Summary of Decisions - November 07, 2022 - November 11, 2022

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline I (Psychological Concerns)

On November 9, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be restored. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. In July 2021, the Individual was subject to a five-day suspension due to "unacceptable and unprofessional conduct in the workplace." In October 2021, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the Individual, which sought information about the Individual's personal conduct regarding his employment. The Individual subsequently underwent a psychological evaluation by a DOE consultant psychologist (Psychologist) in January 2022. The Psychologist determined that the Individual had "features of obsessive- compulsive personality disorder which [led] him to exhibit poor judgment, emotional instability, and untrustworthiness." The Psychologist suggested weekly therapy for at least one year and until the therapist and Individual agreed that the treatment goals were met. At the hearing, the Individual testified that, shortly following the June 2021 incident, he began attending weekly sessions with a therapist (Therapist). The Individual described the tools he learned in therapy and how he implemented them to successfully manage stress. Additionally, his wife testified as that, since the Individual began attending therapy, she observed that the Individual is better able to cope with frustration. The Therapist testified that that the Individual was receptive to and compliant with therapy . He explained that when he saw the Individual making progress, sessions became bi -weekly, and once the Therapist felt that the therapeutic objectives had been met, the Individual requested that therapy continue monthly. The Therapist disagreed with the Psychologist's assessment that the Individual displayed features of obsessive -compulsive personality disorder to a degree that led him to exhibit poor judgment, emotional instability, and untrustworthiness, and he felt that the Individual had met the treatment goals and objectives suggested by the Psychologist. The Psychologist ultimately testified that her original assessment remained unchanged, and she felt that the Individual had yet to meet the recommended treatment goals. However, given the Therapist's continual and consistent relationship with the Individual, the Administrative Judge accepted his opinion that the Individual does not exhibit features of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder to the degree that the Psychologist found concerning and has successfully met his treatment goals and objectives. After considering the evidence in the record and the testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline I . Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-22-0109 (Katie Quintana)

Access Authorization Restored; Guidelines F (Financial Considerations)

On November 10, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's finances. The LSO alleged that the Individual failed to file her Federal tax returns for tax years 2015-2017, and failed to pay her 2019 Federal income taxes The Individual began experiencing financial difficulties in 2015 when she got married and she and her husband blended a family of six children at the same that her husband became unemployed. The Individual's husband was unable to secure full -time employment for a year- and-a-half which made it very difficult to support her family with primarily her income. After the Individual and her husband prepared their 2015 joint Federal tax return, they were overwhelmed with the large tax liability they owed. The Individual asserted that prior to the 2015 tax year, she had always filed her taxes on time and had always received a tax refund. Therefore, she was unaware that there was an option to request and set up a tax payment plan, and she mistakenly believed that she and her husband had to pay their tax liability in full at the time of filing. Regarding her 2016 and 2017 Federal taxes, the Individual testified that they again owed a large tax liability, and since they were already behind on their 2015 taxes, they did not have enough money to pay their tax obligations for 2015-2017. The Individual eventually found a higher paying job, and her husband became gainfully employed, so they began timely filing their taxes in 2018. She timely filed her 2019 Federal taxes, and her tax return reflected that she was supposed to receive a tax refund. However, in February 2022, the IRS sent a letter to the Individual stating that the IRS had processed her 2019 tax return, and had determined she owed $4194. At the hearing, the Individual presented evidence reflecting that she had paid off her outstanding 2019 tax debt.

The Individual also presented evidence that she had filed her 2015-2017 Federal taxes with the assistance of a tax professional who had also assisted her in setting up a payment plan with the IRS . She testified and provided supporting evidence to show that she had paid off her remaining Federal tax liabilities in compliance with her IRS payment agreements. The Individual also presented credible testimony regarding how she has successfully maintained her family's budget, had filed and paid all of their taxes through the 2021 tax year, understood the importance of her ongoing duty to timely file income taxes, and obtained sufficient cash savings to prevent future recurrences of tax problems . Based on the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had mitigated Guideline F concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0090, Balzon)