PSH-13-0015

* The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding
from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and
replaced with XXXXXX’s.
United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: February 8, 2013 ) Case No.: PSH-13-0015
)
____________________________________)
Issued: May 20, 2013
______________
Decision and Order
_______________
Robert B. Palmer, Hearing Officer:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as
“the individual”) for access authorization under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R.
Part 710, entitled "Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material.” 1 For the reasons set forth below, I
conclude that the individual’s security clearance should not be restored at this time. 2
I. BACKGROUND
The individual is employed as a Security Police Officer (SPO) by a Department of
Energy (DOE) contractor, and was granted a security clearance in connection with that
employment. On November 13, 2012, the individual was disciplined for allegedly
violating two of his employer’s rules. Based on this information and other information in
the individual’s personnel security file, the local security office (LSO) determined that
derogatory information existed that cast into doubt the individual’s eligibility for access
1 An access authorization is an administrative determination that an individual is eligible
for access to classified matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5. Such
authorization will also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2 Decisions issued by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) are available on the
OHA website located at http://www.oha.doe.gov . The text of a cited decision may be
accessed by entering the case number of the decision in the search engine located at
http://www.oha.doe.gov/search.htm.
2
authorization. It informed the individual of this determination in a letter that set forth the
DOE’s security concerns and the reasons for those concerns. I will hereinafter refer to
this letter as the Notification Letter. The Notification Letter also informed the individual
that he was entitled to a hearing before a Hearing Officer in order to resolve the
substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for access authorization.
The individual requested a hearing on this matter. The LSO forwarded this request to the
Office of Hearings and Appeals, and I was appointed the Hearing Officer. The DOE
introduced 61 exhibits into the record of this proceeding, and presented the testimony of
seven witnesses at the hearing. The individual introduced two exhibits and presented the
testimony of two witnesses, in addition to testifying himself.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE DOE’S SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter included a statement of derogatory
information that created a substantial doubt as to the individual’s eligibility to hold a
clearance. This information pertains to paragraphs (h) and (l) of the criteria for eligibility
for access to classified matter or special nuclear material set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8.
Under criterion (h), information is derogatory if it indicates that an individual has an
illness or mental condition which, in the opinion of a psychiatrist causes, or may cause, a
significant defect in the individual’s judgment or reliability.10 C.F.R. § 710.8(h). As
support for this criterion, the Letter cites the diagnosis of a board-certified psychiatrist
(hereinafter referred to as “the DOE psychiatrist”) that the individual suffers from
Depressive Disorder NOS, and that this disorder “can cause problems with judgment
and/or reliability.” The Letter also cites the DOE psychiatrist’s allegations that:
 The individual informed him that his December 2012 arrest for Driving Under the
Influence (DUI) was his only legal problem, and did not tell the DOE
psychologist about his traffic violations, his disorderly conduct charge, and an
offense that occurred while he was in the military;
 The individual failed to tell the DOE psychologist that the individual had been
written up for not participating in job-related activities; and
 The individual incorrectly indicated on his 2010 Questionnaire for National
Security Positions (QNSP) that he had not had any financial problems before
2008.
According to the DOE psychologist, these alleged mis-representations and omissions also
call into question the individual’s judgment and reliability.
Criterion (l) defines as derogatory information indicating that the individual has engaged
in unusual conduct or is subject to circumstances which tend to show that he is not
honest, reliable or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to believe that he may be
subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress which may cause him to act contrary
to the best interests of national security. Such conduct or circumstances include, but are
not limited to, criminal behavior, financial concerns, and violation of any commitment or
3
promise upon which the DOE previously relied to favorably resolve an issue of access
authorization reliability. As support for this criterion, the Letter cites information from a
local jurisdiction indicating that the individual has been charged with multiple unlawful
acts dating back to 1996, including six citations for speeding, and arrests or citations for
DUI, Assault, Bogus Check, Loud Music and Tinted Windows, and Disorderly Conduct.
Under this criterion, the Letter also cites seven disciplinary actions taken against the
individual by his employer for rules violations since 2008, consisting of:
 Written Warnings for Missed Appointment, “Failure to Complete Audit
Run/Laying (sic) in Back Seat of Car,” Inattention to Duty, and Failure to
Complete Weapons Re-qualification on Scheduled Day,
 A Written Warning and Counseling for Four Attendance Discrepancies Within a
90 Day Period,
 A Suspension for Failure to Follow Orders or Failure to Perform Assigned Duties
and Abandonment of Post, Loitering, or Being Away from Place of Work During
Work Hours for Extended Periods of Time Without Permission from Supervisor,
and
 A Written Reprimand for Missed Scheduled Appointment.
As additional support for its invocation of this criterion, the Letter alleges that the
individual has a history of failing to honor verbal commitments that he has made to the
DOE and failing to meet his financial obligations, and that he has provided false,
misleading, or incomplete information to the DOE on multiple occasions. Specifically,
the Letter states that the individual:
 Committed to abide by all federal and state laws; yet he was charged with
Speeding six times, and also charged with Disorderly Conduct and DUI since
making that commitment;
 Acknowledged his commitment to report any arrests and traffic violations
carrying a potential fine in excess of $250 to the DOE; yet he failed to report his
2009 Disorderly Conduct charge and his 2009 Speeding citation;
 Committed to straightening out his finances and to reporting financial concerns;
however, he failed to list his financial information on his December 9, 2010,
QNSP and failed to report his 2011 Chapter 13 bankruptcy;
 Committed to list all required information on his DOE forms; yet on his 2008 and
2010 QNSPs, he failed to list four civil court actions;
 Committed to adhere to work requirements; however, he received a written
warning for four attendance discrepancies within a 90 day period, a two day
suspension for failure to follow orders, and another written warning after his
access authorization was suspended.
Regarding his alleged history of failure to meet financial obligations, the letter cites seven
credit reports dating from 2002 to 2012 showing delinquent debt on each report ranging
from $133 to $36,548, and also showing the 2011 Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
4
Finally, concerning the individual’s provision of allegedly false, misleading, or
incomplete information to the DOE, the Letter states that he:
 Informed the DOE psychiatrist that he had no financial concerns prior to 2008;
yet he was interviewed by the LSO a total of three times in 2003 and 2004 for
financial concerns;
 Told the DOE that he failed to list his financial delinquencies on his December
2010 QNSP because his financial hardship did not occur until after that QNSP;
however, he later admitted that he was already delinquent on his mortgage when
he completed the Questionnaire. He was also interviewed in 2003 and 2004 for
financial concerns;
 Did not indicate the existence of any financial concerns on his December 2010
QNSP; yet he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on March 1, 2011.
These circumstances adequately justify the DOE’s invocation of criteria (h) and (l), and
raise significant security concerns. As an initial matter, the individual has been
diagnosed, by a duly qualified mental health professional retained by the U.S.
Government, with a mental condition that could cause a significant defect in his judgment
or reliability. Moreover, illegal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment,
reliability and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. In addition, conduct involving
questionable judgment, lack of candor, or dishonesty can also raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.
Finally, an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in
illegal acts to generate funds. See Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining
Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, The White House (December 19, 2005),
Guidelines I, J, E and F.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
The criteria for determining eligibility for security clearances set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part
710 dictate that in these proceedings, a Hearing Officer must undertake a careful review
of all of the relevant facts and circumstances, and make a “common-sense judgment . . .
after consideration of all relevant information.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). I must therefore
consider all information, favorable or unfavorable, that has a bearing on the question of
whether granting or restoring a security clearance would compromise national security
concerns. Specifically, the regulations compel me to consider the nature, extent, and
seriousness of the individual’s conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct; the
frequency and recency of the conduct; the age and maturity of the individual at the time
of the conduct; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other
pertinent behavioral changes; the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of the conduct;
and any other relevant and material factors. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c).
A DOE administrative proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 is “for the purpose of
affording the individual an opportunity of supporting his eligibility for access
authorization.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b)(6). Once the DOE has made a showing of
5
derogatory information raising security concerns, the burden is on the individual to
produce evidence sufficient to convince the DOE that granting or restoring access
authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be clearly
consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). See Personnel Security
Hearing, Case No. VSO-0013, 24 DOE ¶ 82,752 at 85,511 (1995) (affirmed by OSA,
1996), and cases cited therein. The regulations further instruct me to resolve any doubts
concerning the individual’s eligibility for access authorization in favor of the national
security. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS
The security concerns set forth in the Notification Letter essentially fall into four
categories: the individual’s alleged failure to provide required information to the DOE or
the provision of false, incomplete or misleading information; the individual’s alleged
inability or unwillingness to consistently conform his behavior to the requirements of the
law or of his employer’s rules and regulations; the individual’s mental and emotional
condition; and the individual’s finances. My findings and analysis concerning each of the
categories of security concerns are set forth below.
A. The Individual’s Honesty and Trustworthiness
In the Notification Letter, the DOE alleges that the individual provided false, misleading
or incomplete information to the DOE psychiatrist and on his 2010 QNSP. The DOE
further contends that the individual failed to report his 2009 arrest for disorderly conduct
and his 2011 bankruptcy, as required by DOE security rules. 3
At the hearing, the DOE psychiatrist testified that during his June 2012 evaluation, he
asked the individual whether “there were any other legal issues” than his December 2011
DUI arrest. Hearing transcript (Tr.) at 67. It is undisputed that the individual indicated
that there were no other such issues. The DOE psychiatrist further inquired as to whether
the individual had any “financial issues prior to 2008,” Tr. at 71, and the individual
indicated that there were not.
The individual testified that he did not mention his speeding tickets because he did not
think that they qualified as “legal issues” within the meaning of the DOE psychiatrist’s
question. Tr. at 221. He further stated that he did mention the assault that he committed in
1996 while in the military, but that he did not mention his 2009 arrest for disorderly
conduct because the DOE psychiatrist “never asked me about it.” Id. Regarding his
finances, the individual reiterated that he did not have any problems in this area prior to
2008, and stated that he was not trying to be deceitful during the DOE psychiatrist’s
evaluation. Tr. at 244.
3 At the hearing, the DOE and the individual stipulated that the October 24, 2007, “arrest”
listed in section II.A of the Summary of Security Concerns appended to the Notification
Letter was in fact a speeding citation, that the Disorderly Conduct arrest happened in
2009, not 1999 as indicated in that section, and that the March 22, 2009, speeding citation
never occurred. Tr. at 139.
6
Based on this testimony and the record as a whole, I find that the individual did
improperly omit significant information from his responses to the DOE psychiatrist’s
questions. Although the individual’s contention that he did not consider his multiple
speeding citations to be “legal issues” as that term was used by the DOE psychiatrist may
be reasonable, the same cannot be said about his failure to mention his arrest for
disorderly conduct. Such an occurrence constitutes a “legal issue” under any reasonable
definition of that term. Regarding the individual’s finances, the record in this matter
indicates that he had delinquent debt for each year from 2002 to 2004, in amounts
ranging from $13,054 to $36,548. On at least three occasions during those years, DOE
security determined that the individual’s financial problems were so significant that they
warranted summoning the individual for PSIs. See DOE Exs. 42, 46 and 47. One of those
problems was the repossession of a vehicle in 1996. Contrary to the individual’s
assertions, both to the DOE psychiatrist and at the hearing, it is evident that the individual
was, at times, experiencing significant financial difficulties prior to 2008. I conclude that
the individual was not completely candid during his psychiatric evaluation.
Regarding the individual’s December 2010 QNSP, the Letter alleges that the individual
failed to provide complete and accurate information about his financial delinquencies and
civil court actions. Item number 27 on the 2010 QNSP asked, “In the last 7 years, have
you had any judgments entered against you that have not been paid?” Item number 29
asked, “In the last 7 years, have you been a party to any public record civil court actions
not listed elsewhere on this form?” The individual answered both questions in the
negative. DOE Ex. 27. However, according to a credit report dated August 22, 2011, a
civil court judgment in the amount of $2,090 was entered against the individual on
March 10, 2010, for an unpaid furniture bill. DOE Ex. 22; DOE Ex. 21 at 16-17. This
judgment was included in the individual’s 2011 Chapter 13 bankruptcy, DOE Ex. 21 at
16, and was therefore unpaid when the individual completed the 2010 QNSP. Moreover,
at the hearing, the individual stated that in September 2007, he “went to court to acquire
rights to my children and legitimize them.” Tr. at 231. Admirable as this action was, the
individual did not list it, or the civil action that resulted in the judgment against him, on
his 2010 QNSP. 4 The record in this matter establishes that the individual provided
incomplete and misleading information on his 2010 QNSP.
It is also evident that the individual did not report his 2009 Disorderly Conduct arrest and
his 2011 bankruptcy to DOE security. The individual claimed that he did not report his
2009 arrest or list it on his 2010 QNSP because the fine for this offense did not meet the
$250 reporting threshold applicable at that time. However, that threshold applied only to
traffic citations. DOE Exhibit 27, Item 23. The individual was required to report any
arrest to DOE security within five days of the arrest. DOE Ex. 47 at 28. The individual
also stated that he reported his bankruptcy to his employer, but not to DOE security. DOE
Ex. 21 at 9.
4 The individual also failed to list his civil court proceedings on his May 2008, November
2008, and December 2009 QNSPs. DOE Exs. 30, 31 and 37.
7
One or two omissions or misrepresentations on the part of the individual could perhaps be
attributed to a faulty memory or a misunderstanding about the information that was
required of him, and might not, by themselves, raise a security concern. However, the
pattern described above of false or incomplete information provided by the individual is
indicative of either an intention to deliberately mislead the DOE, or of a reckless
disregard for the DOE’s reporting requirements, and of his obligation to answer the
DOE’s inquiries truthfully and completely. In either case, I conclude that significant
security concerns remain regarding the individual’s honesty and trustworthiness. These
concerns are exacerbated by the fact that the omissions occurred after the individual
committed to list all required information on his DOE forms and after he committed to
report all arrests within five days. DOE Ex. 47 at 27-28.
B. The Individual’s Behavior
The Letter further alleges that the individual has exhibited a pattern of behavior marked
by repeated violations of the law and of his employer’s rules and regulations. At the
hearing, the individual testified about his arrests and citations. The Assault occurred in
1996, while the individual was in the military. He said that he discovered his wife in bed
with another man, whom he assaulted. He was given an “Article 15,” or non-judicial
punishment, which, according to the individual, was later reduced, and then “thrown
out.” Tr. at 225. The 1999 Bogus Check charge also happened while the individual was in
the military. The individual testified that his checkbook was stolen, and multiple checks
were written on his account in multiple cities. He was required to provide the police with
a sample of his signature, which was then compared to the signatures on the checks.
Because the signatures did not match, he was exonerated of any wrongdoing. Tr. at 225-
226.
The individual further stated that he got the citation for “Loud Music and Tinted
Windows” in 2000, when he drove to a local stereo store to have an audio system
installed in his vehicle. After the installation, the individual and the shop owner were
testing the system when a police officer drove up and accused the individual of “riding
around playing loud music.” Tr. at 227. Despite the store owner’s explanation that he was
just conducting business with the individual, the officer cited him for noise pollution and
having tinted windows that were too dark. The individual testified that the windows were
not improperly tinted. Tr. at 226-227.
Regarding the 2009 arrest for Disorderly Conduct, the individual said that he was
supposed to meet his stepson at a local restaurant for dinner, but when he didn’t appear,
the individual called him on his cell phone. The stepson told the individual that he was
“down the street,” “watching these cars race.” Tr. at 228. Because he knew that watching
an illegal auto race was itself illegal, he told his stepson to leave the area. When the
stepson failed to do so, the individual went to the location of the street racing to pick up
the stepson. Soon after he reached the scene, the local police also arrived, and arrested
everyone at the location. Id. The individual admitted to having been arrested for DUI in
December 2011 and registering a .17 on his Breathalyzer examination. Tr. at 220.
8
The individual also testified about his alleged violations of his employer’s rules and
policies. First, he discussed the written warning 5 that he received for failure to complete
an assigned run within the designated time period. 6 He said that when he was selected to
perform the run, he had an injury that turned out to be a hernia, for which he underwent
surgery in 2010. He informed management of the injury, and made the run one day after
the 30-day deadline. Tr. at 235.
The individual then discussed the written reprimand that he was given in September 2010
for leaving his post without supervisory approval. He said that, at the time, he was caring
for his son who had the flu. At around two or three p.m., he started to feel ill, and walked
outside to the parking lot. He got into his car, started it, and turned on his air conditioner
because he started to feel over-heated. At that time, his supervisor discovered him and
asked for an explanation. Although the individual explained that he was not feeling well,
the supervisor gave him the reprimand, anyway. Tr. at 236-237.
Regarding the written warning that the individual received for missing a scheduled
weapons re-qualification training, the individual testified that he was never informed of
the date of that training. Tr. at 239. He further claimed that he should not have received a
warning for being late to work four times within a 90-day period because one of those
occurrences was excused due to his appointment with the DOE psychiatrist. Tr. at 240.
Next, the individual testified about his 2012 suspension for leaving his assigned work
station without permission. He explained that he was operating the exit lanes at one of the
gates to the facility at which he worked early one morning, when he decided to lower the
exit “arm,” leave the exit lanes and go to the “low cam” entrance lanes at the same gate. 7
He did this, he said, in anticipation of the arrival of “pump house trucks,” which usually
arrived between 3:15 and 3:30 each morning to “pump out the urinals.” Tr. at 243. While
he was at the “low cam” lanes, a vehicle pulled up in the exit lanes at that gate and had to
wait approximately two minutes before the individual returned to his assigned post and
allowed the vehicle to exit. Although he explained his reasoning to his supervisor, the
individual admitted that “there’s little bitty guidelines” stating that if you do not stay
within 20 feet of your assigned area, you have left your post. Tr. at 244. The individual
was suspended for this violation.
5 The individual’s employer imposes four levels of discipline. The first, and least severe,
is a written warning. The next is a written reprimand, followed by a suspension, and then
by termination.
6 In order to ensure that SPOs remain in good physical condition, they are periodically
required to complete a designated run within a designated time. They are given a 30-day
“window” to complete this run. The DOE is alleging that the individual failed to
complete this run within the 30-day time period.
7 “Low cam” lanes are entrance lanes where cameras are used to check the undersides of
trucks and other vehicles for explosives and other banned objects.
9
In evaluating these incidents, I note that, for the most part, the individual’s accounts are
not supported by any independent evidence. For the reasons described in Section IV.A, I
harbor substantial doubts about the reliability of those accounts, and I therefore conclude
that they are insufficient to allay the DOE’s legitimate security concerns regarding his
behavior. However, even if I believed the individual’s testimony in its entirety, I would
still conclude that he has exhibited a disturbing inability or unwillingness to conform his
behavior to legal and workplace requirements.
Discounting the 1996 assault as an understandable response to an alleged extreme
provocation, and accepting as true the individual’s testimony about the bad check and
tinted windows charges, since 2000, the individual has been arrested twice, in 2009 for
Disorderly Conduct and in 2012 for DUI, Running a Red Light and Failure to Maintain
Lane, and cited seven times, once for Loud Music and six times for speeding. Both of the
arrests and all of the speeding citations occurred while the individual was holding a DOE
security clearance and after he committed during a 2003 PSI to abide by all federal and
state laws. DOE Ex 47 at 26.
Again, discounting the workplace infractions for which the individual has presented
reasonable, if unsupported, explanations, since 2010 the individual has received written
reprimands for missing required training and leaving his post without supervisory
approval, and a 2012 suspension for leaving his post. Regarding the 2010 incident during
which the individual left his post, there was uncontradicted testimony at the hearing from
a management figure that there was an established procedure for personnel who fell ill
during working hours to follow, which the individual did not do. Tr. at 155.
Many of these incidents, when considered separately, would not be of sufficient
importance to give rise to a valid security concern. However, when considered together,
they indicate that the individual has a cavalier attitude toward his obligation to conform
his behavior to legal and work requirements and to honor his commitments that ill-befits
a security clearance holder. The individual has not adequately addressed the DOE’s
security concerns regarding his personal conduct.
C. The Individual’s Mental And Emotional Condition
In his report, the DOE psychiatrist diagnosed the individual as suffering from Depressive
Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, and he concluded that this condition could cause a
significant defect in his judgment or reliability. DOE Ex. 11. At the hearing, he testified
about the bases for this diagnosis. He testified that the individual informed him that he
had experienced a decrease in energy, a problem sleeping, and decreased appetite. Tr. at
37, 43. His primary care physician had prescribed Trazodone, which is an anti-
depressant, and the individual said that this had been helpful. Tr. at 37. The DOE
psychiatrist went on to state that the individual’s primary care physician had diagnosed
the individual as suffering from shift work syndrome and low testosterone, and that the
symptoms of shift work syndrome (low energy and trouble sleeping) can mimic those of
Depression. However, the DOE psychiatrist believed that a Depressive Disorder was
10
more likely, because the individual also complained of having “the blues” surrounding
his inability to work overtime and his financial issues. Tr. at 38.
The individual’s psychologist also testified. He testified that after administering a battery
of tests, he was unable to diagnose the individual with any mental or emotional disorder.
While he found that the individual may have under-reported his symptoms, the under-
reporting was not egregious and did not invalidate the test results. Tr. at 90, 92, 97.
Later in the hearing, the DOE psychiatrist was recalled. He testified that the individual’s
Depressive Disorder appeared to have improved between the DOE psychiatrist’s
evaluation in June 2012 and the individual’s psychologist’s evaluation approximately
nine months later. The psychologist found no evidence of a lack of energy or of a general
feeling of malaise, or “the blues.” However, the DOE psychiatrist testified that the
psychologist still reported a problem with the individual’s appetite, that he was taking a
prescription sleep aid, and that problems with eating and sleeping are symptoms of
depression. Tr. at 280-281. While the individual reported at the hearing that he was no
longer experiencing any problems with his eating, sleeping, or energy level, Tr. at 266-
267, the DOE psychiatrist discounted this testimony because of doubts about the
individual’s trustworthiness and candor. Tr. at 286. He concluded that the individual
continues to suffer from a mental disease or defect that could cause a significant defect in
his judgment or reliability. Tr. at 285.
After reviewing this testimony and the record in this matter as a whole, I attribute greater
weight to the testimony of the DOE psychiatrist than I do to the testimony of the
individual’s psychologist. As an initial matter, the individual’s psychologist did not have
access to the individual’s PSIs and other work-related records when he performed his
evaluation. The individual’s psychologist also did not have access to the DOE
psychiatrist’s report at that time. Consequently, the psychologist’s evaluation was based
primarily on information obtained from the individual. The reliability of this information
was, to a certain extent, questioned by the psychologist himself. In his report, the
psychologist said that “the results of the psychological testing portion of this report may
not be used with complete confidence due to possible under-reporting.” He went on to
conclude that “as a result, there is little diagnostic information available.” Individual’s
Exhibit 1 at 4. At the hearing, the individual’s psychologist explained that, in order to be
ethical and honest, he had to acknowledge that there was “a little bit of under-reporting,”
but he concluded that his finding that the individual had no diagnosable disorder was still
valid. Tr. at 100, 107. However, the psychologist’s report noted that, at the time of the
evaluation, the individual was still experiencing problems with weight loss, and was
taking sleep medication. Given these factors, I have greater confidence in the DOE
psychiatrist’s diagnosis than I do in the conclusion of the individual’s psychologist that
the individual is not suffering from a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. The individual has
not adequately addressed the DOE’s security concerns about his mental and emotional
state.
11
D. The Individual’s Finances
Finally, the Notification Letter alleges that the individual has a history of failing to meet
his financial obligations. In support of this allegation, the Letter cites seven credit reports
covering the period of time from 2002-2012, showing delinquent debt on each report
ranging from $133 to $36,548. The Letter also cites the individual’s 2011 Chapter 13
bankruptcy.
At the hearing, the individual testified that the delinquent debt was due primarily to
unpaid child support. He attributed this delinquency to two factors. First, in 2007, he
went to court to legitimize his children and to assume responsibility for them. Tr. at 231.
This resulted in an increase in his child support expenses. Second, he testified that the
payments ordered by the court were based on his being able to work overtime. However,
when his job classification changed as a result of losing his Human Reliability Program
certification, he was no longer able to work overtime. Tr. at 271-272. These same factors
contributed to his bankruptcy, along with the individual having to go on disability due to
medical issues, and falling behind on his mortgage payments. Tr. at 270.
Based on this testimony and the record as a whole, I find that the individual has
adequately addressed the DOE’s concerns regarding his finances. I base this conclusion
on two factors. First, the individual has made a concerted effort to pay off his delinquent
debt. His credit reports show that his delinquent debt fell from $36,548 in 2002 to
$26,519 in April 2003, to $17,942 in August 2003, and continued to decline on each of
his subsequent credit reports. 8 This steady decline was caused by the individual paying
off his delinquent child support. Tr. at 269. The individual testified that he is now up to
date with his child support and also with his Chapter 13 debt repayment. Tr. at 233.
Second, there is little evidence of financial irresponsibility by the individual. Instead, his
distress in this area appears to be largely due to factors over which he had limited or no
control, such as his loss of overtime and his having to go on disability due to a surgical
procedure. No valid security concerns remain regarding the individual’s finances.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I find that the individual has adequately addressed the
DOE’s security concerns regarding his finances, but that valid concerns remain regarding
his honesty and reliability and his personal conduct. He has therefore failed to mitigate
the DOE’s security concerns under criterion (l). I further conclude that the individual has
failed to adequately address the DOE’s concerns under criterion (h). Consequently, he
has failed to convince me that restoring his access authorization would not endanger the
common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Accordingly,
I find that the DOE should not restore the individual’s security clearance at this time.
8 The sole exception is his August 2011 credit report, which shows a delinquent debt
amount that is larger than the one on the previous report. This amount included a debt
owed to a store for his children’s bedroom furniture, which was included in the 2011
bankruptcy.
12
Review of this decision by an Appeal Panel is available under the procedures set forth at
10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Robert B. Palmer
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: May 20, 2013