Energy.gov

On October 26, 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 falsification and financial irresponsibility.  His behavior raised security concerns under Criteria F and 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.  Speci

On October 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 (LSO) suspended the individual’s security clearance because (1) a DOE consultant psychiatrist diagnosed the individual as suffering from Alcohol Abuse/Dependence, (2) the individual had been arrested four times on alcohol-related charges and had received substance abuse treatment, and (3) the individual had a history of criminal behavior, of financial irresponsibility, and of failing to keep commitments made to the LSO.

On October 25, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a Decision in which she determined that an Individual=s access authorization should not be granted.  In reaching this determination, the Hearing Officer found that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns arising from her personal conduct, criminal conduct, and financial difficulties.  The Individual resigned from a previous employment after being told she would be terminated because she had been caught stealing from a voluntary coffee fund and tardiness.  In addition, the Individual had seven criminal charges lodged against h

On October 25, 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) diagnoses by a DOE consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) that the individual suffered from Alcohol Dependence and Personality Disorder NOS; (2) the individual’s history of problematic alcohol use; (3) prior criminal conduct of the individual; (4) evidence of the individual’s financial irresponsibility; and (5) inconsistent information provided to DOE during the security

On October 25, 2012, 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 resolved security concerns under Criteria F, J, and L associated with the Individual’s failure to report marijuana use in a 2007 Questionnaire for National Security Positions form and his failure to report in a 2012 QNSP his two time use of a prescription drug not prescribed for the individual.

On October 25, 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, inter alia, (1) delinquent and collection debts totaling approximately $120,000; (2)  unpaid state income taxes in the amount of $800; (3) the repossession of his camping trailer for nonpayment; (4) a series of financings secured by his residence between 1990 and 2004, the proceeds of which were

The individual is employed by a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, and was granted a security clearance in connection with that employment. As part of a routine re-investigation in 2010, the individual was the subject of an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) background investigation. Because this investigation revealed information that raised security concerns, the local security office (LSO) summoned the individual for interviews with a personnel security specialist in May 2010 and January 2011.

On October 24, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored.  Criminal charges and civil had been filed against the individual for “Computer Crime and Grand Theft and   a trial had been conducted in the civil lawsuit with a jury had awarding a $2.1 million judgment against him and two other defendants, for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, violation of a state Trade Secrets Act, and Civil Conspiracy.  The criminal charges were eventually dismissed.  These charges resulted from two incidents.  In the first

On October 12, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he concluded the DOE should grant an individual an access authorization.   A Local Security Office suspended the individual’s security clearance because of concerns regarding the individual’s prior use of heroin and an opinion of a DOE consultant psychologist that the individual suffered from Opiate Dependence and Learning Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.  A Local Security Office cited this information as the basis for security concerns under the Bond Amendment and 10 C.F.R.

On October 11, 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 providing false information on a Questionnaire for National Security Positions and failing to comply with rules regarding the handling of classified information and conduct within simited access areas.  This behavior raised security concerns under Criteria F, G, and L.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Hearing Officer fo