Summary of Decisions - October 17, 2022 - October 21, 2022

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

On October 17, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions in which he disclosed that he had fallen into delinquency on numerous debts and had not paid taxes that he owed. A background investigation of the Individual revealed additional delinquencies, and established that the Individual owed over $ 11,000 in delinquent debts and over $4,000 in unpaid Federal and state personal income taxes. At the hearing, the Individual provided evidence that he had resolved some of his delinquent debts. However, he had not paid or made arrangements to pay his unpaid taxes or the majority of his delinquent debts. As the Individual had made only minimal progress towards improving his financial situation, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline F. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0124, Harmonick)

Access Authorization Not Granted, Guidelines G

On October 19, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the 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. The Local Security Office (LSO) received derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol use and arrests for driving while intoxicated.

After a hearing, the Judge found the Individual did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The Individual had only abstained from alcohol for about three weeks and stated that he needed professional help to stop drinking, though he had not obtained such help. The Individual did not believe his alcohol use was serious enough to warrant the use of support groups and described his alcohol use as problematic, but not a problem. The DOE Psychologist opined the Individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation. The Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not mitigated the security concerns under Guidelines G and, therefore, his access authorization should not be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0070, Martin)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct)

On October 20, 2022, an Administrative Jude determined that the Individual's access authorization should not 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 personal conduct. Under Guideline E, the LSO made multiple allegations indicating that the Individual had demonstrated a pattern of questionable judgement, untrustworthiness, lack of candor, and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations and that the Individual provided false or misleading information on the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP).

At the hearing, only the Individual testified. During his testimony, the Individual confirmed certain incidents alleged in the Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) that resulted in termination from prior employment or reprimand. However, the Individual denied the veracity of other alleged incidents made by sources with former employers, indicating that the sources that were interviewed by investigators were either mistaken about the alleged incidents or falsifying facts. The Individual did not provide evidence directly supporting his explanations for the alleged incidents, and whether sources with his former employers were misremembering or falsifying information. The Administrative Judge did have at least two sources with the same former employer who made specific statements that brought the Individual's character for good judgement and trustworthiness directly into question and statements from another former employer that did the same. As such, the Administrative Judge afforded greater weight to the statements of these sources over the self -serving and uncorroborated testimony of the Individual.

At the hearing, the Individual's counsel argued that the mitigating factor at ¶ 17(c) was applicable in this case. The Individual repeatedly exercised the sort of poor judgement and behavior that resulted in his termination with four different employers over the span of three years. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge did not find that the Individual had mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to this mitigating factor.

The Individual's counsel also argued that the mitigating factor at ¶ 17(e) was applicable in this case. The way the Individual chose to refute some of the stated allegations was to assert that two of his employers had falsified information regarding his employment, without providing any corroborating evidence, and in spite of the fact that multiple sources had described his behavior as dishonest and lacking in good judgement. Because the Administrative Judge could not conclude that the Individual had been completely forthcoming with information pertinent to his conduct with multiple prior employers, she could not conclude that the Individual had taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.

The mitigating factors at ¶ 17(a), (b), (f) and (g) were not applicable in this case. Based on the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not mitigated the Guideline E concerns pursuant to the mitigating factors of the Adjudicative Guidelines. (OHA Case No. PSH-22- 0128, Rahimzadeh)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On October 21, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In October 2021, the Individual tested positive on a random workplace alcohol test. Following an investigation by the Individual's employer, he was disciplined for testing positive on the workplace alcohol test and for providing inconsistent information concerning his alcohol consumption prior to the workplace alcohol test. The Individual was subsequently evaluated by a DOE-contracted Psychologist (DOE Psychologist) who opined that the Individual binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. At the hearing, the Individual established that he had participated in counseling and educational courses related to alcohol misuse and represented that, but for one lapse, he had abstained from alcohol for eight months. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual had not demonstrated rehabilitation or reformation, and that his prognosis for avoiding problematic alcohol consumption in the future was "less than average," because the Individual had not participated in sufficiently rigorous treatment or undergone alcohol testing to corroborate his abstinence from alcohol. In light of the serious risks presented to national security by the Individual's impairment in the workplace, and the DOE Psychologist's unfavorable opinion, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline G. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0106, Harmonick)