Summary of Decisions - April 25, 2022 - April 29, 2022

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Alcohol consumption (Guideline G) and criminal conduct (Guideline J)

On April 25, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold a security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information about the Individual's alcohol consumption (Guideline G) and criminal conduct (Guideline J) regarding her arrest for DWI and Aggravated DWI and her subsequent diagnosis with Alcohol Use Disorder-Moderate.

At the hearing, the Individual presented evidence that she had continued to consume alcohol until three months prior to the hearing and that, during that three months, she had had a few sips of beer on three occasions. The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual was not rehabilitated or reformed. The testimony and evidence established that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline G concerns. Because the Guideline J concerns arose from the Guideline G concerns, the Administrative Judge determined that they could not be resolved if the Guideline G concerns remained. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0050, Martin)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On April 25, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in 2021. She pleaded guilty and was sentence to twelve months of probation. In her response to a letter of interrogatory issued by the local security office, the Individual admitted to becoming intoxicated monthly and to needing to consume large quantities of alcohol to become intoxicated. A DOE-contracted Psychologist (DOE Psychologist) conducted a clinical interview of the Individual and determined that she met the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition . The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual demonstrate rehabilitation by participating in an intensive outpatient rehabilitation program (IOP) followed by aftercare for a total of twelve months of treatment, participating in Alcoholics Anonymous, abstaining from alcohol for the duration of treatment, and documenting her abstinence from alcohol through laboratory testing. At the hearing, the Individual represented that she had abstained from alcohol for nearly three months and had enrolled in an alcohol treatment program. However, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual's treatment was not as rigorous as the IOP she had recommended and that she could not provide a favorable prognosis for the Individual's recovery. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline G because of the short period of the Individual's claimed abstinence from alcohol and failure to comply with the DOE Psychologist's recommendations. The Administrative Judge also concluded that security concerns under Guideline J persisted because of the recency of the Individual's DUI and the risk of recurrence of the criminal conduct due to her unresolved AUD. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH- 22-0056, Harmonick)

Access Authorization Denied; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On April 27, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. In May 2021, the Individual was arrested for Aggravated Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Any Drug (DWI) after hitting a car with his vehicle. Subsequently, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE consultant psychiatrist ( Psychiatrist) in August 2021. The Psychiatrist diagnosed him with Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild, in early remission. The Psychiatrist also determined that the Individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had successfully completed an intensive outpatient treatment program, an alcohol education program, and "DWI school." However, his testimony also revealed that he had not maintained a year of abstinence from alcohol as recommended by the Psychiatrist, and evidence in the record demonstrated that the Individual had misrepresented his alcohol consumption as well as violated the conditions of release imposed upon him by a court following his DWI. The Psychiatrist ultimately opined that the Individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation from the Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild. 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 G. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH-22- 0022, Quintana)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline F (Financial Considerations); Guideline E (Personal Conduct)

On April 27, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is an employee of a DOE contractor in a position that requires the possession of a security clearance. The DOE Local Security Office ( LSO) discovered information regarding the Individual's failure to meet financial obligations and his history of omitting relevant facts from personnel security questionnaires. Subsequently, the LSO informed the Individual that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines because the LSO cited that, in 2020, the Individual had two past due account balances; the Individual was reprimanded in 2014 for using his company card for personal expenses and not paying the bill on time; his wages were previously garnished due to a tax lien; he failed to file federal and state tax returns for several years between 2007 and 2020; and he has a history of failing to pay his state taxes timely. The AJ also determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guideline E because the LSO cited that the Individual failed to report the following information on personnel security questionnaires: a past due pest control bill that went to collection in 2017, seven delinquent accounts, several state tax liens, and wage garnishments stemming from tax liens.

The AJ also determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns for the following reasons. As to Guideline F, the AJ found that (1) the Individual failed to demonstrate that he filed his tax returns for 2010, 2011, and 2012; (2) the Individual failed to timely file more than a decade's worth of tax returns over two separate, multi-year spans, and he failed to file the second batch of tax returns until a year after the DOE suspended his security clearance; and (3) the Individual delayed in resolving the pest control bill for over a year after being notified. As to Guideline E, the AJ (1) found concerning the Individual's testimony that he did not adequately read the personnel security questionnaires and (2) found that the Individual's testimony regarding his failure to report wage garnishments was not credible.

Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline F and E security concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0052, Thompson III)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline I ( Psychological Conditions)

On April 28, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual entered inpatient treatment for alcohol misuse in October 2020. In her response to a letter of interrogatory issued by the local security office, the Individual admitted to binge consuming alcohol to manage stress but represented that she had abstained from alcohol since her inpatient treatment. The Individual met with a DOE - contracted Psychologist (DOE Psychologist) for a clinical interview and maintained that she had abstained from alcohol since her treatment. However, alcohol testing requested by the DOE Psychologist demonstrated that the Individual had engaged in heavy alcohol consumption. The DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Recurrent Episode, Moderate, under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition. She recommended that the Individual demonstrate rehabilitation from AUD by participating in an intensive outpatient rehabilitation program (IOP) for twelve weeks, aftercare for nine months, at least three AA meetings weekly, and bi-monthly PEth tests. Regarding the Individual's MDD, the DOE Psychologist recommended that she be evaluated for medication and receive counseling. At the hearing, the Individual represented that she had abstained from alcohol for approximately six months, completed an IOP, and entered counseling . However, she did not participate in AA, undergo bi -monthly PEth testing, or seek treatment for MDD as recommended. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual had not demonstrated rehabilitation because the IOP had been counterproductive, she had not demonstrated a sufficient period of abstinence from alcohol, she was minimizing her AUD, and she had not obtained treatment for her MDD. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline G because of the short period of the Individual's claimed abstinence from alcohol and failure to fully comply with recommendations. The Administrative Judge also concluded that security concerns under Guideline I were unresolved because of the DOE Psychologist's opinion that the Individual's MDD was unchanged. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (Phillip Harmonick) (OHA Case No. PSH- 22-0019, Harmonick)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement).

On March 29, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The Individual is employed as a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. During the period in question, the Individual held a security clearance. In three Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) the Individual any use of illegal drugs. Additionally, In two of the QNSPs the Individual failed to disclose that he was involved in an automobile accident where he had been driving impaired by using alcohol. When these facts were eventually revealed by the Individual, he asserted to officials interviewing him that the omissions were due to oversights in completing the forms and his belief that since he had not been cited for an alcohol -related offense, he was not required to reveal the fact his accident involved his use of alcohol.

When applying for a position at DOE and to his security clearance to be continued at DOE the Individual admitted in 2021 that he did bit reveal his drug use because he thought it would affect his chances of getting the DOE position. Regarding Guideline E, the Administrative Judge found that only one of the mitigating facts listed in the Adjudicatory Guidelines was applicable to the Individual and that factor was outweighed by the fact that the Individual held a security clearance for three years yet did not reveal the information in question and the fact that the Individual provided several somewhat conflicting reasons for his failure to reveal the information. Given the need for complete candor in the security clearance process, along with the other evidence in the record, the Administrative Judge could not find that the Individual had resolved the Guideline E concerns.

Regarding the Guideline H concerns, the record indicated that the Individual had used marijuana only on a limited number of occasions and that his last use had occurred over six years ago . Consequently, the Administrative Judge found that the Guideline H security concern raised by the Individual's use of marijuana had been resolved. Nonetheless, given the fact that the Guideline E concerns had not been resolved, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual's security clearance should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0048, Cronin)