PSH-22-0120 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On November 30, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received derogatory information regarding the Individual's criminal conduct. Regarding Guideline J, the LSO cited his extensive criminal conduct, including a 2020 charge of criminal sexual penetration. The LSO also cited his approximately 41 other criminal charges.  At the hearing, the Individual's fianc ée testified that the young relative who accused the Individual of the 2020 criminal sexual penetration is known to lie and had a suspension from school for lying about a male school employee.  She also stated that she was in the home when the alleged behavior occurred and within view of where the Individual was accused of the criminal conduct. Further, the Individual provided other evidence including that there was no male DNA evidence on her underwear. Unfortunately, the Individual has a substantial pattern of criminal behavior. Although most of the numerous criminal charges he faced prior to 2018 were traffic violations, the Individual has faced two accusations of criminal sexual penetration, one of which was recent.  Although the Individual presented evidence that the young relative may have concocted the claim, he has not be cleared of the charges at this time. The Administrative Judge found that he has not mitigated the concerns raised by his extensive criminal record. Accordingly, the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he had resolved the security concerns arising under Guideline J. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0120, Fishman)