Access Authorization Denied; Guidelines E and G
Office of Hearings and Appeals
May 22, 2024
minute read time
On May 22, 2024, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored.
On January 12, 2018, and on August 8, 2023, the Individual signed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) to a Local Security Office (LSO), in which the Individual answered the question "in the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances? " by responding "no."
On June 29, 2023, police arrested the Individual and charged her with Driving Under the Influence (DUI ). DOE Order 472.2A required that she report this arrest to the LSO. The Individual completed a form reporting her DUI but sent it to the wrong address. Nevertheless, the DOE's continuous monitoring program reported the DUI to the LSO.
The LSO requested that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE Psychologist because of the DUI . During a clinical interview of the Individual she disclosed that she had used cannabis in 2017. The Individual also provided information about her alcohol consumption that was inconsistent with other information about her alcohol consumption that she had previously supplied DOE. The Psychologist issued a report in which she concluded that the Individual engages in habitual binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and opined that her omissions and provision of inaccurate information concerning her alcohol consumption raised a concern about her candidness and trustworthiness.
At the hearing, the Individual was able to resolve the security concerns arising from her failure to report her DUI by showing that she had sent the report to the wrong address. However, the AJ found that the Individual had not provided sufficient evidence to mitigate her omissions from her QNSPs, her provision of inaccurate information concerning her alcohol consumption, and her habitual binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.
The AJ therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. ( OHA Case No. PSH-24-0027, Fine)