Summary of Decisions - October 23, 2023 - October 27, 2023

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On October 23, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be restored. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. In early October 2022, the Individual was arrested and charged with Criminal Negligence and Operating a Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs. The Individual subsequently completed a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) and admitted that, prior to the arrest, he had consumed three beers and three shots of liquor. In March 2023, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) who diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild, in early remission and opined that the Individual had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had undergone an evaluation with a Substance Abuse Professional (SAP), completed a six-week alcohol education course, sought out individual counseling, participated in approximately eight months of random alcohol testing through his probation officer, and had been abstinent from alcohol for nearly one year. He also submitted laboratory evidence of his abstinence as well as testimonial or documentary evidence from his probation officer, his counselor, and his SAP, all of whom provided positive support on his behalf. After hearing the Individual's testimony and reviewing the evidence, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual had 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 resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline G. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0099, Quintana)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Bond Amendment, J (Criminal Conduct), E ( Personal Conduct); H (Drug Involvement)

On October 25, 2023, 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 indicating that the Individual had omitted some information from the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP), that some of the information gathered during the investigation process was discrepant, that the Individual had used an illicit substance in January and June 2022, which was prohibited by his employer and against applicable laws.

The Individual and his supervisor testified at the hearing. While some of the Guideline E concerns were resolved based on the information in the record, the Individaul did not mitigate the alleged omissions from the QNSP. Further, although the Individual did not meet the definition of an unlawful user of a controlled substance or an addict of a controlled substance, and accordingly, the Bond Amendment did not apply. However, the Individual was not able to mitigate the related Guideline H and J concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0117, Rahimzadeh)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), I (Psychological Conditions), and J (Criminal Conduct)

On October 26, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In September 2022, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) which contained numerous omissions and falsifications. When confronted about the omissions and falsifications in a Triggered Enhanced Subject Interview (February 1 TESI) with an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator on February 1, 2023, the Individual denied the underlying facts. The Individual underwent a second TESI on February 27, 2023 (February 27 TESI), during which he corrected some of the previously falsely reported information. In addition to the omissions and falsifications, the Local Security Office (LSO) referred the Individual for a psychological assessment, which occurred on May 8, 2023. On May 19, 2023, the DOE Psychologist issued the results of the psychological assessment (Report) in which she opined that the Individual had demonstrated repeated problematic behaviors consistent with poor judgment, emotional instability and impulsivity, and lack of trustworthiness. She continued that his " constellation of personality traits is a mental /personality condition with impairs judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness." The LSO also determined that the Individual had been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after a road rage incident in March 2020 and embezzlement in September 2019.

The Individual, his mother, his friend, and the DOE Psychologist all testified at the hearing. The Individual failed to satisfactorily explain his omissions and falsifications. He claimed that the omissions or falsifications were the result of timeline confusion. Alternatively, he claimed that some of the information uncovered during the background investigation was not true. Regarding the criminal charges, the Individual stated that while the road rage incident occurred, he did not brandish a gun . He admitted that he stole the underlying items involved in the embezzlement charge, with the permission of his supervisor if he was not seen. The Individual admitted that he knew it was wrong to take the items. At the hearing the DOE Psychologist confirmed her opinion that the Individual suffered from a constellation of personality traits is a mental /personality condition which impairs judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness.  The Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not mitigated the Guidelines E, I, or J concerns. Accordingly, the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he had resolved the security concerns arising under Guidelines E, I, or J. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0120, Fishman)