Energy.gov

On September 14, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision restoring an individual’s access authorization.

On September 13, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  The Local Security Office (LSO) had suspended the individual’s access authorization, based on Criterion L, citing numerous delinquent debts, as well as an established pattern of unwillingness and inability to satisfy debt, as evidenced by past garnishments, car repossessions, and a past bankruptcy.  At the hearing, the individual presented evidence that his current debts had been discharged by bankruptcy, just prior to the hearing.  The Adm

On September 6, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s request for DOE access authorization should be granted.  The LSO had alleged that the individual’s marriage to an undocumented immigrant from a non-sensitive nation constituted a security concern.  The LSO argued that the individual’s marriage to an undocumented immigrant showed poor judgement on the individual’s part because of the spouse’s “unlawful status” and makes the individual vulnerable to coercion and exploitation, since a hostile intelligence or terrorist operative coul

On September 2, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual's access authorization should be restored.  According to the Notification Letter, the individual had been arrested in 2015 for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) of alcohol.  He was also arrested for DUI in 2009 and received a citation for Minor in Possession of alcohol at age 18 or 19.  A DOE psychologist determined that the individual used alcohol habitually to excess, but did not meet the criteria for any of the recognized alcohol-related diagnoses.  She recommended eight months of a

On September 1, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should be restored.  In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the security concerns arising from his August 2016 arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and diagnosis of alcohol dependence.  The individual and his wife testified that he entered an Intensive Inpatient Treatment Program (ITP) within two weeks of his DUI.  Since his release from the ITP, he has been attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)

On September 1, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should be restored.  In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the security concerns arising from diagnosis of alcohol dependence and three alcohol-related incidents.  The individual testified that he completed an Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program (IOP) and that, since his release from the IOP, he had been going to the Veterans Administration (VA) for counseling.  His VA psychiatrist and VA counselor

On August 31, 2016, 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: (1) submitted a signed Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in which she failed to disclose several outstanding financial delinquencies, including a state tax lien, and five collection accounts; (2) falsely denied having any bills or debt turned over to a collection agency during the past seven years during a Personnel Security Interview (PSI), and (3) three unpaid collection accounts totaling $1,

On August 31, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he found that individual’s access authorization should be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved security concerns under Criteria H, J, and L regarding 2012 and 2015 arrests for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) and a report from a DOE psychologist (DOE Psychologist) opining that the individual was a user of alcohol habitually to excess.

On August 31, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual should not be granted access authorization. The LSO alleged security concerns arising under Criterion L based upon the individual’s purported financial irresponsibility and non-compliance with tax laws.

On August 29, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s access authorization should be restored.  According to the Notification Letter, the individual used marijuana on one occasion in 2014.  When completing his QNSP in August 2015, he certified that he had not used drugs illegally in the past seven years nor at any time while holding a security clearance.  During his OPM background investigation interview and, later, at his Personnel Security Interview, he admitted that he had used marijuana one time in 2014.  The Local Security Office fou