Summary of Decisions - July 18, 2022 - July 22, 2022

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Denied; Guideline E (Personal Conduct).

On July 20,2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710.  On September 29, 2020, the Individual signed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) concerning his use of illegal drugs and controlled substances, the Individual disclosed that he had "socially experimented with [ tetrahydrocannabinol] THC" while in college in 2005 and used cannabidiol (CBD) oil containing a " small % of THC" for medicinal purposes in 2018.  The Individual checked boxes marked "no" to indicate that he had not illegally purchased any drug or controlled substance in the prior seven years, been ordered or advised to seek counseling or treatment for drug use, or ever voluntarily sought counseling or treatment due to drug use.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conducted a background investigation of the Individual. OPM's investigation revealed that the Individual had failed to disclose the full extent of his drug use, that he had illegally purchased CBD products containing THC, that he had voluntarily entered treatment for drug use, and that he underwent a substance abuse evaluation following his arrest for several offenses in 2018.  The local security office (LSO) issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory (LOI) concerning the information collected during the background investigation. In his response to the LOI, the Individual admitted that he had intentionally omitted information from the QNSP because he feared that he would be denied access authorization.

The LSO issued the Individual a letter notifying him that it possesses reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization.  Regarding Guideline E, the LSO cited that the individual deliberately omitted information concerning his use of illegal drugs, purchase of illegal drugs, and substance abuse treatment from the QNSP; and deliberately concealed or omitted information during an interview with the OPM investigator.

At the hearing, the Individual testified that his untruthfulness on the QNSP and in the interview with the investigator regarding the full extent of his drug use, as well as his failure to disclose his voluntary treatment were due to being very embarrassed and shameful. He also testified that he feared his application for access authorization would be denied.

The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual has not satisfied any of the mitigating conditions under Guideline E, and was not convinced that he will proactively disclose derogatory information in the future if he perceives his own interests to be at risk. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. (OHA Case No . PSH-22-0059, Jenkins-Chapman)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On July 21, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization should be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) discovered derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol use, which prompted the LSO to request that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychiatrist ("Psychiatrist"). Subsequently, the LSO informed the Individual that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance because the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guideline G by citing (1) the Psychiatrist's opinion that the Individual met the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, in early remission, (2) the Individual's recent hospitalization for alcohol use, and (3) the Individual's several past alcohol-related criminal charges, including charges for Driving Under the Influence, that occurred between 2014 and 1997.

The AJ concluded the Individual had resolved the Guideline G security concerns for the following reasons. First, the Individual unequivocally acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use during the hearing. Second, he set forth evidence of the actions he had taken to overcome his problem: he had abstained from alcohol, as documented by testimony and the record of clinical testing; he regularly saw a therapist and attended AA; he was supported by his wife and family; and he engaged in healthier activities. Third, the Individual expressed a strong commitment to sobriety. Fourth, the DOE Psychiatrist testified at the hearing that the Individual had rehabilitated and reformed his AUD and gave the Individual a good prognosis with a low chance of relapse. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual had demonstrated a clear pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. The AJ also concluded that the conduct that resulted in the Individual's prior alcohol-related charges and arrests were unlikely to recur because they occurred over seven years ago and were linked to the Individual's alcohol consumption.

Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual had resolved the Guideline G security concerns . OHA Case No. PSH-22-0069 (James P. Thompson III)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

On July 21, 2022, an Administrative Jude determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. the Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's finances. The LSO alleged that: 1) the Individual failed to file his federal income tax returns for tax years 2015, 2016, and 2017; 2) the Individual failed to file his state income tax returns for tax years 2015, 2016, and 2017; and 3) the Individual has four outstanding debts totaling over $5,000.

At the hearing, the Individual, his wife and his former coworker testified. The evidence in the record established that the Individual failed to file his 2015, 2016, and 2017 federal and state income taxes because he had not received tax documents from a former employer for whom he worked in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The testimony provided by the Individual's former coworker corroborated the Individual's assertion that they did not receive tax forms from their former employer. The Individual filed his 2015, 2016, and 2017 federal income taxes in March 2022 after obtaining a wage and income transcript from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He was also able to file his 2015 and 2016 state income taxes in the same manner. However, the evidence indicated that he was not under an obligation to file his state income taxes for tax year 2017. As of the date of the hearing, the Individual owed approximately thousands in underpayments to the relevant tax authorities. He had not yet established a payment plan or otherwise satisfied those underpayments.

As the date of the hearing, of the four outstanding debts, the Individual had completely satisfied one debt in full. The Individual established payment plans for the remainder of the debts in January 2022. The evidence in the record indicated that the Individual was in compliance with the payment plans at the time of the hearing.

The Individual waited years to resolve the matter of his 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxes. Although he was not given tax documents from his former employer, he was still under an obligation to file his federal and state income taxes, and he ultimately found a way to file his taxes without receiving any paperwork from his former employer. Additionally, the Individual had not established a payment plan to satisfy the underpayments for the tax years in question. Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated compliance with any payment arrangements. Further, the Individual's plans to satisfy the underpayments remained vague. Accordingly, although the Individual has mitigated the Guideline F concerns pertaining to his outstanding debts pursuant to ¶ 20(d), it could not be concluded that that the Individual mitigated the Guideline F concerns pertaining to his 2015, 2016, and 2017 federal income tax returns and his 2015 and 2016 state tax returns pursuant to ¶ 20(g). Based on the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not mitigated all Guideline F concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0072, Rahimzadeh)

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

On July 22, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be not restored. The Individual is employed as a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. The Individual notified the local security office (LSO) of his arrest for Public Intoxication. Because the Individual had a prior arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI), the LSO referred the Individual to be examined by a DOE consultant psychologist (Psychologist). After examining the Individual, the Psychologist determined that he suffered from Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, in early remission. The Psychologist opined that for the Individual to demonstrate adequate rehabilitation and reformation, the Individual should abstain from alcohol for 12 months and engage in a weekly group therapy program, such as Alcoholics Anonymous or another equivalent program, with evidence of 12 months of participation.

The Individual and his spouse provided testimony at the hearing as to the Individual's current 12 months abstinence from alcohol. The Individual testified that he had not sought treatment because he did not think he needed such treatment since he did not have a problem with alcohol. The Individual's spouse also testified as to the length of the Individual's abstinence and his attitude to alcohol.

After listening to all the testimony presented at the hearing, the Psychologist modified her diagnosis of the Individual to "Alcohol Use Disorder, in full remission." In making this revision to her original diagnosis, the Psychologist, based upon her assessment of the honesty of the Individual, determined that he had completed 12 months of abstinence as recommended.  However, the Psychologist also noted that the Individual had not participated in any type of support group or AA, as recommended in her Report. She believed that he had not done so because he "does not adequately understand the gravity of the incidents that alcohol led him to be involved in or the role that alcohol really plays for him as being a problem."

Based on the testimony of all witnesses and the evidence submitted, the Administrative Judge concluded found the Guidelines G and J security concerns had not been resolved and that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0080, Cronin)