Summary of Decisions - April 17, 2023 - April 21, 2023

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F ( Financial Considerations)

On April 19, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be granted. On her Questionnaire for National Security Positions, the Individual failed to report nine accounts that were past due or in collections. The LSO raised security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations). At the hearing, the Individual presented evidence that she had misunderstood the QNSP question and that she had volunteered the information before being confronted with the facts. She also presented evidence that she had resolved or set up a payment plan for each delinquent or collection account . For the foregoing reasons, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had mitigated the Guideline E and Guideline F concerns and recommended that the Individual's security clearance be granted. (PSH-23-0050, Martin)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption

On April 19, 2023, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) suspended the Individual's security clearance because he had been diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, and had five alcohol-related arrests between 2008 and 2017.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined the following. The LSO appropriately invoked Guideline G. The Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns. The record demonstrated that he had started following the treatment recommendations of the DOE - consultant psychiatrist who diagnosed the Individual with AUD. However, he had only done so for approximately six months by the hearing deadline; and, based on the severity of his AUD diagnosis, his past history of relapse after participating in court -ordered alcohol treatment for eighteen-months, and the psychiatrist's opinion on the hearing date that the Individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence of reformation or rehabilitation, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline G security concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0018, Thompson)

Access Authorization denied; Guideline J

On April 21, 2023, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored.

A state magistrate had issued a warrant for the Individual's arrest based upon charges resulting from a mass shooting incident charging the Individual with four counts of Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon; five counts of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon; three counts of Abuse of a Child; and one count of Negligent Use of a Weapon.

The AJ found that warrant issued for the Individual's arrest, indicated that a judicial official found that probable cause existed that the Individual committed the offenses alleged in the arrest warrant . Moreover, the AJ found, the newspaper articles submitted by the Individual showed that police had submitted at least one affidavit to the court from an eyewitness who stated that she had observed the Individual pulling out a pistol, cocking it back, and firing at fleeing partygoers. The AJ found that information constituted reliable evidence that the Individual committed the offenses cited in the warrant. The AJ noted that while the charges set forth on the arrest warrant were retracted by the issuance of a Nolle Prosequi, that Nolle Prosequi did not fully exonerate the Individual since several statements in the Nolle Prosequi indicated that the allegations set forth in the warrant continued to raise concerns about the Individual's involvement in the mass shooting incident in which five persons received gunshot wounds.  Specifically, the Nolle Prosequi stated: "[ t]he investigation is ongoing," "[t] here have been additional events linked to the Defendant and co -Defendant that require further investigation," "[t]here are still ballistic and DNA testing results pending," and "[c]harges will be re- filed at a later date." The AJ noted that, by issuing the Nolle Prosequi without prejudice, the prosecutor reserved the right to further prosecute the Individual for the incident.  The AJ noted that if the prosecutor issued the Nolle Prosequi because evidence was uncovered suggesting the innocence of the Individual, that evidence did not appear in the record.

Therefore, the AJ found that the exhibits and testimony submitted by the Individual did not resolve the security concerns raised by the warrant. He noted that none of the documents submitted by the Individual are exculpatory. The videos submitted by the Individual that he claimed showed that a detective planted evidence in the form of spent bullet shells did not appear to the AJ to show any evidence of that allegation. Most importantly, the AJ found that the Individual's hearing testimony was completely uncorroborated and was often contradicted by other evidence in the record and therefore lacked credibility.

The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0030, Fine)