PSH-22- 0128 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On October 20, 2022, an Administrative Jude 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 potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's personal conduct. Under Guideline E, the LSO made multiple allegations indicating that the Individual had demonstrated a pattern of questionable judgement, untrustworthiness, lack of candor, and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations and that the Individual provided false or misleading information on the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP).

At the hearing, only the Individual testified. During his testimony, the Individual confirmed certain incidents alleged in the Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) that resulted in termination from prior employment or reprimand. However, the Individual denied the veracity of other alleged incidents made by sources with former employers, indicating that the sources that were interviewed by investigators were either mistaken about the alleged incidents or falsifying facts. The Individual did not provide evidence directly supporting his explanations for the alleged incidents, and whether sources with his former employers were misremembering or falsifying information. The Administrative Judge did have at least two sources with the same former employer who made specific statements that brought the Individual's character for good judgement and trustworthiness directly into question and statements from another former employer that did the same. As such, the Administrative Judge afforded greater weight to the statements of these sources over the self -serving and uncorroborated testimony of the Individual.

At the hearing, the Individual's counsel argued that the mitigating factor at ¶ 17(c) was applicable in this case. The Individual repeatedly exercised the sort of poor judgement and behavior that resulted in his termination with four different employers over the span of three years. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge did not find that the Individual had mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to this mitigating factor.

The Individual's counsel also argued that the mitigating factor at ¶ 17(e) was applicable in this case. The way the Individual chose to refute some of the stated allegations was to assert that two of his employers had falsified information regarding his employment, without providing any corroborating evidence, and in spite of the fact that multiple sources had described his behavior as dishonest and lacking in good judgement. Because the Administrative Judge could not conclude that the Individual had been completely forthcoming with information pertinent to his conduct with multiple prior employers, she could not conclude that the Individual had taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.

The mitigating factors at ¶ 17(a), (b), (f) and (g) were not applicable in this case. Based on the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not mitigated the Guideline E concerns pursuant to the mitigating factors of the Adjudicative Guidelines. (OHA Case No. PSH-22- 0128, Rahimzadeh)