Energy.gov

On April 1, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he determined that the DOE should not grant an individual access authorization. As security concerns under 10 CFR Part 710, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited the individual’s 2001 indictment for violation of a federal criminal statute governing conduct of federal employees, and security infractions that she committed in 2010 and 2011, while in her current position, when she brought a cell phone into a Controlled Access Area.

On March 30, 2013, a Hearing Officer issued a Decision in which he determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.

On March 22, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored. A Local Security Office conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about his pattern of criminal conduct. The individual’s behavior raised security concerns under Criterion L.

On March 18, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored. The Individual had a history of three arrests, two of which was alcohol-related. A DOE Psychologist found that the individual has the tendency to minimize his responsibility and misrepresent facts when they could reflect badly on him.” The Hearing Officer found that the Individual had mitigated any of those security concerns arising from the DOE Psychologist’s finding.

On March 8, 2013, a Hearing Officer determined that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored. In reaching this determination, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had not successfully addressed the DOE’s security concerns regarding his failure to file state and federal income tax returns.

On March 5, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be granted.  A Local Security Office conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about his misrepresentations and misuse of information technology.  The individual’s behavior raised security concerns under Criteria F and L.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Hearing Officer found that the individual presented sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns associated

On March 5, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should be restored. The Individual had a history of two alcohol-related arrests and an alcohol-related incident at work. A DOE Psychologist found that the individual habitually used alcohol to excess. The Hearing Officer found that the Individual these security concerns at the hearing by presenting evidence that he had more than fully complied with the DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendations and the compelling testimony of his treating counselor.

On March 4, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he determined that the DOE should not restore an individual’s access authorization.  As security concerns under 10 CFR Part 710, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited the individual’s history of criminal conduct and a DOE Psychiatrist’s diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.  The Hearing Officer found that the individual had not resolved the concern raised by the opinion of the DOE Psychologist; though he had embarked upon a course of treatment that involved both education and

The individual is an employee of a DOE contractor and holds a suspended access authorization. In June 2012, the individual was arrested and charged with Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). Exhibits 7, 8. Because of the concern this arrest raised, a Local Security Office (LSO) summoned the individual for an interview (PSI) with a personnel security specialist on July 30, 2012. Exhibit 16 (PSI Transcript). After the PSI, the LSO referred the individual to a local psychologist (hereinafter referred to as “the DOE Psychologist”) for an agency-sponsored evaluation.

The individual is employed by a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, and was granted a security clearance in connection with that employment. During the course of a routine reinvestigation that began in 2009, the local security office (LSO) obtained information about the individual that raised security concerns. This information concerned his marriage in 2002 to a citizen of a sensitive country, his ensuing contacts with other citizens of that country, and his lengthy trips to that sensitive country.