PSH-14-0092

*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: October 1, 2014 )
) Case No.: PSH-14-0092
__________________________________________)
Issued : December 23, 2014
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Wade M. Boswell, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
individual”) to hold an access authorization1 under the Department of Energy’s (DOE)
regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, Subpart A, entitled, “General Criteria and
Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear
Material.” As fully discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me in
light of the relevant regulations and Adjudicative Guidelines, I have determined that the
individual’s access authorization should be restored.
I. Background
The individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold
DOE access authorization. As a holder of access authorization, the individual is subject to
periodic reinvestigations to determine her continued eligibility to maintain access
authorization. At the commencement of the individual’s most recent reinvestigation, she
completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP)2 on
March 24, 2014 (Initial e-QIP). See Exhibit 2. Her employer’s security office returned it
1 Access authorization is defined as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for
access to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.5(a). Such authorization will be referred to variously in this Decision as access authorization or
security clearance.
2 An e-QIP is an electronic questionnaire which incorporates the Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP), which is traditionally completed by applicants for access authorization. The record in
this proceeding uses the terms e-QIP and QNSP interchangeably.
2
to her to correct or verify a few minor matters and, after making revisions, she
resubmitted and recertified the e-QIP April 10, 2014 (Final e-QIP). See Exhibits 2 and 8.
The Final e-QIP disclosed financial matters relating to her non-payment of two years of
federal income taxes and a lien on her residence resulting from delinquencies in payment
of her condominium fees. Exhibit 8 at 35, 36.
Following receipt of the Final e-QIP, the Local Security Office (LSO) obtained a credit
report on the individual which reflected a number of financial delinquencies not disclosed
on the Final e-QIP. See Exhibit 4. Following receipt of this information, the LSO
conducted a personnel security interview (PSI) with the individual on July 21, 2014.
See Exhibit 9.
On August 27, 2014, the LSO advised the individual in a letter (Notification Letter) that
it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to
hold a security clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained
that the derogatory information fell within the purview of two potentially disqualifying
criterion set forth in the security regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8, subsections (f) and (l)
(hereinafter referred to as Criterion F and Criterion L, respectively).3 See Exhibit 1.
Upon her receipt of the Notification Letter, the individual exercised her right under the
Part 710 regulations by requesting an administrative review hearing. See Exhibit 2. The
Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me the Administrative
Judge in the case and, subsequently, I conducted an administrative hearing in the matter.
At the hearing, the LSO presented no witnesses; the individual presented the testimony of
eight witnesses, including that of herself and her daughter. The LSO introduced 10
numbered exhibits into the record of the case; the individual tendered 10 lettered exhibits
(Exhibits A – J). The exhibits will be cited in this Decision as “Ex.” followed by the
appropriate numeric or alphabetic designation. The hearing transcript in the case will be
cited as “Tr.” followed by the relevant page number.4
II. Regulatory Standard
A. Individual’s Burden
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 is not a criminal matter, where
the government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Rather, the standard in this proceeding places the burden on the individual because
it is designed to protect national security interests. This is not an easy burden for the
individual to sustain. The regulatory standard implies that there is a presumption against
granting or restoring a security clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest” standard for granting
security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err, if they must, on the
3
See Section III below.
4 OHA decisions are available on the OHA website at www.oha.doe.gov. A decision may be accessed by
entering the case number in the search engine at www.oha.gov/search.htm.
3
side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
499 U.S. 905 (1991) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
An individual must come forward with evidence to convince the DOE that granting or
restoring his or her 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).
An individual is afforded a full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her
eligibility for an access authorization. The Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit
the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at personnel security hearings. Even
appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10 C.F.R. § 710.26(h). Thus, an
individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
B. Basis for the Administrative Judge’s Decision
In personnel security cases arising under Part 710, it is my role as the Administrative
Judge to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment,
made after consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to
whether the granting or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger
the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest.
10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). I am instructed by the regulations to resolve any doubt as to a
person’s access authorization eligibility in favor of the national security. Id.
III. The Notification Letter and the Security Concerns at Issue
As previously noted, the LSO cited two criteria as the basis for suspending the
individual’s security clearance, Criterion F and Criterion L. Criterion F refers to
information that a person has “deliberately misrepresented, falsified, or omitted
significant information from a Personnel Security Questionnaire, a Questionnaire for
Sensitive National Security Positions, a personnel qualifications statements, a personnel
security interview, written or oral statements made in response to official inquiry on a
matter that is relevant to a determination regarding eligibility for DOE access
authorization or [Part 710 administrative review] proceedings….” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f).
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Any failure to provide
truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process is of particular concern.
See Guideline E of the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Information, issued on December 29, 2005, by the Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs, The White House (Adjudicative Guidelines).
With respect to Criterion F, the LSO alleges omissions on the individual’s Final e-QIP of
11 collection or charge-off financial accounts. Ex. 1 at 3 – 4.
Criterion L concerns information that an individual has engaged in conduct “which tends
to show that the individual is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy….” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l).
As noted in the preceding paragraph, conduct reflecting questionable judgment, lack of
candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations raises
4
questions about an “individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information.” Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline E. With respect to Criterion
L, the LSO alleges, inter alia, that the individual: (1) has eight collections and three
charge-off accounts, aggregating $12,065; (2) has delinquent condominium fees,
aggregating $2000; (3) failed to file her income taxes as required by law for 2011 and
2012 and, for those years, has unpaid federal income taxes aggregating $12,692; and (4)
demonstrated a pattern of financial irresponsibility by failing to satisfy her debts, living
beyond her means and exercising poor judgment by accruing credit card debt that she was
not able to repay. Ex. 1 at 4 – 6.
In light of the information available to the LSO, the LSO properly invoked Criterion F
and Criterion L.
IV. Findings of Fact
The individual did not contest the factual accuracy of the allegations set forth in the
Notification Letter at the time of its issuance, except where specifically noted below.
Rather, she focused on the circumstances surrounding the occurrences described in the
Notification Letter and the steps that she has taken to mitigate the concerns, including
actions that she initiated prior to the commencement of her periodic security re-
investigation. See Ex. 2.
Initial e-QIP/Final e-QIP. As a holder of access authorization, the individual is subject to
periodic security re-investigations to verify her eligibility to maintain access
authorization. On March 24, 2014, as part of a periodic re-investigation, the individual
signed and submitted the Initial e-QIP. The Initial e-QIP included disclosure by the
individual of her non-payment of her 2011 and 2012 federal income taxes, a lien against
her residence by her home owners association for delinquencies in her condominium fees
and her delinquencies on seven financial accounts. Id. at 43 – 52. It also included a
statement under “Additional Comments” that read, in part, “I’ve been working with the
credit company’s [sic] to correct my account when old information shows up. I will pull a
credit report and reconcile all accounts listed. I have been working with my creditors to
make payments on a regular basis so that I can become current on my accounts. I will
work with the [Internal Revenue Service] to do the same….” Id. at 54. The individual’s
references to “credit company” and “creditors” in this comment are references to the
seven delinquent accounts that she had disclosed as being delinquent on the Initial e-QIP.
Tr. at 95 – 96. The individual did not disclose two financial accounts that had been
delinquent during the prior seven years but, at the time of the Initial e-QIP, she had paid
in full. Id. at 94.
On March 28, 2014, the individual received an e-mail from her employer’s security office
requesting that she correct or verify a few items on the Initial e-QIP, primarily related to
physical addresses and names. Ex. 2 at 15 – 17. The individual made modifications to the
e-QIP and certified and submitted the Final e-QIP on April 10, 2014. The Final e-QIP
included disclosure by the individual (identical to that contained in the Initial e-QIP) with
respect to her delinquent federal income taxes and the lien on her condominium by her
home owners association, as well as the Additional Comment referencing her delinquent
5
financial accounts; however, the Final e-QIP omitted disclosure of the seven delinquent
financial accounts that had been reported on the Initial e-QIP. Ex. 8 at 33 – 37, 39.
Financial Delinquencies. Although the individual had experienced some financial
difficulties earlier in her life, the individual had no financial irregularities in the years
preceding 2009.5 Tr. at 19. In 2009, when her nephew was approximately 30 years old, he
had a serious heart attack, without any forewarning. Id. at 30. The individual’s
relationship with her nephew was that of a mother to a son and she is the godmother of
her nephew’s only child. Id. at 21 – 23, 85 – 86, 98 – 99, 138. Following his initial heart
attack, her nephew’s doctors advised that his life expectancy was extremely limited. Id. at
103. Although her nephew continued to be employed following his initial heart attack and
had health insurance, his insurance did not cover all of his medical expenses, and his
ability to cover housing and food expenses for him and his son further decreased when
his life partner moved out of their home following the nephew’s second heart attack.
Id. at 22, 102 – 104; Ex. 2 at 2 – 3. The nephew died in March 2013. Tr. at 135; Ex. I.
During the period from 2009 to 2013, the individual provided substantial financial
support to her nephew, including purchasing medications and paying hospital expenses
that were not covered by his insurance, purchasing food for him and his son and assisting
with his utilities. Tr. at 138 – 139; Ex. J. Although she incurred these expenses knowing
that her own financial obligations were being neglected, she believed it was a morally
appropriate decision to make in order to extend her nephew’s life. Tr. at 24, 107, 140.
During this period, in addition to becoming delinquent on her own financial obligations
while assisting her nephew, she withdrew funds from her retirement account in 2011 and
2012, primarily to provide assistance to her nephew. Ex. 2 at 9. She communicated with
her creditors during this period of time and advised them of the situation and that she
intended to honor her financial obligations to them when she was able. Tr. at 106 – 107,
132, 143; Ex. 2 at 12.
Other than to support her nephew, the only new consumer debt incurred by the individual
during this period was for necessary repairs to her car. Tr. at 147. These repairs were
charged to an account that the individual maintained as current throughout this period. Id.
at 148.
The individual’s withdrawals of funds from her retirement account in 2011 and 2012
were taxable events and she was unable to pay the additional taxes when they became
due. Other than those two years, the individual has owed no additional taxes when she
has filed her tax returns. Ex. 2 at 9. For her 2011 and 2012 federal taxes, the individual
filed for extensions on a timely basis but failed to file those tax returns until April 2014,
when she also filed her 2013 tax returns. Her 2013 tax returns were filed on a timely
basis. Tr. at 144 – 146; Ex. 2 at 97 – 101; Ex. C. Her outstanding federal tax liability for
2011 and 2012 aggregated $13,167.44. Ex. 2 at 12.
5 During a 40-minute PSI conducted with the individual on October 21, 2004, the individual’s earlier
financial difficulties were discussed. See Ex. 10. The record reflects no allegations of financial irregularities
between the 2004 PSI and 2009.
6
The month following her nephew’s death, she made an initial payment on one of her
delinquent accounts and, within the following two months, she had contacted all of her
creditors to discuss payment arrangements. Tr. at 26, 108 – 110, 124 – 125. Two of those
accounts were satisfied prior to the commencement of the individual’s periodic security
re-investigation. Id. at 94. Through her monthly efforts to pay her debt and two new
loans,6 the individual either paid in full or settled all of her delinquent, collection and
charge-off accounts, her outstanding federal income taxes and her delinquent
condominium fees by August 2014. Ex. 2; Ex. B; Ex. C; Ex. D.
Since August 2014, the individual has maintained all of her financial obligations on a
current basis. Tr. at 148. Even with the additional debt the individual incurred to
consolidate and retire her prior debts, her monthly income exceeds her monthly expenses.
Ex. A.
V. Analysis
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions
tendered in this case and the testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearing. In
resolving the question of the individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been
guided by the applicable factors prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c)7 and the Adjudicative
Guidelines. After due deliberation, I have determined that the individual’s access
authorization should be restored. The specific findings that I make in support of this
decision are discussed below.
A. Mitigating Evidence
The individual did not contest the accuracy of the factual information in the Notification
Letter, with the exception of noting certain duplications of the financial accounts listed
therein. With respect to the financial information omitted from her Final e-QIP, the
individual believes that she inadvertently checked “no” to a question about delinquent
financial accounts when she was making corrections to the Initial e-QIP and that that
“no” response deleted from the Final e-QIP the information that she had entered on the
Initial e-QIP with respect to seven delinquent accounts. Tr. at 89. Four of accounts listed
in the Notification Letter as being omitted from her Final e-QIP represent duplications,
with the same debt being listed as owed to both the original creditors as well as
subsequent purchasers of such debt. Ex. 2 at 4 – 5. She also acknowledges that she erred
6 The individual borrowed money from both a financial institution and from a sibling; both are interest
bearing loans pursuant to written documentation. Tr. at 133 – 136; Ex. 2. She is currently working with her
credit union for a loan which would allow her to prepay her high interest debt to the financial institution
and further increase her monthly positive cash flow. Tr. at 135.
7 Those factors include the following: the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, the circumstances
surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation, the frequency and recency of the conduct,
the age and maturity at the time of the conduct, the voluntariness of his participation, the absence or
presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes, the motivation for the
conduct, the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress, the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence, and other relevant and material factors.
7
in failing to list two accounts that had been delinquent during the prior seven years; she
states that since she had already paid those two creditors, she forgot about them when she
was completing the e-QIP. Tr. at 94 – 95.
With respect to the delinquent and charge-off debt listed in the Notification Letter, the
individual does not contest her responsibility for such debt or that she failed to maintain
those obligations on a timely basis. She acknowledges making a conscious decision to
assist her nephew once he became terminally ill. Id. at 107, 140. She states that she never
intended to default on her obligations and, once her nephew died, she immediately began
working with her creditors to resolve her outstanding obligations. Id. at 108 – 110, 124 –
125. She has since resolved all of her accounts, including charge-off accounts, and is
current on all of her obligations. Ex. 2; Ex. B; Ex. C; Ex. D.
With respect to her federal income taxes, the individual was unprepared for the
magnitude of the taxes she owed following her withdrawal of funds from her retirement
account. Ex. 2 at 9. She knew that she was unable to pay the resulting taxes while she
was still assisting her nephew and, being unfamiliar with having outstanding tax liability,
she believed that the extensions that she requested using a computer software program
satisfied her filing obligations. She now realizes that she was in error about her filing
requirements. Tr. at 144 – 146. She has subsequently filed her 2011 and 2012 federal tax
returns, filed her 2013 tax returns on a timely basis and paid the full amount of her tax
liability for 2011 and 2012, including penalties and interest. Ex. C.
B. Administrative Judge Evaluation of Evidence
Criterion F Security Concern. To constitute a security concern under Criterion F, an
individual must have “deliberately misrepresented, falsified or omitted significant
information” from her e-QIP. 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f) (emphasis added); Personal Security
Hearing, Case No. PSH-14-0015 (July 11, 2014) at 5; Personal Security Hearing, Case
No. PSH-14-0067 (September 26, 2014) at 7. With respect to Criterion F, the LSO
alleges that the individual failed to list 11 collection or charge-off accounts on her Final
e-QIP. The individual credibly testified and provided documentation to support that she
disclosed information on seven of those accounts when she initially completed her e-QIP.
See Ex. 2 at 48 – 53. That disclosure was deleted from the Final e-QIP when the
individual went to make minor revisions requested by her employer’s security office.
See Ex. 2 and Ex. 8. In light of this disclosure being included on the Initial e-QIP and,
further, in light of the Final e-QIP continuing to contain the “Additional Comment”
(which referred to the deleted disclosure) and disclosing other substantial financial
matters (i.e., her delinquent federal income taxes for two years and a lien against her
residence for non-payment of condominium fees), it is clear that the individual was not
trying to conceal her financial problems from the DOE. In these circumstances, the
omission of those accounts from the Final e-QIP lacked deliberateness to mislead the
government. With respect to two of the omitted accounts, the individual credibly testified
that she had fully resolved those accounts prior to completing the Initial e-QIP and was
not consciously aware of those obligations when completing the e-QIP. Tr. at 94.
Although the individual committed an error in omitting these accounts since they were
required to be reported on the e-QIP, this omission also lacks the deliberateness required
8
under Criterion F. Additionally, those two accounts do not constitute significant
information in light of the extensiveness of the individual’s disclosure of other financial
irregularities. With respect to the remaining accounts omitted from the Final e-QIP, the
individual credibly testified (and provided written documentation) demonstrating that
these accounts duplicated other accounts disclosed on the Initial e-QIP. Ex. 2. For these
reasons, I find that the individual has mitigated the Criterion F security concerns with
respect to the omissions of collection and charge-off accounts from her Final e-QIP.
Criterion L Security Concerns. With respect to the Criterion L security concerns, the
LSO points to the individual’s delinquent and outstanding debts (allegedly aggregating
$26,756 at the time of the Notification Letter) and information regarding an alleged
pattern of financial irresponsibility by the individual. Such factors, if correct and
unmitigated, would constitute a disqualifying security concern under 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.8(l).
The individual argues that her financial irregularities began when she made the decision
to divert her financial resources to assist her nephew, who she considered to be her son,
during a period when he was diagnosed as having a severe, life-limiting illness. She did
this for a period of approximately four years, from the time of his first heart attack until
his death. There is no evidence that any financial delinquencies existed at the time her
nephew became ill and the evidence presented at the hearing supports that the expenses
she subsidized for her nephew were not discretionary expenses, but for medication,
hospitalization and essential living expenses. Tr. at 138 – 139; Ex. J. Her nephew did not
qualify for public disability benefits and another family member who works in the
pharmaceutical industry was unsuccessful in securing the nephew’s medication through
alternative means. Tr. at 24 – 25, 119 – 120. Security concerns arising from financial
irregularities can be mitigated if the financial problem arose from a problem outside of
the individual’s concern (such as an unexpected medical emergency) and the individual
acted responsibly under the circumstances. See Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline F
¶ 20(b). In this case, the nephew’s illness was unexpected. Tr. at 30. The individual
communicated the situation to her creditors and, the month following her nephew’s death,
began the process of paying delinquent accounts and making payment arrangements with
her creditors. Id. at 26, 108 – 110, 124 – 125. During the period of her nephew’s illness,
the individual incurred no new consumer debt other than to maintain her vehicle and that
debt was maintained on a current basis. Id. at 147. Within 18 months following her
nephew’s death, she paid in full or otherwise settled all of her outstanding delinquent
debt (including all of her charge-off accounts and her total federal income tax debt).
Ex. 2; Ex. B; Ex. C; Ex. D; Tr. at 120 – 148. Cf. Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline F
¶ 20(d) (mitigation of financial concerns possible where an individual initiated good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debt). The individual also credibly
testified that this was a unique situation and that there is no other situation or no other
family members for whom she would make a similar financial sacrifice in the future.
Tr. at 142 – 144. The individual’s actions immediately after her nephew’s death to
resolve her financial irregularities (and her success in doing so) reflect the individual’s
reliability and trustworthiness. This conclusion is reinforced by the individual having
commenced such actions a full year prior to the commencement of her security re-
investigation. See Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline F ¶ 20(a) (mitigation of financial
9
concerns possible where the behavior occurred under such circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability,
trustworthiness or judgment). For these reasons, I find the individual has sufficiently
mitigated the security concerns arising under Criterion L with respect to her financially
delinquent accounts.
With respect to a pattern of financial irresponsibility, the LSO alleges three items: (1) the
individual’s acknowledgement during the 2014 PSI that she, inter alia, lived beyond her
means and exercised poor judgment in accruing credit card debt she was unable to repay;
(2) the individual failed to file her 2011 and 2012 income tax returns as required pursuant
to the extensions she had received; and (3) the individual having previously been advised
of DOE’s concerns regarding financially irresponsibility behavior during the 2004 PSI
but, notwithstanding such warning, accrued $26,756 in delinquent debt as of the time of
the 2014 PSI. Ex. 1 at 5 – 6. With respect to the alleged acknowledgment by the
individual during the 2014 PSI the she was living beyond her means and exercising poor
financial judgment, it is difficult from the transcript of the PSI to determine whether the
individual was acknowledging conclusions about her behavior or agreeing to the
accuracy of certain factual matters.8 See Ex. 9 at 221 – 225. She did agree during the
2014 PSI that she understood why financial irresponsibility would be of concern to the
DOE. Id. at 225. However, I need not reach a conclusion about whether or not she
agreed to certain characterizations about her financial behavior in light of my finding that
she has mitigated the security concerns arising from that conduct. With respect to her
income tax filings, she credibly testified that prior to 2011 and 2012 (when she withdrew
money from her retirement account during her nephew’s terminal illness) she had never
owed additional taxes when she filed her tax returns. Ex. 2 at 9. Although, incorrect, she
believed her filing for extensions satisfied her filing requirement. Tr. at 144 – 146. She
now understands the filing requirement and has mitigated the associated concerns by
filing her back tax returns, filing her subsequent tax return (2013) on time and paying in
full all outstanding incomes taxes, together with interest and penalties. Ex. C.
See Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline F at ¶ 20(a). With respect to the 2004 PSI, I
concur that the LSO conducted a 40-minute PSI with the individual in 2004 which
included an explanation of the security concerns that arose as a result of financial
irresponsibility. Ex. 10. However, as outlined above, no evidence was presented that
suggests financial irresponsibility on the part of the individual between the 2004 PSI and
the time her nephew became terminally ill and, further, the individual has mitigated the
security concerns that arose as a result of her financial delinquencies during the period of
her nephew’s illness.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the individual has sufficiently mitigated the security
concerns arising under Criterion L.
8 For example, when the individual was asked directly “And do you admit that you failed to meet your
financial obligations due to poor self-control, lack of judgment or unwillingness to pay,” the individual
responded “I wouldn’t say those three things were why I didn’t pay.” Tr. at 222. Shortly thereafter the
individual was asked “…do you believe that was sound judgment in not paying those debts, accruing more
debt than you know you, you had no money to pay” and responded “I had to, he had to have his meds.
(Crying.)” Id. at 223.
10
VI. Conclusion
In the above analysis, I have found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the
possession of the DOE that raises serious security concerns under Criterion F and
Criterion L. After considering all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in
a comprehensive common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other
evidence presented at the hearing, I have found that the individual has brought forth
sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns associated with Criterion F and
Criterion L. Accordingly, I have determined that the individual’s access authorization
should be restored. The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel
under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Wade M. Boswell
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: December 23, 2014