Summary of Decisions - April 04, 2022 - April 08, 2022

FOIA Appeal (FIA)

FOIA Appeal; Denied; Exemptions 3 and 6.

On April 6, 2022, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied a Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA) appeal filed by Lorenzo Venneri (Appellant) from a final determination  issued by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Idaho Operations Office   (Idaho). The   Appellant challenged   the Idaho's reliance on 41 U.S.C. section 2101(7)(J) under Exemption 3. He also challenges the withholding of subject matter experts' names under Exemption 6. OHA found that Idaho properly invoked Exemptions 3 and 6. Consequently, the Appellant's Appeal will be denied. (OHA Case No. FIA-22-0011)

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

On April 4, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted. The Individual had not filed or paid his federal or state tax returns for tax years 2015, 2016, and 2017. At the hearing, the Individual admitted that he had not filed or paid his federal or state tax returns for tax years 2015, 2016, and 2017, and offered no good reason or explanation for his failure to do so. The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0012, Fine)

Access Authorization Denied; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

On April 5, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. As part of the investigation for his security clearance, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in April 2019. In response to the financial questions, the Individual indicated that he had failed to file his Federal and state taxes for the 2011 tax year. Subsequently, the Local Security Office (LSO) asked him to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), in which he explained that he had also not filed his Federal or state tax returns for the   2012-2016 tax years. During the hearing, the Individual testified that he has retained a tax preparer who has successfully filed his 2012-2020 tax returns, and the Individual has consistently been filing his taxes each year since 2017. The Individual's tax returns indicated that he currently owed approximately $ 15,000 to the state tax authority and approximately $21,000 to the Federal tax authority. The Individual testified that he had not yet made payments toward that debt. After considering the evidence in the record and testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline F. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-22-0009 (Katie Quintana)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

On April 5, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. As part of a reinvestigation for his security clearance, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in January 2021. In response to the QNSP's financial questions, the Individual indicated that he had failed to file his Federal tax returns since 2011. Subsequently, the Local Security Office (LSO) asked him to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), in which he explained that he had since filed his tax returns for the 2011-2013 tax years, but he had not yet filed his tax returns for the 2014- 2019 tax years. During the hearing, the Individual testified that he retained a tax accountant, but, as of the date of the hearing, he had yet to file his Federal tax returns for the 2014-2021 tax years. After considering the evidence in the record and testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline F. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-22-0034 (Katie Quintana)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption).

On April 5, 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 potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol consumption and criminal conduct. Regarding Guideline G, the LSO asserted that 1) in August 2021, a DOE Psychologist found that the Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association, Fifth Edition, criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation; 2) in July 2021, she consumed four alcoholic drinks in violation of Fitness for Duty (FFD) restrictions for work; 3) in February 2021, she was arrested and charged with Aggravated Driving Under the Influence (DUI); 4) in October 2016, the Individual tested positive for alcohol despite being required to abstain by her employer; and 5) in September 2016, she was arrested and charged with Aggravated DUI.

At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist confirmed her diagnosis and recommendation, which included the Individual complete a 30-day in-patient treatment program, followed by aftercare of not less than two years and she also recommended Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) tests be administered every two months. The testimony and evidence established that the Individual did not satisfy any of the DOE Psychologist's recommendations. The Individual failed to resolve the Guideline G concerns. Accordingly, the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he had fully resolved the security concerns arising under Guidelines G. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0035, Fishman)