Energy.gov

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. 

On November 13, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer 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. Part 710, citing the Individual’s past outstanding delinquent debts and her pattern of financial responsibility as security concerns under 10 C.F.R.

On November 8, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he concluded the DOE should not grant an individual an access authorization.   A Local Security Office (LSO) raised certain concerns regarding (1) false statements by the individual during the security clearance process; (2) the individual’s problematic use of alcohol; (3) his use past use of illegal drugs.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had  presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by his us

On November 6, 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 his financial difficulties.  The Individual was questioned about his outstanding debts in 2006, 2009, and 2011 by the Local Security Office (LSO).  All three times, he asserted that he would rectify the situation.  In 2012, he still had nine outstanding collection accounts totaling $52.984 and seven unresolved c

On November 8, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be restored.  A Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about the individual’s alcohol use.  A DOE consultant psychologist found that the individual suffers from Alcohol Dependence, in early full remission.   His behavior raised security concerns under Criteria H, J and L.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Hearing Officer found that the ind

On November 6, 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 abuse of alcohol. The Hearing Officer further concluded that the individual’s six months of responsible behavior regarding alcohol were insufficient to demonstrate a sustained pattern of responsible use.

On November 5, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he concluded that access authorization should not be granted to an individual.  A Local Security Office denied access authorization to the individual because she demonstrated financial irresponsibility through               (1) failing to file federal and state income taxes for seven years, Tax Year (TY) 2004 through TY 2010; (2) accruing unpaid federal tax liability of $37,619.37 and unpaid state tax liability of $6,885.00; and (3) claiming nine tax withholding allowances when she knew she should only claim one.

On November 2, 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.

On November 1, 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.  Specifically, she found that