Summary of Decisions - July 26, 2021 - July 30, 2021

Personnel Security Hearing 

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline K (Handling Protected Information)

On July 26, 2021, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under   10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold a DOE security clearance. In early 2016, the Individual was the subject of an Administrative Review (AR) Hearing due to security concerns related to her ability to ability to protect national security and her personal conduct. After the AR hearing, an Administrative Judge ultimately determined that her security clearance should be restored. From September 2015 to May 2019, the Individual engaged in 11 new security violations. In February 2020, the Local Security Office (LSO) asked her to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) regarding these incidents. Due to unresolved security concerns, the LSO once again informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to hold a security clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline E ( Personal Conduct) and Guideline K   (Handling Protected Information). During the hearing, the Individual testified that all of the violations were inadvertent, were promptly reported, and did not result in a compromise of information. However, after considering the evidence in the record and testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline E and Guideline K. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-21-0043 (Katie Quintana).

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct) Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On July 27, 2021, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted. The Individual had a history of alcohol-related arrests in 1982 or 1983, 1985, and 2012. He received counseling and attended Alcoholics Anonymous for two years after his second DUI. He remained sober for five years afterward but began using alcohol again. In 2012, the Individual had a third alcohol-related arrest. Since that 2012 arrest, the Individual has not had any further interactions with law enforcement. The AJ found that there was no evidence in the record indicating that he has been diagnosed with any alcohol-related disorder. Accordingly, the AJ determined that the security concerns raised by the Individual's three alcohol-related arrests had been mitigated by the passage of time without further criminal activity or addition incidents involving alcohol. However, the Individual had omitted significant derogatory information from two Questionnaires for National Security Positions (QNSP) that he had submitted in 2005 and 2016. As a result of these omissions, both QNSPs submitted by the Individual only reported one alcohol-related arrest despite the fact that the Individual had a history of two DUIs at the time he submitted his 2005 QNSP and had a history of three alcohol-related arrests at the time he submitted his 2016 QNSP.   More importantly, in his 2016 QNSP, the Individual twice denied that he had "ever been officially reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined for misconduct in the workplace, such as a violation of security policy," when in fact his employer had issued a Final Written Warning to him for failing to disclose the 2012 alcohol-related arrest and incarceration to the employer's security officials. At the hearing, the Individual claimed that he was not trying to conceal the fact that he was disciplined by his employer in 2012, noting that he had reported that the employer had placed him on probation for a year in response to another question in the 2016 QNSP. However, the AJ found that the Individual reported being placed on probation in response to a question about alcohol's impact on his work performance. His answer to this question gave the impression that he was disciplined for his 2012 alcohol-related arrest, rather than for his failure to disclose that arrest to the employer's security officials. Therefore, the AJ concluded that the Individual's 2016 QNSP failed to disclose that he had been disciplined by the employer for failing to disclose his 2012 arrest to the employer's security officials. Accordingly, the AJ found that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns raised by his omission from the two QNSPs. The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-21-0072 (Steven L. Fine).

Personnel Security; Access Authorization Granted; Guideline J (Criminal Conduct); Bond Amendment

On July 29, 2021, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be granted. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. The Individual completed and signed the Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing ( e-QIP) in December 2019. In response to the e-QIP's questions regarding his criminal history, the Individual indicated that he had been imprisoned for a term exceeding one year, resulting from a 2009 conviction of Assault on a Federal Officer. The Individual also indicated that he was convicted of Driving while Intoxicated (DWI) on several occasions. Due to unresolved security concerns, the LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding the Individual's eligibility to hold a security clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under the Bond Amendment and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. During the hearing, the Individual testified that the event that led to his imprisonment occurred in 2005, and since that time, he has not engaged in any criminal conduct. The Individual and his witnesses testified regarding his rehabilitation, including his successful and early completion of his probation, his positive employment record and job training, and his contribution to his community. After considering the evidence in the record and testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline J and was eligible for a waiver pursuant to the Bond Amendment. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-21-0051(Katie Quintana).