Energy.gov

The individual is employed by a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, and was granted a security clearance in connection with that employment. During a 2013 routine re-investigation of his ex-wife, the local security office (LSO) obtained information about the individual’s finances that raised security concerns. The LSO conducted an investigation into his finances, and as a part of that investigation, it summoned the individual for an interview with a personnel security specialist.

On February 18, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Decision in which he 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.

The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold a DOE security clearance.  The Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) with the Individual in September 2014, after receiving potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual’s financial indebtedness.

On February 12, 2015, 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. Part 710, citing as security concerns under 10 C.F.R.

On February 4, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a Decision in which she concluded that the DOE should not restore an individual’s suspended access authorization.  A DOE Operations Office referred the individual to administrative review under 10 C.F.R.

The individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold a DOE security clearance. During a background investigation, information surfaced about the individual’s failure to file federal income tax returns.  When the Local Security Office (LSO) was unable to resolve the derogatory information during a personnel security interview (PSI), it requested and received permission to initiate an administrative review proceeding.

Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman - Administrative Judge

The individual is employed by a DOE contractor, and was granted a security clearance in connection with that employment.  During a routine re-investigation of the individual, the local security office (LSO) obtained information that raised security concerns.  To address those concerns, the LSO summoned the individual for an interview with a personnel security specialist in July 2014.  After this Personnel Security Interview (PSI) failed to resolve the concerns, the LSO determined that derogatory information existed that cast into doubt the individual’s eligibility for access authorization.

On January 30, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be restored.  The individual voluntarily entered a 30-day residential program for alcohol treatment following an “intervention” coordinated by his wife. Upon his release from the treatment facility, the LSO referred the individual to a DOE consulting psychologist for evaluation.

On January 29, 2013, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should be granted.  The LSO had alleged that the individual had 12 outstanding collection accounts totaling $3,815, had two properties foreclosed upon, had a negative cash flow, and had not contacted any of her creditors regarding her 12 delinquent accounts.

On January 23, 2013, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be granted.  The LSO had alleged that the Individual (1) is married to an undocumented alien; (2) continues to associate with his in-laws, who are also undocumented aliens; (3) has attempted to conceal these facts by answering “no comment” when asked about his wife and in-laws’ immigration status during a background interview, and (4) is currently in possession of an active passport issued by a foreign country, which may indicate that he has a p