Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710) - Freedom of Information Act Appeal
Office of Hearings and Appeals
February 20, 2015
minute read time
Personnel Security Decision (10 CFR Part 710)
On February 18, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he concluded that the DOE should not restore an individual’s access authorization. A DOE Operations Office referred the individual to administrative review citing as security concerns under 10 CFR Part 710, paragraphs (h), (j) and (l), relating to the individual’s diagnosis of alcohol abuse and his history of arrests. After conducting a hearing convened at the individual’s request, and evaluating all relevant evidence, the AJ concluded that the individual had not established a sufficient period of abstinence and counseling to demonstrate adequate evidence of reformation or rehabilitation. Therefore, the AJ found that significant security concerns remained unresolved, and that the DOE should not restore the individual’s security clearance. OHA Case No. PSH-14-0100 (Robert B. Palmer)
On February 18, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be granted. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved the security concerns arising from her financial irregularities. At the hearing, the individual explained that she accrued debt were the result of her children having diabetes and her personal health issues that caused her to close her business. However, she had not done anything to attempt to rectify the situation in the months since her Personnel Security Interview although she knew the debts were a concern to the DOE. Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Judge concluded that the individual had not sufficiently mitigated the Criterion L concerns with her financial irresponsibility and that her request for a DOE access authorization should therefore not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-14-0079 (Janet R. H. Fishman)
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal
On February 18, 2015, OHA issued a decision granting in part an appeal (Appeal) from a FOIA determination issued by the Office of Information Resources (OIR). In the Appeal, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (Appellant) challenged an OIR determination withholding portions of requested communications between DOE employees and the Office of the President regarding Solyndra, a California-based manufacturer of solar panels. OIR provided the Appellant with several documents of which information in 15 pages had been withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5. Specifically, OIR cited the deliberative process privilege as justifying the invocation of Exemption 5. Upon an examination of the withheld material, OHA determined that the withheld material was contained in predecisional documents created either to assist the then-Secretary of Energy to make a decision as to whether he should approve a loan guarantee to Solyndra or to determine what materials should be provided to the Secretary. As such, the redacted material was covered by the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5. OHA consequently affirmed OIR’s use of Exemption 5 to withhold the redacted information. However, OIR informed OHA that two small portions of withheld material might be releasable to the Appellant. Consequently, OHA remanded the matter to OIR so that it could provide any releasable material to the Appellant. OHA Case No. FIA-15-0004