PSH-23-0088 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On September 11, 2023, 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 September 2022, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP). In response to questions about his financial record, the Individual disclosed that, since September 2019, he had been delinquent on several debts . Subsequently, during an Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI), the Individual was confronted with various other delinquent debts and disclosed that, in July 2011, he became intoxicated and was a passenger in a car crash. Following his disclosures, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation with a DOE consultant psychologist (Psychologist). After evaluating the Individual, the Psychologist determined that the Individual "heavily and habitually binge drink[s] multiple times a month," and the Individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Further, the Psychologist found that the Individual's "lack of urgency/effort about fulfilling his financial responsibilities does not warrant a [formal] diagnosis but is a mental condition that impairs his reliability and judgment."  At the hearing, the Individual testified and submitted evidence demonstrating that he had established payment plans and paid off two of his six creditors, which amounted to resolving $513 of his over $25,000 delinquent debts. He additionally submitted evidence showing that he had established a payment plan with a third creditor; however, he had not yet made any payments. The Individual also testified that he did not believe that his alcohol consumption was problematic and had not taken any actions to reduce his alcohol consumption. As such, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not yet mitigated the Guideline F and Guideline G security concerns. The Administrative Judge determined, however, that Guideline I was not properly raised by the Local Security Office. Accordingly, as the Individual had not sufficiently mitigated Guideline F and G, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. ( OHA Case No. PSH-23-0088, Quintana)