PSH-15-0024

*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: March 27, 2015 ) Case No.: PSH-15-0024
)
____________________________________)
Issued: July 10, 2015
______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Robert B. Palmer, Administrative Judge:
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
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 -
The individual is employed by a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, and was issued a
security clearance in connection with that employment. In September 2014, the local security
office (LSO) summoned the individual for an interview with a personnel security specialist. This
Personnel Security Interview (PSI) concerned the individual’s on-going financial difficulties and
his compliance with the requirements of his probation stemming from a previous arrest. After
reviewing this PSI and the individual’s personnel security file as a whole, the LSO determined
that derogatory information existed that cast into doubt the individual’s eligibility for access
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 an Administrative Judge 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 Administrative Judge. The DOE introduced 97
exhibits into the record of this proceeding and presented the testimony of six witnesses. The
individual introduced two exhibits and presented the testimony of two witnesses, in addition to
testifying on his own behalf.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE DOE’S SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO concluded in the Notification Letter that derogatory information
exists that creates a substantial doubt as to the individual’s eligibility to hold a security clearance.
That information is set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) that was appended to
the Notification Letter, and it pertains to paragraph (l) of the criteria for eligibility for access to
classified matter or special nuclear material set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8.
Criterion (l) refers to 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 includes, but is not limited to, illegal behavior, a pattern of financial irresponsibility, and
violation of any commitment or promise upon which the DOE previously relied to favorably
resolve an issue of access authorization eligibility. The SSC refers to five separate concerns
under this criterion.
The first concern is the individual’s past illegal conduct. As support for this concern, the SSC
cites his arrests in 2012 for DUI, Failure to Maintain Lane, and Open Container, and in 2013 for
two counts of Second Degree Assault and Battery. According to the SSC, the 2012 charges were
reduced to Reckless Driving and Open Container and the individual was sentenced to 40 hours of
community service, 48 months of probation, and was fined $1,500. The 2013 arrest resulted in
the individual entering into a pre-trial intervention (PTI) program and receiving an additional 40
hours of community service.
The second concern is the individual’s alleged failure to comply with the requirements of his
Reckless Driving probation, with court orders, and with other court-related obligations. In this
- 3 -
regard, the SSC cites the individual’s (i) 2012 arrest for Contempt of Family Court; (ii) 2014
violation of probation by failing to pay court-ordered fines and failing to report to his probation
officer; (iii) 2014 failure to appear in court for his violation of probation hearing; and (iv) failure
to complete his court-ordered community service within specified time limits.
The third concern is the individual’s provision of allegedly contradictory or misleading
information about the performance and completion of his community service and other court
requirements. Specifically, the SSC refers to (i) the individual’s claim during his September
2014 PSI that he did not complete his community service in a timely manner and had to leave
work early because of back and neck injuries that he suffered during a 2013 auto accident despite
the fact that he did not complain of back injuries to the police at the time of the accident and
hospital examinations at the time revealed no such injuries; (ii) the individual’s explanation that
he could not perform his community service for the Reckless Driving conviction on weekends
because he had custody of his children on those days even though he was able to perform the
community service for the Assault and Battery PTI on weekends; (iii) the individual’s admission
during his probation violation hearing that he gave precedence to completing his Assault and
Battery community service over his DUI community service because the former charge had more
serious ramifications regarding his ability to carry a gun for his job than the latter charge; and
(iv) the individual’s false statement during his 2014 OPM interview that he had completed his
DUI community service. During his September 2014 PSI, the individual explained that at that
time he was referring to his Assault and Battery community service, even though the OPM
investigator clearly indicated that he was referring to the DUI community service. The SSC goes
on to allege that the individual failed to adhere to his employer’s and the DOE’s reporting
requirements by keeping them updated on the status of his probation.
Fourth, the SSC cites the individual’s lengthy history of financial difficulties. It refers to 16
credit reports obtained by the LSO during the years 1999 through 2014. Each of those reports
reflects delinquent debt on the part of the individual, in amounts ranging from $1,596 to $19,381.
The SSC also states that the individual has had several foreclosures and vehicle repossessions, a
wage garnishment, and at least one loan taken out against his 401(k) during this period, and has
demonstrated frivolous or irresponsible spending with no evidence of willingness or intent to pay
his debts.
Finally, the SSC alleges that the individual has repeatedly failed to honor his verbal
commitments to the DOE regarding his finances and personal conduct. It lists nine occasions on
which the individual made commitments concerning these subjects to the DOE during various
PSIs through the years, and then failed to keep those commitments.
These circumstances adequately justify the DOE’s invocation of criterion (l), and raise
significant security concerns. 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. Failure or
inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate
poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of
which can also raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to
protect classified information. Finally, illegal activity, by its very nature, calls into question a
- 4 -
person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. See Revised
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, The
White House (December 19, 2005), Guidelines E, F and J.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
The criteria for determining eligibility for security clearances set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710
dictates that in these proceedings, an Administrative Judge 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 and 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 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. ANALYSIS
A. The Individual’s Finances
At the hearing, the individual attempted to explain his lengthy history of financial difficulties. He
testified that those difficulties began in the late 1990s when he and his now ex-wife left the
military, were both unemployed for a period of time, and were therefore unable to pay some of
their bills. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 194. Another contributing factor to those financial
problems was their infant son’s hospitalization in 2003. The individual explained that although
he had medical insurance, both he and his ex-wife took leave without pay to be with their son
because they both had exhausted their available leave. This caused them to fall behind in paying
their bills. Tr. at 195. At times in the past, the individual continued, his ex-wife would open
credit accounts in both of their names without the individual’s knowledge, and use those cards to
accrue substantial amounts of debt. Tr. at 196. The individual incurred other expenses as a result
of his father’s illness and death in 2007. Tr. at 248-249. He then discussed his two foreclosures.
According to the individual, the first occurred in 2006 or 2007, and was caused by his ex-wife
- 5 -
leaving him and ceasing her contribution to the mortgage payments. Although they later
reconciled, it was too late to save their home from foreclosure. Tr. at 196-197. The second
occurred as a result of their divorce, which became final in 2012. Tr. at 197.
Next, the individual addressed the garnishment of his wages in 2014 for child support purposes.
Despite this action, he testified that he has always been current on his child support payments.
He explained that he paid his child support in person at the appropriate location and then went to
the family court in the same building to “make sure I’m current and I’m okay.” Tr. at 200. He
was informed by someone at the family court that he still owed eleven dollars and that he was
scheduled to appear in family court the next day for a “show cause” hearing. The individual
insisted that he had paid his child support and inquired as to why he was being called into court.
The employee consulted with another employee and then allegedly told the individual that they
had not yet served him with notice of this appearance, and advised him to leave, or else they
would be required to serve him with the papers requiring his appearance. The individual left, and
during the following week, he was informed by a groundskeeper at his current residence that the
police had been looking for him regarding allegedly unpaid child support. Upon hearing this, he
called the family court and was instructed to come in and explain his side of things to a judge.
Although he did so and allegedly informed the judge that he was up to date on his payments, the
judge ordered that his wages be garnished anyway. Tr. at 200-202.
The individual went on to state that he has always been fully committed to satisfying his debts
despite “some real hardships.” Tr. at 204. One of those hardships was a dysfunctional marriage
to a woman who allegedly grew reckless in her spending. The individual claimed that she is out
of his life now, and that he is “not being irresponsible like that in any way or fashion.” Tr. at 205.
He said that he has no credit cards, pays cash for everything, and makes no frivolous purchases.
Tr. at 206.
Based on this testimony, it is evident that some of the individual’s financial difficulties have
been due to factors that were largely or entirely beyond his control. The individual plausibly
testified that his two foreclosures were caused by his marital difficulties, and that he and his wife
took unpaid leave during the serious illness of their infant son in 2003, which caused them to fall
behind in paying their bills. However, these factors, including expenses incurred as a result of his
father’s illness and death, simply do not adequately explain the duration and extent of the
financial problems set forth in the SSC. For example, during the individual’s July 7, 2004, PSI,
he stated that his son’s illness caused him and his ex-wife to become delinquent on their
mortgage payments. DOE Exhibit (Ex.) 78 at 10. However, as of May 2004, the individual was
at least four months behind on that account with a past due balance of $10,246, and the
individual and his ex-wife only took one week each of leave without pay during their son’s
illness, with lost wages of approximately $1,600. DOE Ex. 78 at 6; Tr. at 268-269.
It is evident from the record that the individual has not behaved in a financially responsible
manner. As an initial matter, he has not exhibited sufficient attentiveness to his financial affairs
through the years. As described above, the individual blamed a substantial portion of his
delinquent debt on his ex-wife opening charge accounts in both of their names without his
knowledge, and then making large expenditures using those accounts. Although the individual
accepted responsibility for his ex-wife’s actions in opening the accounts, they do not necessarily
- 6 -
reflect negatively on the individual. However, his actions upon learning of these accounts do
indicate poor judgment and a lack of reliability on the individual’s part. In his January 27, 2000,
PSI, the individual acknowledged that his ex-wife had opened a Sears account without his
knowledge and promised to attempt to pay it off. DOE Ex. 90 at 46, 60. However, nearly one
year later, no progress had been made in paying off this delinquent debt. During the individual’s
January 16, 2001, PSI, the individual stated that he did not know the last time that a payment had
been made on this account, because he left that up to his ex-wife. DOE Ex. 85 at 17. To rely on
his ex-wife to address this delinquency which she allegedly was responsible for, without
monitoring her progress, demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of reliability on the individual’s
part. Moreover, on multiple occasions during the individual’s 11 PSIs concerning his finances
between 2000 and 2014, he was unaware of, or unable to explain delinquent accounts that
appeared on his credit reports. This lack of attentiveness to, or knowledge of, his financial affairs
continued at the hearing, where the individual was unable to satisfactorily explain the reasons for
a loan of approximately $10,000 that he had taken out against his 401(k) account, even though
that loan had been made only five or six months prior to the hearing. Tr. at 230-239.
The individual’s poor decisions have also contributed significantly to his financial difficulties. In
2005, the individual’s brother needed a car, so the individual gave him one that the individual
had purchased and told him to take over the monthly payments, with the understanding that the
individual would retain the title until the car was paid off. The individual’s brother stopped
making payments, and the car was eventually repossessed. The individual apparently made no
effort to check on whether his brother was making the payments, and he stated that he was never
notified by the dealer that the payments were not being made. DOE Ex. 66 at 16. In his
November 15, 2010, PSI, the individual said that he stopped making payments in 2007 on his
delinquent debt for another car that he had purchased because he erroneously believed that the
debt had been paid off. He based this belief not on his own financial records, but on the fact that
the creditor stopped sending him dunning letters. DOE Ex. 43 at 21. The individual’s May 2009
credit report (DOE Ex. 59) shows that he spent $26,260 for yet another automobile in June 2008
despite the fact that, according to his June 2008 credit report, he had over $2,000 in delinquent
debt. DOE Ex. 61. Each of these decisions demonstrated poor judgment on the part of the
individual.
The individual’s financial difficulties were continuing as of the date of the hearing. His most
recent credit report, dated May 18, 2015, revealed two collection accounts totaling $11,607, two
charged off accounts, thirty-two 30-day delinquencies, nineteen 60-day delinquencies, and
eighteen 90-day delinquencies. The individual testified that the two collection accounts were for
medical expenses that he incurred as a result of an automobile accident that he was involved in in
2013, and that those expenses were supposed to be paid by the insurance company of the other
party to the accident. Tr. at 206. He also said that, with the exception of the two collection
accounts, he did not have any overdue debt. Tr. at 273. However, he did not submit any evidence
in support of his claims concerning the two collection accounts, nor any documentation that the
30, 60 and 90-day delinquencies had been brought up to date. Moreover, I did not find the
individual’s testimony about his child support payments, i.e., that his paycheck was garnished for
no apparent good reason, to be credible, and I believe that his ongoing financial problems have
made it difficult to satisfy his parental, and other, obligations. Significant security concerns
remain under criterion (l) regarding the individual’s finances. See Adjudicative Guideline F, ¶ 19
- 7 -
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts and a history of not meeting financial obligations are
conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying).
B. The Individual’s Legal Difficulties
Although the individual’s account of his January 2012 arrest for DUI, Failure to Maintain Lane
and Open Container (Tr. at 168-175) differed substantially from that offered at the hearing by the
arresting officer (Tr. at 42-46), for the most part the individual did not contest the validity of that
arrest. The individual’s blood alcohol content was measured at the scene at .136, Tr. at 44, and
he ended up pleading guilty to a reduced charge of Reckless Driving and Open Container. He
was sentenced to 40 hours of community service, probation, and a fine. According to the
Community Service Agreement signed by the individual on April 22, 2013, he was required to
begin his service within seven days of signing the agreement and to complete a minimum of 20
hours of community service per month at a local charitable organization. He was further required
to provide written documentation of any physical condition or handicap that would prevent him
from performing his community service, and was informed that only the Court could exempt him
from such service. DOE Ex. 24 at 3.
The individual testified that his duties at the charitable organization included a lot of lifting of
heavy objects, and that he could not complete his service in a timely manner because he injured
his back in a serious automobile accident. Tr. at 175-178. Since he was not an employee, he
claimed, he was not permitted to perform less strenuous duties, such as answering telephones or
doing paperwork. Tr. at 178. The individual also testified that he did not appear for his first
probation violation hearing because he had moved and did not receive notice of the hearing, Tr.
at 179, and that sometimes he sent his daughter to the probation officer to pay the installments on
his fine, instead of reporting himself, as required, because of severe back pain. Tr. at 179, 221-
222, 265.
The individual then testified about his 2013 Assault and Battery arrest. He said that he and his
daughter went back to a house from which they had recently been evicted to retrieve some of his
personal belongings. After he parked his car, got out, and started walking to the door of the
house, he was approached by the president of the Homeowners Association (hereinafter referred
to as “the HOA president”), who told him that he wasn’t supposed to be there. 3 The individual
ignored him, entered the house, brought out several items, and put them in his car. The HOA
president told the individual that if he entered the house again, he was going to call the police.
When the HOA president came onto the individual’s property with phone in hand, the individual
continued, he decided to get into his car and leave to avoid a confrontation. The HOA president
moved into the road, “right hand on the phone, left hand out, [and walked] in front of my car,
almost like the side front panel of my car.” Tr. at 184. The individual told the man to get out of
the roadway so that he could drive off. When the HOA president dropped his arm, the individual
thought that he had enough room to go around him. When he attempted to do so, the HOA
3 This was incorrect, as the eviction notice gave the individual until a certain date to surrender the
premises, and that date had not yet arrived as of the date of the incident. See Individual’s Exhibit
A.
- 8 -
president “came back, leaned his body over, [and] stuck his arm out.” Tr. at 185. The
individual’s car struck the HOA president’s elbow and hand. Id.
The individual’s daughter also testified, and essentially corroborated the individual’s account of
this incident. She added that a second man, whom her father did not notice, was also in the street,
and “reached over and slapped” the side view mirror on the passenger’s side of the car as the
individual drove away. Tr. at 139.
After pulling away from the house, the individual was stopped by the local police, arrested, and
charged with two counts of Assault and Battery. He said that he did not contest the charges
because to do so would have cost “three or four thousand dollars that [he] just did not have . . . .”
Tr. at 188. He was diverted into a Pre-Trial Intervention program (PTI), which included more
community service, visiting jails, and seeing a counselor. Id. The individual also testified that he
has not been charged with any other felonies, nor arrested nor charged with any violent crimes.
Tr. at 190.
Nevertheless, the individual’s two arrests and failure to abide by the terms of his Reckless
Driving probation raise serious concerns under criterion (l). 4 Despite the individual’s testimony
on the matter, I find the individual’s Assault and Battery arrest to have been warranted under the
circumstances. The arresting officer also testified at the hearing. He said that according to
statements taken from the two victims and from witnesses at the scene, the victims were
attempting to detain the individual at the scene until the police arrived, and while attempting to
drive off, the individual “swerved towards” each of them, striking their extremities with his
vehicle and causing visible injuries to those extremities. Tr. at 50-51. Although the individual’s
daughter testified that the individual did not swerve towards the victims, Tr. at 137, 139, I
attribute greater weight to the disinterested account of a witness to the incident that the
individual did swerve towards at least one of the victims. DOE Ex. 26 at 18. Based on the totality
of the testimony, I believe that the individual’s intent was more to escape a stressful situation
than to injure either of the victims. However, regardless of whether the individual swerved
towards the victims, it is clear that his actions caused the vehicle to strike them, which caused
visible injury to their extremities.
The individual’s failure to complete his Reckless Driving community service in a timely manner
and the varying reasons that he has provided for that failure also raise serious concerns under
criterion (l) about his judgment and reliability. As previously stated, at the hearing the individual
said that he did not complete this community service in a timely manner because he had injured
his back during a serious automobile accident. However, during his September 2014 PSI, he said
that he had problems performing this community service because of the demands of his job and
because he had custody of his children on weekends. DOE Ex. 5 at 37. Later during that same
interview, he indicated that he did not “do [his Reckless Driving] community services” because
he gave precedence to the community service imposed after his Assault and Battery arrest. He
considered his performance of that community service to be more important because he believed
4 The individual was actually arrested a third time for contempt on January 26, 2012, for failing
to make a court-ordered payment to his ex-wife. However, it appears that this arrest was due
more to a shortage of funds than to a disregard for obeying legal requirements.
- 9 -
that it had a greater impact on his ability to carry a gun, and therefore on his ability to perform
his job. Id. at 38. At the hearing, he further explained that he preferred the Assault and Battery
community service because the work required was not as hard on his back and because the
location at which this service was performed allowed him to bring his son along, whereas the
location at which his other community service was performed did not. Tr. at 189.
None of these reasons justify the individual’s failure to complete his Reckless Driving
community service in a timely fashion. According to the agreement signed by the individual, this
community service was supposed to be completed by the end of June 2013. However, the record
indicates that it was not completed until over one year later, after his July 2014 violation of
probation hearing. The individual’s automobile accident occurred in July 2013. Tr. at 213.
Therefore, the injuries from that accident could not have contributed to the individual’s failure to
complete his community service within the time period prescribed in his agreement. Moreover,
his supervisor testified that he had modified the individual’s duty schedule to accommodate the
individual’s legal and parental obligations, Tr. at 37-38, but there is no evidence that the
individual asked his supervisor to modify his schedule during May and June, 2013. There is also
no indication in the record that the individual sought to make other arrangements for the care of
his children during this period, such as leaving them with his ex-wife or with a friend. Finally,
there is insufficient evidence in the record from which I could conclude that completing his
Assault and Battery community service in a timely manner made it impossible or impracticable
to complete his Reckless Driving community service in a similar manner. Even if such evidence
did exist, it is hardly a satisfactory explanation that the consequences of a second arrest
prevented the individual from fulfilling the terms of a probation imposed after the first arrest.
I note that the individual did complete this community service after his July 1, 2014, hearing, and
that there is no evidence that he has violated any other laws or court orders since then. However,
this period of lawful behavior of less than 11 months, as of the date of the hearing, is insufficient
to mitigate the unlawful behavior described above. The individual has not adequately addressed
the DOE’s security concerns under criterion (l) about his failure to adhere to his legal
obligations. See Adjudicative Guideline J, ¶ 31 (a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses
and violation of parole or probation are conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying).
C. The Individual’s Failure to Keep His Commitments to the DOE
As previously mentioned, the SSC describes nine instances in which the individual allegedly
made commitments to the DOE, and then failed to keep those commitments. Most of those
instances concerned the individual’s finances. Specifically, at various times during his 11 PSIs,
the individual promised to not create any new debts without identifying a means of paying them
off, to contact his creditors, establish payment plans, and pay off his debts. Although it is clear
that the individual was not able to fully keep all of these commitments, it is also clear that these
failures were mitigated, at least in part, by the financial circumstances previously discussed that
were beyond the individual’s control.
However, no mitigation is evident in the record concerning three of these nine instances. During
his February 2001 PSI, the individual committed to paying off his debts as they developed and to
- 10 -
living within his means. DOE Ex. 85, February 2001 PSI at 10. Nevertheless, the individual’s
April 10, 2002, credit report shows a purchase of an automobile for $14,347 in December 2001,
despite his having $5,352 in charged off accounts. DOE Ex. 80. Moreover, as previously
mentioned, the individual’s May 2009 credit report shows that he spent $26,260 for yet another
automobile in June 2008 despite the fact that he had over $2,000 in delinquent debt. Although in
many instances, the purchase of a vehicle may be a necessity, especially where adequate public
transportation is not available, spending less on vehicles and using the funds to pay off some of
the individual’s delinquent debt instead would have been more in keeping with his commitment
to satisfy his debts and live within his means.
The other two commitments concerned the individual’s personal conduct. During his February
29, 2012, PSI, he promised that he would have no more criminal arrests and would abide by all
court orders. DOE Ex. 34 at 61-62. During his February 18, 2014, PSI, the individual committed
to being a law-abiding citizen and to following all rules and regulations. DOE Ex. 16 at 32.
However, the individual was arrested for Assault and Battery on May 12, 2013, and violated the
terms of his Reckless Driving probation as described above. The individual’s failure to keep
these promises reflects poorly on his reliability and trustworthiness, and raises significant
security concerns under criterion (l).
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I find that the individual has failed to resolve the DOE’s
concerns under criterion (l). 5 Consequently, he has not demonstrated that restoring his security
clearance 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 access
authorization at this time. 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
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: July 10, 2015
5 The SSC also cites the individual’s provision of allegedly contradictory or misleading
information about the performance and completion of his community service and other court
requirements as raising a criterion (l) concern. However, after reviewing the record in this
matter, I find that the instances of such behavior cited either do not raise significant security
concerns, or were adequately explained by the individual at the hearing.