PSH-21-0060 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On September 1, 2021, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's personal conduct and financial state. Under Guideline E, the LSO alleged: On December 9, 2019, the Individual's employer (hereinafter X Corporation) filed a complaint for damages in excess of $200,000 against the Individual personally, as well as his LLC, alleging that during the Individual's tenure of employment, he awarded contracts for business and conferred benefits to his LLC and himself in the form of kickbacks and/or bribes; 2) the Individual confirmed that while employed with X Corporation, in exchange for guaranteeing work to a traffic control company, he would take a percent of the amount paid by X Corporation for the work performed by the traffic control company (resulting in his receipt of approximately $120,000 from February 2018 through September 2019); 3) the Individual created an audio recording of a meeting without the permission or the knowledge of meeting attendees, knowing that this action was in violation of workplace policies. Under Guideline F, the LSO alleged that: 1) the Individual has a collection account totaling $45,234, which he does not intend to resolve; 2) As stated above, X Corporation filed a complaint for damages against the Individual in the amount of $200,000, which he does not intend to defend and which will result in a financial judgement against the Individual.

Through the evidence and testimony, it was determined that the Individual's explanations as to why he failed to disclose the arrangement he had made with the traffic control company were less than credible, and further, his explanations failed to resolve concerns over the Individual's judgement. It was also determined that regarding the matter of the recording, the Individual failed to consider company policy or the ethics of making the audio recording. Similarly, the Individual's reasons for making the recording did not allay concerns regarding his poor judgement.

The Administrative Judge also determined that the matter of the unresolved collection account did not happen so long ago, was not infrequent, and did not happen under such circumstances that would not cast doubt on the Individual's judgment. The Individual disputed the validity of the debt but did not attempt to resolve the matter until 2021, having already ceased making payments in 2013. The Individual's indifference to the matter of the debt is also reflected in his indifference to the progression of the lawsuit filed against him, which suggests that he did not entirely grasp the gravity of the events that were transpiring. Based on the totality of the circumstances and the fact the Individual failed to act in good faith to repay or resolve his debts, the Administrative Judge was unable to conclude that the Individual resolved Guideline F concerns. Based on the testimony of all witnesses and the evidence submitted, the Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. (PSH-21-0060; Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman).