Energy.gov

On April 16, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be restored.  In August 2013, as part of a background investigation, the local security office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the individual to address concerns about her alcohol use.  During that PSI, the individual was referred to a DOE consultant psychologist (DOE psychologist) for an agency-sponsored evaluation who concluded that the individual suffers from Alcohol Abuse.  The individual’s behavior raised security concerns under

On April 10, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be granted.  The individual, who had one alcohol-related arrest, a history of blackouts, a history of excessive alcohol used to cope with loneliness and depression, and an acquired tolerance to alcohol, was diagnosed by a DOE Psychologist with Alcohol-Related Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS)-Binge Drinking.  At the hearing, the individual candidly acknowledged that she had an alcohol problem and described her enrollment in an Intensive Outp

On April 7, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision finding that the DOE should not restore an individual’s security clearance. The derogatory information at issue in the proceeding involved two matters under 10 C.F.R.

On April 1, 2013, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Decision in which she concluded that the DOE should restore an individual’s suspended DOE access authorization.  A DOE Operations Office suspended an individual’s security clearance and referred him to administrative review under 10 C.F.R.

On March 31, 2014, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s authorization access should be granted.  During his application for access authorization and the subsequent investigation, the individual disclosed that he twice attempted suicide in 2011 during a period in which his marriage was dissolving; both suicide attempts were preceded by consumption of alcohol.

On March 28, 2014, an Administrative Judge issued a Decision in which he determined that an individual should not be granted access authorization. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not resolved security concerns under criteria (f), (h), (j) and (l) regarding his falsification of two QNSPs, his alcohol use and his multiple arrests or citations.

On March 24, 2014, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s authorization access should be restored.  In June 2013, a DOE contractor employee tested positive for alcohol on a random breath alcohol test (BAT), which was administered three hours after the employee had arrived for his scheduled shift. During the prior years, the individual had been drinking 12-18 beers per week and becoming impaired from alcohol consumption on an average of twice per month.

On March 20, 2014, 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 of the individual to address concerns about his alcohol consumption which arose during the Office of Personnel Management’s re-investigation of the individual.  The LSO referred the individual to meet with a DOE psychologist, who diagnosed the individual with alcohol use disorder under DSM-5, which was concurrent with alcohol abuse disorder under DSM-IV-TR.  The DOE p

On March 20, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) 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 March 21, 2014, an Administrative Judge issued a Decision in which he determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that, while the Individual had not resolved security concerns under Criterion J regarding his alcohol use and an evaluative report from a DOE Psychologist diagnosing him as suffering from Alcohol Dependence. Specifically, the Administrative Judge concluded that the individual did not acknowledge the existence of an alcohol use disorder, and that he was still drinking.