Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security
Office of Hearings and Appeals
August 13, 2021
minute read time
Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)
Personnel Security; access authorization denied; Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
On August 10, 2021, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in which he disclosed one delinquent debt and denied that he failed to file or pay taxes as required by law in the prior seven years. A background investigation by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) revealed that the Individual was delinquent on numerous debts. The local security office (LSO) issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory (LOI) concerning his financial circumstances. In his response, the Individual provided details about the debts and admitted that he had failed to file several years of tax returns. In response to a second LOI from the LSO, the Individual indicated that he failed to file Federal or state personal or business tax returns for tax years 2014 to 2018 and was unaware how much he owed in unpaid taxes. At the hearing, a tax attorney and Certified Public Accountant (Tax Expert) testified that he had prepared and filed the Individual's Federal and state tax returns for tax years 2014 through 2019 and that the Individual was current on his tax filing obligations. The Tax Expert indicated that the Individual owed approximately $113,000 in unpaid Federal taxes and had entered into a payment plan with the IRS for the 2017 tax year. The Tax Expert indicated that the Individual would need to enter into additional payment plans with the IRS to address the remaining tax years. The Individual testified that he had omitted his delinquent debts from the QNSP because he was unaware of them and that he omitted his failure to file or pay Federal and state taxes because he thought that the question only applied to tax protestors or those who refused to pay taxes. The Individual explained that he had fallen behind on his tax obligations when he hired an unskilled bookkeeper for his business in 2014. The Individual represented that he had begun looking into rectifying his failure to file taxes in 2016, but did not complete the process until shortly before the hearing. The Individual represented that he would meet his financial obligations going forward, but admitted that his expenses were nearly as much as his income and provided no documentation of his current financial situation. Based on the Individual's unconvincing explanations for his failure to disclose derogatory financial information on the QNSP, unpaid tax liability of $113,000, failure to enter into payment plans covering all of his tax liability as of the date of the hearing, and uncertain financial position, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guidelines E and F. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. (Case No. PSH-21-0052, Steven L. Fine)
Access Authorization Granted; Guideline (Criminal Conduct); Bond Amendment
On August 13, 2021, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be granted.
The Individual had an extensive and significant history of criminal activity and incarceration. However, the AJ, applying the "whole person concept," found that that the Individual had resolved the security concerns raised by her criminal activity by showing that she has grown and matured, changed her behavior, obtained an education, obtained a professional license, established a successful career, and become a responsible parent. These conclusions were supported by the credible testimony of the Individual and seven other witnesses. To this end, the AJ found that by doing so, she had exhibited good judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness during the past four years. He further relied upon the opinion of a DOE- contracted Psychologist, who opined that the Individual was not likely to further engage in criminal behavior, after conducting a thorough review of her security file and a forensic psychological evaluation of the Individual.
Accordingly, the AJ found that the Individual had mitigated the Guideline J security concern and found that her disqualification from holding a security clearance pursuant to the Bond Amendment is eligible for a waiver. Therefore, the AJ found that the Individual should be granted a security clearance. (Case No. PSH-21-0065, Steven Fine).