PSH-21-0116 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On February 3, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's   access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is an employee of a DOE contractor in a position that requires the possession of a security clearance. In early 2020, the DOE Local Security Office (LSO) was notified that the Individual had been placed on Site Access Restriction (SAR) after failing to follow policy and procedures, and she was later terminated for failure to cooperate with a related investigation. While the Individual's employer ultimately rehired her after an arbitration decision recommended suspension in lieu of termination, the LSO informed the Individual that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding   her   eligibility   to possess a security clearance.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guidelines E and K because the LSO cited that the Individual had (1) introduced her personally owned cellular phone into a limited area, (2) used her phone to exchange a series of inappropriate text messages with two other employees, (3) used her personal phone on duty, (4) refused to provide requested information during a company investigation, and (5) failed to report, as required, another employee's violation of their employer's rules regarding inappropriate text messages and use of a company provided phone. The AJ also determined that the Individual failed to resolve the security concerns for the following reasons. As to Guideline E, the AJ found that the conduct was not minor because there was evidence that the Individual deliberately refused to cooperate several times during a security investigation and violated the rules governing personal cellphone use and security on several occasions; her conduct was not infrequent because her employer's investigation uncovered several instances of prohibited conduct within a short period, and it prompted her to immediately engage in additional concerning conduct by refusing to provide a material fact during the security investigation; her conduct was not unique; and the her conduct was not mitigated by the passage of time. The AJ also concluded that, while the Individual had undergone remedial security training and she had not violated any additional security rules since her return from SAR, these actions were not sufficient to overcome the evidence in support of the AJ's concern regarding her judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.

As to Guideline K, the AJ remained skeptical that the Individual was unclear regarding her ability to use her personal cellphone in the limited area and concluded that the passage of time, the frequency of her rule violations, and the circumstances surrounding her conduct did not resolve the security concerns. The AJ also found that the Individual had not resolved the concerns based on her recent remedial security training nor her alleged misunderstanding of the rules surrounding personal cellphone use. I therefore remain concerned regarding the Individual's trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, and willingness and ability to safeguard protected information.

Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline E and K security concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-21-0116, Thompson III)