Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security - FOIA Appeal
Office of Hearings and Appeals
September 6, 2024
minute read time
FOIA Appeal (FIA)
FOIA; Appeal Denied
On September 5, 2024, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal filed by Phil Rutherford (Appellant) from a supplemental determination letter issued by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The Appellant submitted a FOIA request seeking information regarding an OIG complaint. After reviewing the appeal, OHA found that the Appellant's appeal did not contain a concise statement of the grounds upon which it was brought or a description of the relief sought. Accordingly, the Appellant's appeal was denied. (OHA Case No. FIA-24-0050) ( OHA Case No. FIA-24-0050)
FOIA; Appeal Denied
On September 6, 2024, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied the Freedom of Information (FOIA) Appeal filed by Jeffrey Rosenberg (Appellant) from an determination letter issued by the Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). On appeal, the Appellant challenged the adequacy of NNSA's search. NNSA demonstrated that it had conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents . Therefore, we denied the appeal. (OHA Case No. FIA-24-0049)
Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)
Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline B (Foreign Influence); Guideline E (Personal Conduct); Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
On September 6, 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 accurately report his travel to a foreign country, DOE Intelligence and Counterintelligence determined that he had foreign ties to that country and engaged in behavior that created a high risk to DOE equities should he be given access to sensitive information, and he had unexplained affluence.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guideline B, E, and F. The AJ also determined that the Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline B, E, and F security concerns. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0099, Thompson III)
Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
On September 4, 2024, 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 her to hold a security clearance. In November 2023, the Individual was arrested and charged with Aggravated Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Drugs - Refused Testing (DWI). In January 2024, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) who issued a report of his findings following a clinical interview. The DOE Psychologist found that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of Unspecified Alcohol -Related Disorder pursuant to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, and she had not established adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. At the hearing, the Individual testified that she had been abstinent from alcohol since the DWI and had successfully completed a twelve -week substance abuse program. The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual had established adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation from the Unspecified Alcohol -Related Disorder. Ultimately, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had mitigated the Guideline G security concerns, and she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0116, Quintana)