Summary of Decisions - March 13, 2023 - March 17, 2023

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Granted; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On March 14, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In July 2022, the Individual was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), after consuming eight beers and a shot of tequila. In August 2022, a DOE consulting Psychologist evaluated the Individual and opined that he consumes "alcohol to a point where impaired judgment is an issue of concern as evidenced in his recent DWI." The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual first enroll in an eight-week Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), consisting of both Individual and group counseling. Id. Following the successful completion of IOP, the Individual should continue with aftercare and attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) at least twice a week. Id. The DOE Psychologist asserted that the Individual should continue his aftercare for a year from July 2022, along with remaining abstinent. Id. Finally, the DOE Psychologist recommended ongoing random drug testing, which should include random PEth tests at about six-week intervals. Id. At the hearing, the Individual acknowledged his problematic alcohol consumption and has brought forth documentation and testimonial evidence establishing that he has taken significant steps to overcome his problem. He provided evidence through the testimonies of his wife and friend that he has not consumed alcohol since his DWI. Moreover, the Individual provided alcohol testing to support his claim of abstinence. Further, his co-worker and his aftercare counselor testified that he completed an IOP and is regularly attending aftercare twice a week. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual's efforts were sufficient to establish reformation and that the Individual had a good prognosis for avoiding a return to problematic alcohol consumption. The aftercare counselor also testified that the Individual had a very good prognosis.  The Administrative Judge found that the Individual mitigated the concerns raised by his DWI. Accordingly, the Individual was able to demonstrate that he had resolved the security concerns arising under Guideline G. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0025, Fishman)

Access Authorization Not Granted, Guidelines E and F

On March 16, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. When completing his QNSP for his initial security clearance investigation in 2017, the Individual omitted an alcohol related charge he received many years prior, as well as many collection accounts he had for medical bills. In 2022, the Individual completed his QNSP for his routine reinvestigation and omitted the same items a second time.  At the hearing, the Individual testified that he thought the QNSP was asking if he had had an alcohol related charge in the last seven years. He further testified that he did not list any collections because they were no longer on his credit report. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not mitigated the concerns brought under Guidelines E and F. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH- 23-0020, Martin)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct; Guideline F (Financial Conduct; Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On March 16, 2023, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) discovered information regarding the Individual's failure to follow his employer's rules and procedures; his twenty - one instances of omitting information from the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP); his outstanding collection and charge-off accounts; and his history of more than twelve separate criminal charges spanning 2009 to 2021, mainly related to the unlawful operation or possession of a motor vehicle. Based on the above information, the LSO informed the Individual that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance because the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline E, Guideline F, and Guideline J of the Adjudicative Guidelines.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined the following. The LSO appropriately invoked the above Guidelines based on the cited information. The AJ also concluded that the Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns for the following reasons. As to Guideline E, there was no evidence that the Individual made efforts to correct the omissions throughout his QNSP before being confronted with the facts; there is no evidence in the record that his failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused by advice from another individual; most of the conduct cited in the SSC was either admitted by the Individual or derived from reliable sources; and the record did not demonstrate that the conduct was minor or that the passage of time, the frequency of his conduct, the attendant circumstances, and the actions he has since taken mitigated the concerns.

Regarding the Guideline F, the conduct did happen long ago, and the record did not establish that his conduct was mitigated by its infrequency or any related circumstances because the Individual did not present persuasive evidence that he had resolved all of the collection and charge -off accounts. The record did not support a finding that his financial issues resulted from anything beyond the Individual's control. Similarly, the record did not demonstrate that the Individual had initiated and was adhering to a good-faith effort to repay each overdue creditor or otherwise resolve all of his debts.

Regarding Guideline J, the relative recency of a couple incidents and the preceding decade of similar conduct, including a 2019 charge for failure to appear, established a pattern that continued to reflect an unwillingness to comply with laws or regulations despite repeated consequences. Furthermore, his testimony indicated a present inability to acknowledge and take responsibility for his conduct and reflected a lack of candidness.

Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline E, F, and J security concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0140, Thompson)