Energy.gov

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.

On February 15, 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 cited the individual’s filing of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in 2002, and the individual’s more recent financial difficulties, including a number of delinquent debts, the largest of which was a $132,489 mortgage balance, payments on which were over 150 days past due.  The Hearing Officer found that, while the individual had made some progress toward paying off his

On February 15, 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 falsification and drug use.  The individual’s behavior raised security concerns under Criteria F, K and L.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had presented sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns associated with his marijuana u

On February 14, 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 two alcohol alcohol-related arrests.   In addition, A DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol-Related Disorder (NOS).  The Hearing Officer found that the individual had not yet shown sufficient evidence of rehabilitation of reformation from his Alcohol-Related Disorder (NOS).  The Hearing Officer further concluded that until the concerns raised by his alcohol disorder are sufficiently reso

On February 12, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he concluded that access authorization should not be restored to an individual at this time.

On February 4, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual’s security clearance should be restored.  A Local Security Office conducted a Personnel Security Interview of the individual to address concerns about falsification and drug use.  The individual’s behavior raised security concerns under Criteria F, K and L.  After conducting a hearing and evaluating the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had presented sufficient evidence to resolve these security concerns.  Specifically, with respect to th

On February 1, 2013, an OHA Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  A Local Security Office suspended the individual’s security clearance after the individual tested positive on a random Breath Alcohol Test (BAT).  The individual acknowledged that, since 2009, he would routinely drink to 18 12-ounce beers each weekend and has become intoxicated almost weekly.