PSH-23-0105 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On October 6, 2023, 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 him to hold a security clearance. In May  2022, the  Individual  completed  a  Questionnaire  for  National  Security  Positions  (QNSP).  In  the section entitled "Police Record," the Individual answered  "no" in response to the question asking whether he had "EVER been charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs ." However, DOE discovered that, in April 2021, the Individual was arrested and charged with Use/Possession  of  Drug  Paraphernalia.  Subsequently,  the  Individual  underwent  a psychological evaluation with a DOE consultant psychiatrist  (DOE Psychiatrist) in April 2023. After  evaluating  the  Individual,  the  DOE  Psychiatrist  diagnosed  the  Individual  with  Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, and he determined that the Individual had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. At the hearing, the Individual testified that, prior to the April 2021 arrest, he became intoxicated at a casino and law enforcement was contacted . The Individual stated that he believed that the casino security put the drugs in his bag, and he did not know the source of the drugs. He testified that he did not report the arrest to DOE because law enforcement told him not to worry about the arrest. Regarding his failure to list drug charge on the QNSP, the Individual stated that he did not know why he did not disclose it. Turning to the alcohol concerns, the Individual was unable to definitively state when he became abstinent from alcohol, and although, he stated that he had met four times with a counselor  from  the  Employee  Assistance  Program,  he  had  not  completed  the recommendations  of  the  DOE  Psychiatrist.  The  Administrative  Judge  found  that  the Individual's testimony was not entirely credible as it was replete with inconsistencies and mistruths. Ultimately, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had failed to mitigate the Guideline E, G, and H security concerns, and she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0105, Quintana)