Energy.gov

On September 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 due to the individual’s unauthorized use of technology systems, noncompliance with rules pertaining to such systems, and inconsistent statements regarding such incidents, which 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 presented sufficient ev

On September 13, 2012, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be granted.   The Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the individual to address concerns about the individual’s falsifications and financial irresponsibility.  The individual’s behavior raised 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 mitigate these sec

The Hearing Officer found that the individual had not resolved security concerns under Criteria H and J associated with a recent Driving Under the Influence arrest and a determination from a DOE-contractor Psychologist that the Individual suffered from Alcohol-Related Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. Additionally, while finding that the Individual had resolved Criterion L concerns relating to inaccurate answers provided in a background investigation, a Questionnaire for National Security Positions, and a personnel security interview, the Hearing Officer found that the Individual had not resolved Criterion L concerns related to the Individual’s alcohol disorder

The individual is employed by a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, and was granted a security clearance in connection with that employment. On October 11, 2011, the individual filed for personal bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the federal bankruptcy laws. Upon being apprised of this, the local security office (LSO) summoned the individual for an interview with a personnel security specialist in order to address the security concerns raised by this filing.

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 has a pattern of financial irresponsibility dating back to 2008.

A Hearing Officer issued a Decision in which he determined that an individual’s access authorization should be granted. In reaching this determination, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had resolved security concerns under Criteria H and J associated with her excessive consumption of alcohol in college and a determination from a DOE-contractor Psychologist (DOE-Psychologist), that, despite possessing good judgment and reliability, the Individual suffered from Alcohol-Related Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, and had been a user of alcohol habitually to excess in the past. To demonstrate adequate evidence of rehabilitation, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual would have to demonstrate a pattern of responsible alcohol consumption consisting of drinking only 2 to 3 alcoholic beverages per occasion. At the hearing, the Individual presented testimonial evidence indicating that, since receiving the DOE Psychologist’s report, she has complied with the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations with regard to alcohol use and had consulted a Counselor. Pursuant to a recommendation from the Counselor, the Individual abstained from alcohol for the two months prior to the hearing. After listening to the hearing testimony, both the DOE Psychologist and the Counselor believed that the Individual had resolved any doubts regarding her judgment and reliability arising from her past alcohol use. Given the evidence produced at the hearing, the Hearing Officer found that the Individual had resolved the Criteria H and J concerns and that the Individual should be granted a security clearance.

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, as well as the individual’s past arrests.

The individual is an applicant for a DOE security clearance. During the background investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), information surfaced about the individual’s alcohol consumption.

The Individual is a contractor employee at a DOE facility. Exhibit (Ex.) 10 at 3. The Local Security Office (LSO) discovered that the Individual failed to list a 2004 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) arrest in a Questionnaire for National Security Positions form completed in October 2011. Ex. 10 at 10.

OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he determined that an Individual’s DOE security clearance should be restored. The Individual had been caught viewing pornography on a DOE workplace computer.