Energy.gov

On February 1, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  A Local Security Office suspended the individual’s security clearance after the individual tested positive on a random Breath Alcohol Test (BAT).  The individual acknowledged that, since 2009, he would routinely drink to 18 12-ounce beers each weekend and has become intoxicated almost weekly.

This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the individual”) to hold an access authorization  under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R.

On January 17, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  A Local Security Office suspended the individual’s security clearance after the individual had incurred $20,000 in charges while patronizing a “gentleman’s club” on a single evening; approximately $17,000 of that amount was charged to his corporate credit card.  His employer’s staff psychologists were concerned about the role of alcohol consumption in this incident.

On January 16, 2013, a Hearing Officer issued a Decision in which he determined that an individual’s access authorization should be restored. In reaching this determination, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had resolved security concerns under Criterion G and L associated with the individual’s significant number of violations of security rules with regard to taking unauthorized equipment into sensitive facilities, inadvertently taking classified documents out of a secured facility and failing to report various security incidents.

On January 14, 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 under Criterion G and L associated with the Individual’s violation of security rules with regard to writing coded versions of the combination to a secured safe in his day planner and a piece of paper.

On December 21, 2012, 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 under Criteria H and L associated with a recent 2012 Bankruptcy Petition and a determination from a DOE-contractor Psychologist that the Individual suffered from Pathological Gambling.

On December 18, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be granted.  The Individual had a history of two alcohol alcohol-related arrests.   In addition, A DOE Psychologist found that the Individual would consume four to six alcoholic beverages during an evening on a weekly basis.  The Psychologist accordingly concluded that the individual habitually used alcohol to excess.  The Hearing Officer found that, since the Individual continued to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, he had not mitigated any of th

On December 13, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be granted.  A Local Security Office conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about the individual’s alcohol use.   A DOE psychiatrist examined the individual and concluded that the individual suffers from Alcohol Dependence.  His behavior raised security concerns under Criteria H and J.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Hearing Officer found that the individual h

On December 13, 2012, 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 not successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns regarding his history of   legal problems, including arrests, warrants issued for his arrest, and protective orders issued against him.

On December 13, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a Decision in which she 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 the security concerns arising from her diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder or her misuse of technology. The Individual was diagnosed by a DOE psychologist with NPD and Adjustment Disorder, with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood.