PSH- 22-0135 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On November 30, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that required her told a security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information concerning the Individual's drug involvement. The LSO alleged that in March 2022, the Individual took one Oxycodone pill, a Schedule II controlled substance, that was prescribed to her child.

At the hearing, the Individual, her husband, and her friend testified. The Individual indicated in her testimony that on the day of the incident, she felt severe hip and back pain that caused her to become immobile. Her child, who had a prescription for Oxycodone, offered her a pill, which the Individual ingested. The Individual indicated in her testimony that she was not aware this was a concern under the Adjudicative Guidelines and only learned it was when her supervisor notified her of this fact after the Individual disclosed the incident to her in casual conversation. The Individual properly reported the event.

At the hearing, the Individual indicated that she had never used another person's prescription either before or since the March 2022 incident. Her husband and friend also stated in their testimony that they were not aware of the Individual having ever taken prescription medication that was not hers outside of the March 2022 incident. The Individual submitted five drug tests from July 2013 through October 2022, all of which were negative for opiates. The record indicated that the Individual had never sought treatment for drug use, she was never asked to seek treatment for drug use, and that she had no intention of taking medication that was not hers at any point in the future. The Individual stated that she will, in the future, employ appropriate methods of pain relief, as she has done before. The Individual also indicated that she never sought medical treatment for this pain, as it occurs only once or twice a year.

Based on the information provided, the Administrative Judge could not conclude that the Individual was either an unlawful user of a controlled substance or an addict under the Bond Amendment. The record did not establish that the Individual had "lost the power of self control" or that she was a " current user," as contemplated by the Bond Amendment. Further, neither the LSO alleged nor did the record indicate that the Individual "habitually uses any narcotic so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare." For these reasons, the Administrative Judge found that the Bond Amendment did not act as a bar to restoring the Individual's access authorization.

Regarding Guideline H, the record indicated that the Individual took prescription medication that was not hers on one occasion and that the Individual's misunderstanding of the concerns surrounding such behavior had been resolved. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge found that the incident was so infrequent and happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the Individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgement. (OHA Case No. PSH- 22-0135, Rahimzadeh)