PSH-21-0011 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On May 6, 2021, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the 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 DOE security clearance. His security clearance was suspended after DOE discovered derogatory information about the Individual - that he had accessed, on a classified computer system and without authorization, a file cataloguing disciplinary counseling for employees in his department-bringing into question his personal conduct and use of workplace information technology systems. Under Guidelines E and M, the Local Security Office (LSO) alleged (1) in 2018, the Individual received a three-day disciplinary suspension for engaging in the unauthorized use of a classified computer system and violating the facility's net user agreement when he accessed proprietary data and private information about employees; (2) the individual failed to fully cooperate with the investigation into the 2018 information technology incident when he gave evasive and non-credible answers to investigators; (3) the individual refused to provide security clearance investigators with information regarding his 2018 suspension and reaffirmed his refusal after investigators advised him that adjudicating officials may not be able to make an informed decision about his clearance; and (4) in 2017, the Individual was disciplined for failing to attend the required number of exercise sessions during a six-month period.

At the hearing, the Individual testified that his supervisor had directed him to inform the security clearance investigator that he had been suspended and that she should go to the Chief for further details. He testified that he now knows that a security clearance investigator's question supersedes any directive from his manager and that he regrets not explaining his directive. The Individual further testified that he admitted to internal investigators that he opened nearly 20 files in the classified system and that he did not intentionally withhold any information. He admitted at the hearing that he violated government policies when accessing the files and stated that at the time, he believed that he was allowed to access any file which could be accessed from his office's homepage.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ found that the Individual's misuse of the information system is relatively recent. In addition, she could not find that the Individual's unauthorized viewing of the materials occurred under unusual circumstances. The AJ further found that the Individual's misuse of the information system was intentional and repeated, and the Individual had received training on "need to know" standards prior to the incident. Therefore, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline M security concerns. With respect to Guideline E, the AJ concluded that the Individual's difficulty following rules and assessing risk pose an unacceptable risk to the national security. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-21-0011 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman).