Access Authorization Not Restored; Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and J (Criminal Conduct)
Office of Hearings and Appeals
July 25, 2023
minute read time
On July 25, 2023, 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 her to hold a security clearance. the Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information indicating that the DOE's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) determined that the Individual fraudulently received a total of $ 48,787.96 from a DOE contractor by submitting false information.
The Individual provided evidence which indicated that she had occasionally listed her residential address on various forms and documents in a manner inconsistent with what she had listed in her 2018 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP). It was, however, clear that the Individual had left her former marital home in 2014, which was the address that had been used to claim the funds in 2105 and 2016. The Individual indicated that she had provided her employer with her mother's address, as she considered that address her permanent residential address. The record also indicated that although the Individual was no longer responsible for the maintenance of and upkeep of the former marital home, she did not agree with OIG's conclusion that she had used the address to fraudulently claim funds because her former spouse had not immediately assumed responsibility for the former marital home pursuant to their settlement agreement.
The record also indicated that the Individual had received relocation expenses by listing a former residence in a different state as her residential address. The Individual then proceeded to provide the moving company with a different address. Regarding this matter, she testified that she could not recall which address she had listed on her relocation paperwork, and she denied knowing the address of the storage facility.
The Individual failed to take any responsibility for her actions and did not provide any information that could meaningfully refute the conclusions reached by the OIG as stated in the report. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had failed to mitigate the stated Guideline E, F, and J concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0060, Rahimzadeh)