Summary of Decisions - June 27, 2016 – July 1, 2016

Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On June 30, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored. The local security office alleged that the individual had deliberately omitted significant financial information from his QNSP and from his interview with an OPM security investigator (Criterion F), and had evidenced that he was not reliable or trustworthy due to his outstanding delinquent debt and his pattern of financial irresponsibility (Criterion L). With respect to the Criterion F security concerns, the Administrative Judge held that the information provided by the individual during his security clearance process was either factually accurate or had not been deliberately omitted, with the exception of the individual’s disclosure of delinquent collection accounts which he limited to a single account. The individual testified that, when he certified his QNSP, he was aware he had other collection accounts (the details of which he could not remember) and intended to discuss those accounts when called for an interview; under these circumstances, the Administrative Judge held the individual had deliberately omitted significant information from his QNSP and had not resolved the associated Criterion F security concerns. With respect to Criterion L, the Administrative Judge noted that the individual’s two charge off accounts had been discharged in bankruptcy in 2005 and the individual had no current liability with respect to those accounts. However, the individual failed to mitigate the Criterion L security concerns arising from, inter alia, his other eight delinquent financial accounts; his state and federal tax deficiencies which arose from the omission of his spouse’s gambling income from their joint tax returns; and his history of financial irresponsibility which had not abated. OHA Case No. PSH-16-0020 (Wade M. Boswell)

On June 30, 2016, an Administrative Judge issued a decision restoring an individual’s access authorization. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved security concerns under Criteria H, J, K, and L regarding the individual’s alcohol and drug use.  After an evaluation, a DOE psychologist concluded that the individual suffered from Opioid Dependence in early remission, and Alcohol Dependence in early remission. The individual admitted that from 2010 to 2015, he abused and illegally used the prescription medication Oxycodone, a Scheduled II drug. Additionally, the individual admitted to excessive alcohol use. The DOE psychologist, after reviewing all of the testimony, found that the individual had achieved adequate evidence of rehabilitation from his two disorders, Alcohol Dependence and Opioid Dependence. He testified that the individual has the mechanisms in place to be successful and further testified that the individual’s prognosis is good and his risk of relapse is low. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge determined that the individual had resolved the Criteria H, J, K, and L concerns and that the individual’s access authorization should be restored.  OHA Case No. PSH-16-0016 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman)  

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeals

On June 29, 2016, OHA denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed by Mitch Still from a determination issued by the DOE Savannah River Operations Office (SRO). In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the adequacy of SRO’S search for responsive documents. OHA found, however, that SRO had conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover the materials sought by the Appellant. Accordingly, OHA denied the Appeal.   OHA Case No. FIA-16-0037 

On June 27, 2016, OHA denied a Freedom of Information Act Appeal (FOIA) filed by Kathy L. Black (Appellant) of a determination issued by the DOE Office of Information Resources (OIR).  In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged OIR’s withholding under FOIA Exemption 5.  OHA reviewed the withheld information and concluded that OIR properly withheld the information under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.  OHA agreed that the information was pre-decisional in that involved opinions prior to a decision being made.  OHA further found that the information is the type that the deliberative process privilege routinely protects.  Therefore, OHA denied the Appeal.  OHA Case No. FIA-16-0040