Energy.gov

hOn November 29, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he determined that the DOE should not restore an individual’s access authorization.  As security concerns under 10 CFR Part 710, a Local Security Office cited the individual’s omission of numerous debts in answer to questions regarding his finances on Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP), information omitted from a March 2006 response by the individual to a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), and the individual’s history of financial difficulties.  The Hearing Officer found the individual’s omission of info

On November 26, 2012, 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 because the individual demonstrated financial irresponsibility through his current delinquent debts and charged off debts, and his inability or unwillingness to live within his means. His behavior raised security concerns under Criterion L.

On November 21, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored. A Local Security Office conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about the individual’s financial irresponsibility. His behavior raised security concerns under Criterion L. After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had not presented sufficient evidence to resolve these security concerns.

On November 16, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a Decision in which she concluded that an individual should be granted DOE access authorization. A DOE Operations Office referred an applicant for a security clearance to administrative review under 10 C.F.R. Part 710, citing as security concerns issues pertaining to the individual’s use of alcohol, including the opinion of a DOE consultant-psychiatrist that the individual was a user of alcohol habitually to excess. The individual requested a hearing before an OHA Hearing Officer.

On November 16, 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 finances. Specifically, the Hearing Officer concluded that the individual’s four months of responsible financial behavior were insufficient to demonstrate a sustained pattern of responsibility given an eight year pattern of irresponsible spending.

On November 15, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a Decision in which she determined that an Individual’s access authorization should be restored. In reaching this determination, the Hearing Officer found that the Individual had resolved the security concerns arising from his alcohol use. The Individual was diagnosed by a DOE psychologist with Alcohol-Related Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. In addition, the Individual had five alcohol-related incidents in his past, including a positive Breath Alchol Test (BAT) in March 2012.

On November 15, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual should be granted authorization access.

On November 15, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he concluded the DOE should not restore an individual’s access authorization.   A Local Security Office (LSO) raised certain concerns regarding the individual’s use of alcohol, citing a recent arrest for Aggravated Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and a diagnosis by a DOE consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) that the individual suffered from Alcohol Dependence.

On November 14, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be restored.  A Local Security Office suspended the individual’s security clearance for failing to comply with rules regarding the handling of classified information and conduct within limited access areas and for failing to report such non-compliance.  This behavior raised security concerns under Criteria G and L.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had presented su

On September 24, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored.  The Individual had a history of five arrests, two of which were alcohol-related.  The Individual’s pattern of criminal activity included a sex offense against a minor, for which he was incarcerated for a period of over one year.  In addition, A DOE Psychologist diagnosed the individual with Alcohol Dependence. The Hearing Officer found that the Individual had not mitigated any of these security concerns at the hearing.