PSH- 22-0127 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On November 22, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization should be denied under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual applied for employment with a DOE contractor, for a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. During an investigation the Local Security Office (LSO) received derogatory information regarding the Individual that raised security concerns under Guidelines E and J of the Adjudicative Guidelines and was subject to the Bond Amendment.

Regarding Guideline E, the LSO citied the following conduct: the Individual's use of multiple names and social security numbers, concurrently and without legal name changes; the Individual's dishonorable discharge from the military after being convicted of multiple charges via court martial; the Individual's provision of false and misleading information regarding his separation from the military during the investigative process; the Individual's marriage to two women at the same time and his provision of conflicting information regarding both marriages; the Individual's provision of false and misleading information on his application for employment with the DOE contractor; and an investigation of the Individual for illegal banking transactions by the military branch of the Office of Special Investigations. Regarding Guideline J, the LSO cited the Individual's conviction, by military court martial, of multiple charges and sentencing to three years imprisonment.

At the hearing, the Individual admitted that he lives using multiple names and has two social security numbers; he stated he uses different names for different purposes. The Individual stated that his marriage to his first wife was invalid, and he was forced to marry his second wife. The Individual also argued his court martial was invalid because the panel that presided over his trial was improperly constituted, and his attorney failed to submit necessary information.

After considering the evidence in the record and the testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not provided sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns associated with Guideline E, Guideline J. She also determined that the Individual was disqualified from holding a security clearance pursuant to the Bond Amendment. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH- 22-0127 (Katie Quintana)