Summary of Decisions - August 10, 2015 – August 14, 2015

Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On August 11, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision finding that the DOE should not restore an individual’s security clearance after she determined that the individual had not resolved the security concerns associated with his outstanding debts, liens against his real estate, and wage garnishment. The Administrative Judge recognized that the individual had recently filed for protection with the bankruptcy court as a means to deal with some of his financial issues.  However, she noted under Federal law, the individual’s student loans will not be discharged in the Bankruptcy proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a) (8). She held further that when the individual emerges from the protection of the Bankruptcy Court in five years, he will be responsible for paying the student loans in the amount of $174,853.00, plus interest. Finally, the Administrative Judge held that while the individual had persuaded her that he has the best of intentions to address his financial issues, it was simply too early for her to find that he has demonstrated a sustained pattern of financial responsibility for a significant period of time to gauge the likelihood that his financial problems will not recur. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns at issue.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0050 (Ann S. Augustyn)

On August 11, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should be granted.  The LSO had alleged that Individual’s 2005 alcohol-related arrest, and an opinion by a psychologist that he was a user of alcohol habitually to excess, which the psychiatrist opined caused or may cause a significant defect in the individual’s judgement and reliability, raised concerns about the individual’s eligibility to maintain a security clearance.  At the hearing, the individual showed that he had significantly moderated his alcohol intake and now uses alcohol in a responsible, controlled manner.  Based on this showing, the DOE psychologist opined that the individual had demonstrated reformation and rehabilitation.  Accordingly, the Administrative Judge concluded that the security concerns raised by the arrest and habitual use of alcohol to excess were resolved.  Accordingly, the Administrative Judge found that the individual should be granted access authorization.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0046 (Steven L. Fine)

On August 12, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  A Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the individual to address concerns regarding her delinquent debts and her misrepresentations on her April 2014 Questionnaire for National Security Positions.   After conducting a hearing and evaluating the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the individual did not sufficiently mitigate the DOE’s concerns as to her delinquent debts, but that she mitigated the DOE’s concerns as to her reliability and trustworthiness.  The Administrative Judge was not convinced that the individual’s financial problems are under control yet.  While the individual has made recent good efforts to set up payment arrangements with credit companies and to repay her creditors, she has not yet established a pattern of repayment as her first payments were not scheduled to be deducted from her account until July 2015.  For many of her debts, the individual has not provided sufficient corroboration from her creditors to confirm her repayment plans with them.   For these reasons, the Administrative Judge could not find that the individual sufficiently mitigated the security concerns related to her financial irresponsibility.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0027 (K. Jenkins-Chapman).

On August 13, 2015, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  A Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about his alcohol consumption, which arose because he tested positive for alcohol at work in November 2014, which the individual attributed to having consumed six 12-ounce India Pale Ale beers the night before.  The LSO subsequently referred the individual to meet with a DOE psychologist for an examination.  The DOE psychologist concluded that the individual was alcohol dependent without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation and that his condition causes or may cause a significant defect in his judgment or reliability. After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Administrative Judge found that the individual did not mitigate the concerns with regards to his alcohol consumption.  While the Administrative Judge was convinced that the individual was committed to sobriety because he completed an intensive outpatient treatment program at a recovery center, sought the support of his family and close friends and continues to seek treatment, he last consumed alcohol only five months prior to the hearing.  At the hearing, the DOE psychologist reiterated his view that the individual needed a year of sobriety to establish reformation and rehabilitation, which is consistent with OHA precedent.  For these reasons, the Administrative Judge could not find that the individual resolved the security concerns related to his alcohol dependency.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0040 (Shiwali G. Patel)