Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security - FOIA Appeal
Office of Hearings and Appeals
September 13, 2024
minute read time
FOIA Appeal (FIA)
FOIA Appeal; Exemption 4; Granted
On August 20, 2024, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) granted a Freedom of Information (FOIA) appeal filed by Berger Montague (Appellant) from a determination letter issued by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office Public Information (OPI). The Appellant submitted a FOIA request seeking information regarding a loan (Loan) between Li-Cycle Holdings Corporation (Li-Cycle) and DOE through the Loan Program Office's (LPO) Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) program. In a first partial response, OPI produced a responsive record which withheld certain information, such as the Loan's term sheet (Term Sheet), pursuant to Exemption 4. After reviewing the appeal, OHA concluded that only information "obtained from" Li-Cycle could be properly withheld from the Term Sheet pursuant to Exemption 4. Accordingly, OHA granted the appeal and remanded to OPI for a determination as to which information in the Term Sheet was "obtained from" Li- Cycle. (OHA Case No. FIA-24-0045)
Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)
Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
On September 10, 2024, an Administrative Judge with the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals 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 her to hold a security clearance. In September 2023, the Individual tested positive for alcohol consumption during a random blood alcohol test (BAT) at work. The Individual also reported a history of heavy alcohol consumption before her positive BAT, was charged with a misdemeanor, liquor violation, after she consumed twelve to thirteen beers in January 2013; and engaged in a physical altercation with another person after binge
-consuming alcohol in October 2010. After undergoing a psychological evaluation, a DOE consultant psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe. The aforementioned facts raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After a hearing, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not yet received sufficient treatment to resolve her AUD, and had not demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with the DOE Psychologist's treatment recommendations. Therefore, the Administrative Judge found the Individual had not mitigated the security concerns arising under Guideline G. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0113, Fishman)
Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
On September 10, 2024, an Administrative Judge issued a decision recommending that DOE not restore an Individual's security clearance, which had been suspended after he was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). At the hearing, the Individual presented evidence that he had abstained from alcohol since his arrest, had completed an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) for substance abuse, was attending an aftercare support group, and was attending Alcoholics Anonymous. However, he had not been attending the aftercare group for a year, as recommended to him, because he waited several months after graduating from the IOP to begin. He then admitted that several days after graduating from the IOP, he had consumed alcohol at a sporting event. He testified that he had not told his aftercare group, his employer, the DOE Psychologist who evaluated him, or his attorney for the present proceeding. He had not corrected his submissions to the court stating that he had abstained from alcohol since his arrest. The DOE Psychologist who had previously evaluated the Individual opined that the Individual was not rehabilitated and reformed and had a fair prognosis for relapse. The Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not mitigated the concerns raised under Guidelines G and, accordingly, found that the Individual's security clearance should not be restored (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0085, Martin)
Access Authorization Granted; Guideline G
On September 13, 2024, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be granted.
The Individual had been diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) Mild. The Individual claimed, and the AJ agreed, that at the time of the hearing, she had abstained from alcohol use for six months. Therefore, the AJ found that the Individual had clearly established a pattern of abstinence. In addition, the AF found that Individual had completely complied with the Psychiatrist's treatment recommendations. The hearing testimony of the Individual, her Sponsor, the Spouse, the Psychologist, and the Psychiatrist have convinced the AJ that the Individual fully understood the effect that alcohol had on her life and the importance of maintaining her sobriety. Most importantly, the Individual's testimony, and that of the other witnesses at the hearing, convinced the AJ that the Individual is fully committed to maintaining her sobriety and had acquired the tools and support system to do so.
The AJ therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted . (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0112, Fine)