PSH-23-0044 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On May 17, 2023, an Administrative Jude determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted 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 finances. The LSO alleged that: 1) the Individual has unpaid charge off accounts totaling approximately $ 2,418; 2) the Individual has unpaid collection accounts totaling approximately $ 9,395; and 3) the Individual owes approximately $29, 738 in federal taxes for the tax years 2013 and 2014.

The Individual testified on his own behalf at the hearing. The evidence in the record established that the Individual failed to file federal income taxes for tax years 2013 and 2014. He was under the belief that the fact the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was retaining his refunds meant that his obligation was being sufficiently satisfied. When he learned that he was mistaken, he retained a tax service company in October 2022, but a repayment plan had not yet been established at the time of the hearing. Further, The Individual also disclosed that at least two of the delinquent debts were accounts on which he had cosigned for his girlfriend, and those delinquent accounts had not been satisfied . The Individual also indicated in his testimony that he had been researching credit consolidation companies but had not yet secured such services. Finally, the record indicated that the only debt that had been satisfied was the debt totaling $457.

The record revealed that the Individual had filed for bankruptcy in 2013 after suffering a layoff. He secured new employment in 2015, and held two additional positions, thereafter, including his current position. He approximated that he had been unemployed for a total of one year since 2013, and confirmed in his testimony that he had been, for the most part, steadily employed since 2017. He also indicated that in his line of work, it was common to secure employment under short -term contract followed by a period of unemployment. Regarding his current financial state, the Individual disclosed that he had received a $15,000 car insurance payment and that he saved, on average, approximately $500 every month.

The Administrative Judge could not conclude that the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the Individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. The Individual's outstanding obligations were continuing, involved thousands of dollars, and had been an issue for years. Further, while the circumstances that resulted from his loss of employment in 2013 were arguably not within his control, the Administrative Judge could not conclude that the Individual acted responsibly under the circumstances. It was arguable that the cycles of employment and unemployment could have been anticipated. Additionally, the Individual knew that he had failed to satisfy his federal income taxes for tax years 2013 and 2014 but failed to take any action until October 2022, and at the time of the hearing, the Individual had not yet contacted a debt consolidation company, as he indicated he would in his LOI. Further, the Individual has not utilized the $ 15,000 he received from insurance to at least begin the process of satisfying his outstanding obligations. Lastly, although the Individual has indicated that two of the outstanding debts were incurred by his girlfriend, he is still responsible for the debt, as he acted as a cosigner. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the Individual has mitigated the concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (b).

Because a payment plan had not yet been established with the IRS, a credit consolidation service had not yet been retained, and the record did not indicate that the Individual was making payments to overdue creditors, the mitigating factors at (c), (d), and (g) were not applicable. The Administrative Judge also could not conclude that the Individual has mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (e) because there was no indication that the Individual had a reasonable basis to dispute any of the aforementioned outstanding obligations. Further, as there was no allegation of affluence, the mitigating factor at (f) was also inapplicable. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0044, Rahimzadeh)