PSH-18-0046 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On August 14, 2018, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an Individual’s DOE access authorization should not be granted. To support invoking Guidelines E, F, I, and J, the Local Security Office cited (1) the Individual’s omission of relevant information from the criminal history and financial records section of his 2016 QNSP; (2) the Individual’s failure to file and pay personal and business taxes for multiple years and his numerous accounts turned over to collections; (3) a DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual’s anger and tendency to misrepresent his behaviors is a condition which may impair his judgment and reliability; and (4) the Individual’s lengthy criminal history, which includes warrants for non-payment of court fees. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he did not intend to make payments on his debt until he pays off his substantial tax liability, that he still has at least one outstanding bench warrant, and that he had only recently participated in a therapy intake session. When testifying about his criminal history and the omitted information from his QNSP, the Individual generally shifted the blame to others. At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that his diagnosis of the Individual had not changed upon hearing the testimony. The Administrative Judge also observed the Individual demonstrating the same characteristics the DOE Psychologist found concerning. After carefully considering the totality of the record, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns raised under any of the cited guidelines. More specifically, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual was not taking any steps to address his financial or outstanding criminal issues nor had he sought meaningful treatment as recommended by the DOE Psychologist. Because the Individual’s lack of candor on the QNSP related to his criminal history and financial issues, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns invoked under Guideline E, F, I,   or J. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual’s access authorization should not be granted.  OHA Case No. PSH-18-0046 (Brooke A. DuBois).