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

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Granted; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

On July 17, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual should be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In 2015, the Individual accepted a position with a DOE contractor and relocated to a city near a DOE site. The Individual was unable to work during the review of his eligibility for access authorization, and he incurred significant credit card debt during this time to pay for household necessities. Eventually, the Individual took another job but was unable to make the minimum payments on the credit card debt which was referred to collections. The Individual was later hired by a DOE contractor and, in March 2022, he submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions in which he disclosed the credit card debt.  At the hearing, the Individual testified that the statute of limitations for the collection of the credit card debt had expired and submitted evidence establishing that he was in good standing on all of his financial obligations and had made timely monthly payments on all of his routine financial accounts for at least four years. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had resolved the security concerns under Guideline F and should be granted access authorization. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0083, Harmonick)

Access Authorization Denied; Guideline I (Psychological Conditions)

On July 17, 2023, 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 security clearance. In April 2022, as part of the security clearance application process, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP). In the QNSP, the Individual stated that, in approximately 2013, he had been diagnosed with Bipolar Mood Disorder. Subsequently, the Individual underwent an evaluation with a DOE consultant - psychologist (DOE Psychologist). Based on the evaluation, the DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with unspecified Bipolar Disorder. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he believed that his symptoms were not consistent with Bipolar Disorder, and he indicated that he was not undergoing treatment for the condition. The DOE Psychologist testified that a person with a bipolar condition should be on medication and undergoing therapy because, without treatment, the person is at a higher risk for future episodes recurring. As the Individual was not undergoing ongoing and consistent compliance with a treatment plan for the condition, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not yet mitigated the Guideline I security concerns. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. OHA Case No. PSH-23-0073 (Katie Quintana)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct) & Guideline I (Psychological Conditions)

On July 17, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In 2022, after having possessed access authorization for over 15 years, the Individual resigned from his employment with a DOE contractor in lieu of termination after he was caught surreptitiously recording a man in a state of undress in a locker room at a DOE site. The Individual admitted that he had engaged in this behavior numerous times since 2018. The Individual was subsequently evaluated by a DOE-contracted Psychologist (DOE Psychologist) who determined that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of Voyeuristic Disorder under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition. At the hearing, the Individual indicated that he had secretly recorded men in the locker room at the DOE site to express his repressed bisexuality and presented the testimony of a therapist from whom he had received treatment as to his personal development. The DOE Psychologist opined at the hearing that the Individual no longer met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of Voyeuristic Disorder and had a good prognosis. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual's treatment and the positive opinion from the DOE Psychologist resolved the security concerns under Guideline I. However, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline E in light of the duration and seriousness of his misconduct, his failure to fully acknowledge his deceptive behavior in connection with the investigation of his misconduct, and the lack of evidence that he had resolved his susceptibility to manipulation by sharing his misconduct with his family and close friends. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0062, Harmonick)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On July 19, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In September 2022, the Individual disclosed to the local security office (LSO) that he had been arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). At the request of the LSO, the Individual met with a DOE-contracted psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist) for a psychiatric evaluation. Following the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist issued a report in which he concluded that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder ( AUD), Severe, under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition and that he habitually consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. The DOE Psychiatrist recommended that the Individual abstain from alcohol for one year, undergo treatment, and participate in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). At the hearing, the Individual represented that he had completed all court-ordered obligations in connection with the DWI and had abstained from alcohol for three months but had not undergone treatment for AUD or attended AA. The DOE Psychiatrist opined at the hearing that the Individual's prognosis for avoiding a relapse into problematic alcohol consumption would be unfavorable unless he obtained treatment. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline G, and therefore determined that his access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-23- 0068, Harmonick)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and J (Criminal Conduct)

On July 20, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. On July 10, 2022, the Individual was charged with Aggravated Battery (use of a deadly weapon), Negligent Use of a Deadly Weapon (discharging a firearm near an inhabited building), and Criminal Damage to Property, which he did not report until July 28, 2022. In response, the Local Security Office (LSO) sent a Letter of Interrogatory, which he answered in November 2022.  In the answer, he informed the LSO of additional charges, that he had not reported, including a June 2022 charge for battery; an October 2019 Public Disturbance charge; a January 2016 Assault and Battery charge; a November 2012 Aggravated Battery of a Household Member charge; an August 2009 Reckless Driving and no Driver's License charge; and a June 2003 Reckless Driving, Fleeing/Eluding an Officer, and Immediate Notice of Accident charge. The testimony of the Individual and his mother failed to mitigate the charges raised by the LSO for either the Guideline E or Guideline J security concerns. At the hearing, the Individual's mother testified regarding events that preceded the July 2022 incident. The Individual's testimony established that he likely committed the acts for which he was charged, he did not acknowledge he was required to report his arrests to the LSO, irrespective of the validity of the charges supporting the arrests, and he failed to establish that his criminal conduct was unlikely to recur. Accordingly, the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he had resolved the security concerns arising under Guidelines E and J. ( OHA Case No. PSH-23-0080, Fishman)

Access Authorization denied; Guidelines E and F

On July 20, 2023, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted.

The Individual submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) to a Local Security Office (LSO) in which she was required to report any past due debts.  Although the Individual had a past due debt to a Federal agency, she did not report it on her QNSP. However, a credit report obtained by the LSO, shortly after the QNSP was submitted indicated that the Individual had a delinquent Federal debt of $1,246,959.  In addition, the Individual had not submitted her Federal and state tax returns for tax years 2019, 2020, and 2021.

The Individual both claimed that she did not report the Federal debt because she saw it as a "service obligation" rather than a loan, and that she was not aware of the debt when she submitted the QNSP . The AJ found that the Individual was highly likely to have been aware of the debt when she submitted her QNSP since she admitted that she had made inquiries about the debt with the agency to which it was owed approximately six months before she submitted the QNSP. The AJ further noted that when confronted with the debt by an investigator, the Individual did not deny its existence, but rather ( inaccurately) disputed its size. Accordingly, the AJ found that the security concerns raised by the Individual's failure to disclose the debt had not been mitigated or resolved.

The AJ noted that the Individual had not repaid the debt or entered a repayment plan. While the Individual submitted evidence that she had recently applied for a waiver of the service obligation that led to the delinquent debt, approximately six years after it became past due, she did provide evidence indicating that her waiver request was likely to be granted.  Moreover, the AJ found that the Individual's lack of diligence in addressing her past due debt (the Individual received notice that this debt was past due in October 2017) raised concerns about her judgment and reliability.  Accordingly, the AJ found that the security concerns raised by the Individual's failure to resolve the debt had not been mitigated or resolved.

Because the Individual submitted evidence that she had filed her Federal and state tax returns for tax years 2019, 2020, and 2021, the AJ found that the security concerns raised by the Individual's failure to file these tax returns in a timely manner had been resolved.

The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0074, Fine)