Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security - FOIA Appeal
Office of Hearings and Appeals
July 26, 2024
minute read time
FOIA Appeal (FIA)
FOIA Appeal; Fee Waiver; Denied
On July 22, 2024, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied a Freedom of Information (FOIA) appeal filed by Tonya Mead (Appellant) from a determination letter issued by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Public Information (OPI). The Appellant submitted a FOIA request seeking data of federal employees' eligibility for, and participation in, telework and remote work arrangements, from years 2019 to 2023. The Appellant challenged the DOE OPI's denial of her request for a waiver of fees associated with the processing of her request. After reviewing the appeal, OHA concluded the Appellant did not establish she was able to disseminate information obtained from the records to the public, or that disclosure of the requested records would contribute to the public's understanding of government operations or activities. Accordingly, the Appellant's appeal was denied. (OHA Case No . FIA-24-0039)
Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)
Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline E (Personal Conduct); Bond Amendment
On July 26, 2024, 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 her to hold a security clearance. In April 2023, the Individual contacted Occupational Medicine (Occ Med) at her DOE site to discuss obtaining permission to take her Oxycodone prescription during working hours for her chronic pain condition. The Individual met with an Occ Med psychologist, who ultimately advised that the Individual seek out the opinion of a pain management specialist. In September 2023, the Individual completed a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) in which she stated that she misused her Oxycodone in March 2023. She also stated that she had never been ordered, advised, or asked to seek counseling or treatment as a result of her use of drugs or controlled substances. In November 2023, the Individual underwent an evaluation with a DOE consultant-psychologist (DOE Psychologist) who diagnosed her with Unspecified Opioid -Related Disorder. The Individual told the DOE Psychologist that she had never been diagnosed with a substance use disorder. The DOE Psychologist's examination of the Individual's medical records revealed that the Individual had engaged in concerning practices regarding her Oxycodone refills, had previously been diagnosed with Opioid Use Disorder, and had been advised to decrease her opioid usage or undergo Suboxone treatment. At the hearing, the Individual testified regarding her past and current Oxycodone usage and maintained that she had never been advised to decrease her opioid usage or undergo treatment. She further claimed she could not recall ever having been diagnosed with an opioid use disorder. After considering the evidence in the record and the testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Bond Amendment was not applicable and that the Individual had not provided sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns associated with Guideline E and Guideline H. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0082, Quintana)
Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
On July 26, 2024, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Local Security Office suspended the Individual's security clearance application after it discovered that the Individual had failed to file federal and state income taxes for several recent years and had two financial accounts in collection.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guideline F . The AJ also determined that the Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline F security concerns. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0092, Thompson)