Summary of Decisions - August 17, 2015 – August 21, 2015

Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On August 21, 2015, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s request for an access authorization should not be granted. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved security concerns under Criterion L regarding the individual’s 20-year period of financial irresponsibility. The individual presented evidence that, in October 2014, she had begun to reform her financial conduct and address her past overdue accounts. However, the Administrative Judge found that this period of financial responsibility was insufficient to overcome the individual’s extensive past history of financial mismanagement. Consequently, the Administrative Judge found that the individual should not be granted an access authorization. OHA Case No. PSH-15-0044 (Richard Cronin)

On August 20, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge 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 his falsification of information and alcohol use.  The individual’s behavior raised security concerns under Criteria F, H and L.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had presented sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns associated with his misrepresentations during two personnel security interviews, as well his misrepresentations during an evaluation with a DOE psychiatrist.  However, she found that the individual had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns related to his alcohol use and his diagnosis of Unspecified Alcohol Related Disorder. OHA Case No. PSH-15-0029 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman)

On August 18, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  Security concerns regarding the individual were raised in February 2014 following an incident during which she accidently fell off of the roof of her sunroom after consuming alcohol. The Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a personnel security interview of the individual and referred her to a DOE psychiatrist who diagnosed the individual as suffering from Alcohol Abuse, and further opined that this disorder causes, or may cause, a significant defect in her judgment or reliability.  After reviewing the record as a whole, including the hearing testimony of the DOE psychiatrist and the individual’s psychologist, the Administrative Judge determined that the individual had not demonstrated adequate rehabilitation or reformation from Alcohol Abuse. Accordingly, he concluded that the individual had failed to resolve the security concerns associated with her alcohol use disorder and that her security clearance should not be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0033 (Robert B. Palmer)

On August 21, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  Security concerns regarding the individual were raised in July 2014 when his blood alcohol content was measured at work and exceeded permissible levels. The Local Security Office conducted a personnel security interview of the individual and referred him to a DOE psychologist who diagnosed the individual as suffering from Alcohol Dependence with Physiological Dependence, and further opined that this disorder causes, or may cause, a significant defect in his judgment or reliability.  After reviewing the record as a whole, including the hearing testimony of the DOE psychologist, the Administrative Judge determined that the individual had not demonstrated adequate rehabilitation or reformation from his disorder. Accordingly, he concluded that the individual had failed to resolve the DOE’s security concerns, and that his security clearance should not be restored.   OHA Case No. PSH-15-0032 (Robert B. Palmer)

On August 17, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved the security concerns arising from his alcohol use and diagnosis by a DOE psychologist that he used alcohol habitually to excess.  At the hearing, the individual testified that he attended an intensive outpatient treatment program and was currently attending Alcoholics Anonymous.  Both he and his wife testified that he had been abstinent since January 1, 2015.  His counselor and the DOE psychologist agreed that the individual had a low risk of relapse.  The DOE psychologist further testified that the individual no longer suffered from an illness or mental condition, and the Administrative Judge therefore found that the individual had resolved the Criterion H concern.  Notwithstanding, the DOE psychologist maintained that the individual needed to be abstinent for an entire year before he would consider the individual rehabilitated or reformed.  Based on the DOE psychologist’s opinion that the individual was not yet rehabilitated or reformed, the Administrative Judge concluded that the individual had not adequately mitigated the security concerns with his alcohol use under Criterion J, and that his access authorization should not be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0037 (Janet R. H. Fishman)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeals

On August 20, 2015, OHA denied a FOIA Appeal filed by former Idaho Governor Cecil D. Andrus from a determination issued to him by the DOE Office of Information Resources. In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the use of FOIA Exemption 5 to withhold certain information from released documents. OHA found, however, that the use of Exemption 5 was appropriate.  OHA Case No. FIA-15-0046

On August 18, 2015, OHA (OHA) denied a FOIA Appeal filed by Mark Krebs from a determination issued to him by the DOE Office of Information Resources. In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the adequacy of the search for responsive documents. OHA found, however, that the search was reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents and therefore denied the Appeal. OHA Case No. FIA-15-0044