You are here

Security Cases

RSS
March 29, 2016
PSH-16-0005 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 29, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  In July 2015, a Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a personnel security interview (PSI) of the individual to address concerns regarding his arrest and charge for Aggravated Assault Against a Household Member with a Deadly Weapon, a fourth degree felony, and Battery against a Household Member, a misdemeanor, in May 2015.  The individual was subsequently referred to a DOE psychologist who diagnosed the individual with Intermittent Explosive D

March 23, 2016
PSH-15-0078 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 23, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  A DOE consulting psychiatrist evaluated the individual and concluded that he met the DSM 5 criteria for Unspecified Neurocognitive Disorder on the basis of observed impairments in memory and attention and variable performance on certain cognitive tests.  The DOE psychiatrist determined that this is an illness, though mild, that may cause a significant defect in the individual’s judgment or reliability and was not amenable to treatment.  The

March 17, 2016
PSH-15-0076 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 17, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he found that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved security concerns under Criteria G and L regarding a number of security infractions for mishandling classified information. The individual presented testimony and documentary evidence establishing that with regard to several of the incidents, the individual had not actually violated security rules.

March 11, 2016
PSH-15-0086 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 11, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual's request for access authorization should not be granted.  In March 2015, as part of a background investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about the individual’s criminal conduct.  The derogatory information fell within the purview of Criterion L. 

March 10, 2016
PSH-15-0080 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 10, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual's request for access authorization should not be granted.  In April 2015, as part of a background investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about the individual’s misrepresentations and criminal conduct.  The derogatory information fell within the purview of the Bond Amendment and Criteria F and L.  As support of its invocation of the Bond Amendment, the Notification Letter cited the individual’s 18-month

March 3, 2016
PSH-15-0097 In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 3, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be restored.  The individual was hospitalized after becoming ill at work and, while hospitalized, was diagnosed with liver disease as a likely consequence of long-term daily alcohol consumption.  The local security office (LSO) was notified by the individual’s employer that the individual had been deemed neither physically nor psychiatrically fit to return to work and, thereafter, the LSO referred the individual to a DOE psychiatrist for evaluation.  The DOE

March 1, 2016
PSH-15-0095 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 1, 2015, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he restored an individual’s access authorization. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved security concerns under Criterion L regarding several security rule violations occurring a number of years ago, and two instances where the individual had viewed pornography on a government issued laptop.

February 26, 2016
PSH-15-0096 In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On February 26, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual's access authorization should not be restored.  During a personnel security interview and a credit report review, the Local Security Office found that the individual had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2005 and a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2015, and had exhibited a long pattern of financial irresponsibility.  During the hearing, the individual explained the circumstances that led to his two bankruptcies.  He readily acknowledged his financial issues and testified that he and his wife we

February 22, 2016
PSH-15-0100 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On February 22, 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 failed to file federal income tax returns for the years 2012 through 2014.   The individual explained that his Certified Public Accountant, who had filed his taxes for him for the previous 11 years, suddenly stopped practicing, and the individual had considerable difficulty finding a replacement.  He was not aware, until his personnel security interview in August 2015, that his inaction

February 17, 2016
PSH-15-0093 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On February 17, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s request for DOE access authorization should not be granted.  A local security office (LSO) found that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had filed tax liens against the individual in 2010 and 2013, totaling $157,873.09, and a state government had filed a tax lien against him for $15,400.46.  In addition, the LSO found that the individual: (1) failed to file a federal tax return or pay his federal taxes for tax years 1978 through 1992, and 2002, (2) failed to file his state tax re