several years before; in addition, she had a part-time job, which caused her a lot of stress and distr

On June 20, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Decision in which she concluded that an individual should not be granted DOE access authorization.  A DOE Operations Office referred the individual, an applicant for access authorization, to administrative review under 10 C.F.R.