PSH-25-0111

*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: May 1, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0111
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: September 5, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an
access authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth
at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual should not be granted access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 23, 2024, the Individual completed and signed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP) in connection with seeking access authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 7 at 133.2 The
Individual disclosed in the QNSP that he filed for bankruptcy in February 2022. Id. at 127. He
checked boxes marked “No” in response to questions on the QNSP asking whether he had filed
any additional petitions for bankruptcy or fallen into delinquency on any other routine financial
accounts in the prior seven years. Id. at 128‒29. The Individual additionally disclosed that he had
been arrested in 2022 and 2023 on bench warrants for failing to attend court dates and that he had
been arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in 2009. Id. at 121‒24. He
checked a box marked “No” in response to a question asking whether he had ever been charged
with any offense involving a firearm or any other offenses regarding alcohol. Id. at 125. The
Individual also disclosed his employment history, including that he separated from an employer
(Employer A) in 2021 due to “unsatisfactory performance” and was employed by an employer
1 The regulations define access authorization 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). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 The exhibits submitted by the local security office (LSO) were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each
page. This Decision will refer to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by the LSO.
- 2 -
(Employer B) from 2021 to 2023 when he “[l]eft by mutual agreement following notice of
unsatisfactory performance.” Id. at 102‒04.
As part of a background investigation of the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization, the
Office of Personnel Management obtained a credit report for the Individual. Ex. 5. The credit
report revealed that the Individual had filed for bankruptcy in November 2021 and February 2022,
and that the Individual owed numerous delinquent debts totaling $71,677. Id. at 33‒40. The credit
report additionally indicated that the Individual was over one hundred twenty days past due on a
home mortgage and owed over $7,000 in past due mortgage payments. Id. at 41. A review of
criminal records revealed numerous instances in which the Individual was arrested or cited for
unlawful conduct, including a 2006 charge for carrying a concealed firearm while under the
influence of alcohol or drugs (Firearm Offense) and four instances in which he was arrested and
charged with DUI from 1994 to 2010 which he failed to disclose on the QNSP. Ex. 8 at 229‒34.
The criminal records also revealed that the Individual was charged with the theft of an electronic
device from Employer A in 2022. Id. at 225, 227‒28.
The Individual was interviewed by an investigator on July 30, 2024, as part of the background
investigation. Id. at 197. During the interview, the Individual volunteered that he was fired by
Employer B rather than having left by mutual agreement following notice of unsatisfactory
performance. Id. at 198. In December 2024, the local security office (LSO) issued the Individual
a letter of interrogatory (LOI) concerning the security concerns presented by the information in
the QNSP and uncovered during the investigation. Ex. 6. The Individual’s responses to the LOI
did not resolve the security concerns.
The LSO issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising him that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1
at 9‒10. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that
the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines E, F, and J of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 4‒8.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 12‒13. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)
appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative hearing
on August 20, 2025. The LSO submitted eight exhibits (Ex. 1–8). The Individual submitted seven
exhibits (Ex. A‒G). The Individual testified on his own behalf. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No.
PSH-25-0111 (Tr.) at 3, 9. The LSO did not call any witnesses to testify.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the first basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5‒
6. “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 or sensitive information. Of special interest is any
failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative
or adjudicative processes.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. The SSC cited the Individual having
- 3 -
left his employment with Employer A and Employer B due to poor performance and having failed
to accurately disclose on the QNSP: (1) the circumstances of his separation from Employer B, (2)
having been arrested and charged with the Firearm Offense, (3) four occasions on which he was
arrested and charged with DUI, (4) the fact that he had filed for bankruptcy in November 2021,
and (5) his numerous delinquent financial accounts. Ex. 1 at 5‒6. The LSO’s allegations that the
Individual’s employment history demonstrated a pattern of rule violations and that the Individual
deliberately omitted, concealed, or falsified information on the QNSP justify its invocation of
Guideline E. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(a), (d)(3).
The LSO cited Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the
second basis for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization.
Ex. 1 at 6‒7. “Failure 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 raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect
classified or sensitive information.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 18. The SSC cited the
Individual’s November 2021 bankruptcy petition, which was dismissed for failure to pay, nineteen
delinquent consumer debts on which the LSO alleged that the Individual owed a cumulative
$71,677, and the Individual having become over one hundred twenty days past due on his home
mortgage. Ex. 1 at 6‒7. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual demonstrated an inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts and a history of not meeting financial obligations justify its
invocation of Guideline F. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 19(a)‒(c).
The LSO cited Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the final basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 7‒
8. “Criminal 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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. The SSC cited thirteen instances in which the
Individual was charged or cited for criminal conduct. Ex. 1 at 7‒8. The LSO’s citation to the
Individual having been charged or cited for criminal conduct justifies its invocation of Guideline
J. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 31(a)‒(b).
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of 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). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Dep’t 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 side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong
presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
An individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
- 4 -
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. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Individual’s Financial and Medical Difficulties
The Individual filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in April 2015 and had numerous debts discharged.
Ex. 5 at 32. From 2015 to 2021, the Individual had at least thirteen consumer debts assigned to
collections. Id. at 34‒36, 38‒39. The Individual began experiencing medical difficulties in
approximately late 2019 or early 2020. See Ex. C (providing a narrative of medical issues from the
Individual). In early 2021, the Individual suffered a severe heart attack. Id.; Ex. 8 at 199; Ex. E at
3 (medical records reflecting Individual’s history of heart attack).
In November 2021, the Individual filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Ex. 5 at 33; see also Ex. 6 at
70 (indicating that he filed for bankruptcy in November 2021 “to avoid foreclosure”). This
bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed in January 2022 due to the Individual’s failure to make
payments pursuant to a court-ordered payment schedule. Ex. 8 at 238; see also Ex. 6 at 70
(reflecting the Individual’s explanation in response to the LOI that the payments were not made
because the bankruptcy trustee and the Individual’s attorney “neve[r] set up auto payment”). The
Individual filed another petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in February 2022. Ex. 5 at 32. At this
time, the Individual owed numerous debts to financial institutions, payday lenders, and
telecommunications companies, among other creditors, but only a small fraction of his debts were
medical debts. Ex. F at 2‒3 (schedule of creditors included in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy); Tr. at
45 (testifying that he only owed $4,500 in medical debt when he filed the second petition for
Chapter 13 bankruptcy). This proceeding was dismissed in July 2022 at the request of the
Individual. Ex. 6 at 69; Ex. F at 1; Tr. at 21, 43‒44. The Individual sought the dismissal because
he “was able to work with the mortgage company” and his home was “no longer in foreclosure,”
and therefore he perceived that he had no “need to be on Chapter 13 anymore.” Tr. at 21; see also
id. at 22, 42 (testifying that he did not make payments to any creditors, except for an auto loan,
through the Chapter 13 bankruptcy and that his “intention[] for [the] Chapter 13[] was solely to
save the foreclosure on [his] house”).
Eight consumer debts owed by the Individual were referred to collections in the period following
the July 2022 dismissal of his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, including several medical debts, a
payday loan debt, a debt to a telecommunications company, and several debts to a credit union.
Ex. 5 at 33, 35‒38. The Individual was employed by Employer B until March 2023 but made no
payments towards his debts from the dismissal of the bankruptcy in July 2022 until the termination
of his employment by Employer B in March 2023. Ex. 7 at 102; Tr. at 44. Other than a brief period
of employment with a consulting company, the Individual was unemployed for most of the period
of March 2023 until February 2024 when he began working for a DOE contractor. Ex. 7 at 99‒
102. The Individual’s medical issues persisted throughout this period, and he was hospitalized on
- 5 -
multiple occasions due to various ailments. Ex. C (reflecting a summary of medical events in this
period prepared by the Individual); Ex. B (medical records from a September 2023 hospitalization
describing the Individual’s health issues and medical history).
As of the May 2024 credit report obtained during the background investigation of the Individual,
the Individual owed a cumulative $71,677 in delinquent consumer debts, of which $59,480 was
medical debt. Ex. 5 at 33‒40. The May 2024 credit report additionally indicated that the Individual
was over one hundred twenty days past due on his home mortgage payments and owed a past due
balance of $7,653. Id. at 41. During his July 2024 interview with the investigator, the Individual
indicated that he intended to contact creditors to set up payment plans for his largest debts “before
the end of [the] year.” Ex. 8 at 204. However, as of his December 2024 response to the LOI, the
Individual had not resolved any of the delinquent debts. Ex. 6 at 71‒81.
The Individual testified at the hearing that his past due mortgage payments had “been resolved.”
Tr. at 29. However, the evidence submitted by the Individual does not fully support this claim. By
letter dated July 7, 2025, the company servicing the mortgage on the Individual’s primary
residence issued him an offer to “bring [his] mortgage current and prevent further foreclosure
actions.” Ex. G at 1. Pursuant to the offer, $35,811.24 in past due payments would be added to the
principal balance of the Individual’s mortgage. Id. at 2. The letter indicated that the company
servicing the Individual’s mortgage “must receive [the] fully executed [offer], bearing original
signatures, by 7/22/2025” and that “failure to comply with these requirements may affect [the
Individual’s] eligibility and delay the process.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in original). The version of the
offer submitted by the Individual into evidence in this proceeding was signed by the Individual
and notarized on August 19, 2025; one day prior to the hearing and almost one month after the
deadline for the Individual to submit the accepted offer. Id. at 4.
At the hearing, the Individual claimed that he had “started contacting” his creditors concerning his
consumer debts and was “making payment arrangements with them one by one.” Tr. at 24‒25.
However, the Individual provided no evidence of having done so and I do not credit his
unsubstantiated claims. Moreover, the Individual admitted that the debts cited in the SSC were not
resolved. Id. at 28.
B. Individual’s Employment Record
The Individual was employed by Employer A from 2015 to January 2021. Ex. 7 at 103. The
Individual was eventually terminated from his employment with Employer A due to excessive
absenteeism from work due to health issues. Ex. 8 at 199. In February 2021, the Individual obtained
employment with Employer B. Ex. 7 at 102. Within the first month of his employment with
Employer B, the Individual suffered the abovementioned heart attack. Ex. 8 at 198. Employer B
allowed the Individual to work from home due to various health conditions until early 2023, when
he was directed to resume working at Employer B’s place of business. Id. The Individual worked
from Employer B’s place of business for several months in early 2023 but eventually returned to
working from home without advising his supervisor. Id. When the Individual’s decision to work
from home was discovered by Employer B, Employer B demanded that the Individual resume
working at Employer B’s place of business. Id. The Individual advised his supervisor that he was
- 6 -
unable to return to Employer B’s place of business due to his health conditions, and Employer B
fired the Individual in March 2023. Id.; Ex. 7 at 102.
C. Individual’s History of Criminal Conduct
From 1994 to 2010, the Individual was charged or cited with the following offenses:
• DUI & Minor in Possession of Alcohol (MIP) – February 1994 (Guilty, license
suspended for ninety days);
• MIP – May 1994 (Guilty, paid fine);
• DUI – July 1994 (Guilty, sentenced to ten days jail time and suspension of driver’s
license for six months, ordered to serve one-year term of probation);
• Malicious Injury to Property & MIP – 1995 (Disposition unknown);
• Theft – 1996 (Dismissed);
• DUI – June 2000 (Guilty, sentenced to three days jail time and suspension of driver’s
license for six months, ordered to attend treatment program and serve one-year term of
probation);
• DUI – September 2000 (Disposition unknown);
• Firearm Offense – 2006 (Guilty, sentenced to forty-five days jail time with work
release, ordered to serve eighteen-month term of probation);
• DUI – 2009 (Guilty, sentenced to unknown jail time and suspension of driver’s license,
ordered to serve two-year term of probation and attend alcohol-related classes);
• Driving with Suspended License – May 2010 (Guilty, sentenced to ten days jail time
and suspension of driver’s license for six months).
• DUI & Leaving the Scene of an Accident – June 2010 (Guilty, sentenced to two years
incarceration and suspension of driver’s license for five years, ordered to serve ten-year
term of probation).
Ex. 8 at 228‒35; see also Tr. at 17, 38 (testimony of the Individual at the hearing that he could not
recall the details of the oldest alleged offenses and that for the alleged offense that occurred, for
example, in “1996, I mean, . . . it’s been a while to recall all the issues”). The two-year term of
incarceration to which the Individual was sentenced for the 2010 DUI was suspended. Tr. at 49.
However, the Individual was subject to the full ten-year term of probation which was modified
from supervised to unsupervised probation after approximately two years. Id. at 50; see also Ex. 8
at 225 (reflecting the transfer of the Individual’s probation to another jurisdiction in 2011 when
the Individual moved from one state to another).
At some point following his separation from Employer A, the Individual sold electronic equipment
belonging to Employer A to a pawn shop. Ex. 8 at 227‒28. During the adjudication of his eligibility
for access authorization, the Individual denied intentionally having stolen the electronic
equipment; however, I do not credit this claim because of the Individual’s inconsistent accounts
of why he believed he was entitled to sell the electronic equipment. Compare id. at 200 (reflecting
the Individual’s statement to an investigator that he believed that the electronic equipment “was
his to keep when he was fired”), with Ex. 6 at 83 (claiming in response to the LOI that he misplaced
the electronic equipment and “thought [Employer A] took out the amount of the missing equipment
from [his] last pay check”); Tr. at 33 (reiterating claim that he believed that his employer had
- 7 -
deducted the value of the electronic equipment from his final paycheck and therefore that it was
his to dispose of as he saw fit when he located it some time later). A customer of the pawn shop
who purchased the electronic equipment contacted Employer A for assistance in using the
electronic equipment, and Employer A contacted law enforcement to report the electronic
equipment as stolen by the Individual. Ex. 8 at 228. A warrant was issued for the Individual’s
arrest in connection with the theft of the electronic equipment. Id. In December 2022, during a
traffic stop, a law enforcement officer arrested and charged the Individual with Theft and cited
him for driving with an obscured license plate. Id. at 226. The Individual was arrested in April
2023 on a bench warrant after the Individual failed to appear in court in connection with his
prosecution for the Theft and obscured license plate offenses. Ex. 7 at 122; Tr. at 34‒35. The
Individual ultimately paid fines and restitution to Employer A to resolve the offenses. Ex. 8 at 228;
Tr. at 32‒33, 35.
The Individual testified at the hearing that he had not consumed alcohol for at least four years. Tr.
at 40. He indicated that he could not consume alcohol due to his health conditions, and accordingly
was incapable of committing alcohol-related offenses in the future. Id. at 39‒40.
D. The QNSP and Background Investigation
The Individual completed and signed the QNSP on May 23, 2024. Ex. 7 at 133. As part of
completing the QNSP, the Individual certified that the information he provided in the QNSP was
“true, complete, and correct to the best of [his] knowledge and belief and [was] made in good
faith.” Id.
The Individual disclosed his February 2022 bankruptcy petition in the QNSP as required. Id. at
127. However, in response to a question asking whether he had “filed any additional petitions
under any chapter of the bankruptcy code” in the prior seven years, the Individual checked a box
marked “No” and did not disclose his November 2021 bankruptcy petition. Id. at 128. The
Individual also checked a box marked “No” in response to a question asking if he had fallen into
delinquency involving routine financial accounts in the prior seven years, including whether he
“had bills or debts turned over to a collection agency” or “had been over 120 days delinquent on
any debt . . . . .” Id. at 128‒29.
Regarding his employment history, the Individual disclosed his employment with both Employer
A and Employer B. Id. at 102‒03. In response to a question asking for the reason his employment
with Employer A had ended, the Individual indicated “unsatisfactory performance . . . [due to]
medical issues and personal issues that affected [his] job duties.” Id. at 104. With respect to
Employer B, the Individual checked a box marked “Yes” in response to a question asking whether
he had been, among other things, “fired” or “left by mutual agreement following notice of
unsatisfactory performance.” Id. at 102‒03. The Individual provided the following written
explanation for his separation from Employer B: “[l]eft by mutual agreement following notice of
unsatisfactory performance” and “was told job ended.” Id. at 103.
Regarding his criminal conduct in the seven years prior to completing the QNSP, the Individual
disclosed on the QNSP that he had been arrested on a bench warrant for “missing court” in April
2023 and had also been arrested on a bench warrant in December 2022. Id. at 121‒22. The
- 8 -
Individual did not indicate that his December 2022 arrest was related to charges of Theft stemming
from his pawning electronic equipment belonging to Employer A. Id. In response to a question
asking whether he had “EVER been charged with an offense involving firearms” or “EVER been
charged with an offense involving alcohol” the Individual disclosed his 2009 DUI but failed to
disclose the other five occasions on which he was arrested and charged with DUI or his arrest and
charge for the Firearm Offense. Id. at 123‒25 (emphasis in original).
On July 30, 2024, the Individual met with an investigator for an interview as part of the background
investigation into his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 8 at 197. During the interview, the
Individual disclosed that he had been fired from both Employer A and Employer B and had not
left by mutual agreement as he indicated in the QNSP. Id. at 198. The Individual told the
investigator that he did not disclose that he was fired from these positions due to “error.” Id.; see
also Tr. at 15 (testifying at the hearing that he remembered more details related to the termination
of his employment as he discussed the matter with the investigator than he did when he was filling
out the QNSP).
Regarding his financial record, the Individual disclosed the November 2021 bankruptcy petition
to the investigator before being confronted with the information and indicated that he omitted the
petition from the QNSP in error. Ex. 8 at 203. The Individual denied any additional derogatory
financial information he was required to report, at which point the investigator confronted the
Individual with the numerous delinquent debts reflected on the May 2024 credit report obtained as
part of the background investigation. Id. at 204‒09. The Individual acknowledged most of the
debts, indicated that he omitted them from the QNSP in error, and said that he intended to resolve
the debts “before the end of this year [2024].” Id. The Individual indicated that he did not believe
that he owed several of the debts, stating that they should have been included in his 2022
bankruptcy or that he had no knowledge of them, and that he had no plans to pay the debts in
question. Id.
When asked by the investigator what led to his April 2023 arrest that he disclosed on the QNSP,
the Individual indicated that he “believe[d] the [arrest] was from a theft charge” and went on to
describe the alleged theft of electronic equipment from Employer A. Id. at 200. The Individual
denied having been arrested or charged with any other criminal conduct he was required to report.
Id. at 201. The investigator then confronted the Individual with several offenses he was required,
but had failed, to report on the QNSP. Id. at 201‒03. During the interview with the investigator,
the Individual denied knowledge of the offenses, except for the 2006 Firearm Offense which he
indicated that he omitted from the QNSP in error. Id.; Tr. at 16‒17 (testifying that he had forgotten
about the Firearm Offense when he was completing the QNSP and did not remember it until he
was confronted by the investigator). However, at the hearing the Individual admitted that he did
recall that he had been arrested for the alcohol-related offenses when he completed the QNSP but
did not disclose them because he “couldn’t recall [the] exact dates” of his arrests. Tr. at 18.
The investigator conducted follow-up interviews with the Individual on September 11, 2024, and
October 23, 2024, during which the investigator confronted him with additional law enforcement
information obtained during the background investigation. Ex. 8 at 211‒14. The Individual
acknowledged the 1995 Malicious Injury to Property & MIP offenses and indicated that he failed
to disclose them on the QNSP due to failing to remember them but denied knowledge of his June
- 9 -
2000 and September 2000 DUI offenses. Id.; but see Tr. at 18, 38 (testifying that he “vaguely
remember[ed]” the incidents but did not disclose them on the QNSP because he could not recall
the exact dates or circumstances of the arrests).
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline E
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline E include:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or
falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly
contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional
responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning
security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide
the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent,
or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the
behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or
factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior,
and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability; and
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased, or
occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
The security concerns presented by the Individual’s absenteeism that led to his termination by
Employer A and refusal to work in person that led to his termination from Employer B must be
considered in light of the significant health problems he has experienced since 2020. See 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.7(c) (requiring consideration of, among other things, “the circumstances surrounding the
conduct” in applying the Adjudicative Guidelines). The Individual worked for Employer A for
approximately five years before his health problems began in earnest and has worked for the DOE
contractor for approximately eighteen months. These periods of stable employment before and
- 10 -
after the onset of the Individual’s health problems are suggestive that his employment difficulties
from 2021 to 2023 were the product of the health issues rather than a longstanding pattern
attributable to the Individual’s character. Moreover, while the Individual is not entirely blameless,
his conduct was not so flagrant as to raise serious security concerns under Guideline E. Id.
(requiring consideration of the “nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct”). Considering the
nature of the Individual’s rule violations, the limited time in which they occurred, and the fact that
they were precipitated by serious health episodes, I find that the security concerns associated with
the rule violations asserted by the LSO are resolved under the third mitigating condition.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(c).
Turning to the allegations related to the Individual’s failure to disclose derogatory information as
required, the Individual volunteered the true circumstances of his separation from Employer B and
the fact that he had filed a bankruptcy petition in November 2021 to the investigator, without
having first been confronted by the facts, approximately two months after failing to provide this
information on the QNSP. Considering the relatively minor nature of the discrepant information,
i.e., indicating that he had separated from Employer B by mutual agreement due to poor
performance rather than being fired and failing to disclose the November 2021 bankruptcy petition
while disclosing that he filed for bankruptcy protection in February 2022, I find that the
Individual’s correction of the inaccurate information to the investigator was sufficiently prompt to
mitigate the security concerns under the first mitigating condition. Id. at ¶ 17(a); see also 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.7(c) (requiring consideration of, among other things, the “nature, extent, and seriousness of
the conduct” in applying the Adjudicative Guidelines).
However, the Individual did not correct his failure to disclose his significant financial
delinquencies or the criminal conduct he failed to disclose on the QNSP until after being
confronted by the investigator.3 Accordingly, the Individual has not established the applicability
of the first mitigating condition with respect to those omissions from the QNSP. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 17(a).
The second mitigating condition is irrelevant to the facts of this case because the Individual does
not assert that he relied on the advice of counsel or another representative in completing the QNSP.
Id. at ¶ 17(b).
I find the third mitigating condition inapplicable to the Individual’s omissions on the QNSP
because of the significant and voluminous nature of his omissions. If the LSO had relied on the
Individual’s assertions related to his financial situation, it might have assumed that his delinquent
debts were resolved through the February 2022 bankruptcy proceeding and failed to recognize the
significant, ongoing financial issues that presented security concerns under Guideline F. Moreover,
the scale of the Individual’s omissions related to his criminal conduct, which included offenses
more recent than the 2009 DUI he disclosed, and his admission at the hearing that he omitted
3 Although the Individual was not directly “confronted” by the investigator with the Theft charge, I find that the
Individual did not make good faith efforts to reveal this undisclosed charge because he only admitted to it after
questioning by the investigator as to the circumstances that led to his arrest in 2023. However, even if the Individual
had mitigated the security concerns presented by the omission of his Theft charge from the QNSP, it would not affect
my determination that the Individual failed to resolve the security concerns under Guideline E because of the
voluminous unresolved disclosures related to the Individual’s financial delinquencies and criminal conduct.
- 11 -
offenses he knew he was required to disclose because he could not recall the precise dates or
circumstances of the offenses leave me to conclude that he acted with the intention of concealing
the full extent of his criminal record. This intentional deception is not minor and reflects negatively
on the Individual’s trustworthiness. Considering that the Individual’s omissions persisted until he
was confronted by the investigator, and that he has not identified any unusual circumstances that
would justify his conduct, I find the third mitigating condition inapplicable to the omissions. Id. at
¶ 17(c).
The remaining mitigating conditions under Guideline E are irrelevant to the facts of this case. The
Individual does not assert that he has participated in any counseling. Id. at ¶ 17(d). The LSO did
not allege any conduct by the Individual that would place him at special risk of exploitation,
manipulation, or duress, nor did the LSO rely on any sources of questionable reliability. Id. at
¶ 17(e)‒(f). The LSO also did not allege that the Individual associated with persons engaged in
criminal conduct. Id. at ¶ 17(g).
Having concluded that none of the mitigating conditions resolve the Individual’s omissions on the
QNSP related to his financial delinquencies and criminal conduct, I find that the Individual has
not fully resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline E.
B. Guideline F
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline F include:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical
emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending
practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances;
(c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a
legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there
are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts;
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt
which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the
basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue;
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and,
- 12 -
(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay
the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20.
As the Individual provided no evidence that he had resolved his delinquent debts or that his
financial situation had stabilized, his financial difficulties may be ongoing, and I have no basis to
conclude that they happened “long ago.” Even with respect to his mortgage, which the Individual
claimed to have brought into a current status, the evidence submitted by the Individual indicates
that he did not accept the offer from the company servicing his mortgage in a timely manner, and
it is unclear whether the Individual is in fact current on the mortgage. While the Individual’s health
problems have exacerbated his financial difficulties, his financial difficulties predate those health
problems considering that he petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2015 and fell into delinquency
on numerous debts in the years following his Chapter 7 bankruptcy but before his health issues
arose. As the Individual’s financial difficulties are longstanding, predate his health issues, and are
presumably ongoing, I find the first mitigating condition inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 20(a).
As indicated, the Individual’s health problems were unquestionably problems beyond his control
that significantly contributed to his financial difficulties both with respect to the medical debts he
incurred, which were the majority of the delinquent debts he owed as of the May 2024 credit report,
and his periods of unemployment between the termination of his employment by Employer B and
his hiring by the DOE contractor. However, as noted above, the Individual’s financial difficulties
predated his documented health issues, and several of the delinquent debts on the Individual’s May
2024 credit report were referred to collections prior to 2020. Moreover, the Individual was still
employed by Employer B, and continued to be for over one year, after he filed for Chapter 13
bankruptcy in February 2022. Despite being employed by Employer B and benefiting from the
protection of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding, which together should have allowed him
ample opportunity to make progress in resolving his debts, the Individual voluntarily exited the
Chapter 13 bankruptcy in July 2022 once the threat of foreclosure of his home had subsided and
made no demonstrated efforts to pay his numerous delinquent consumer debts. Even since
obtaining steady employment with the DOE contractor, the Individual has made no progress in
resolving the delinquent consumer debts. The Individual’s delay in signing the offer from the
company servicing his mortgage to bring the debt current and avoid foreclosure until the eve of
the hearing, almost one month after the deadline for the Individual to return the accepted offer,
provides evidence that he continues not to act responsibly to manage his delinquent debts.
Considering the foregoing, I cannot conclude that, to the extent that the Individual’s delinquent
debts are attributable to his medical problems, he has acted responsibly under the circumstances.
Accordingly, I find the second mitigating condition inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 20(b).
The Individual brought forth no evidence of having entered into agreements to resolve debts with
any of his creditors, except for signing the offer from the company servicing his mortgage to bring
his mortgage current. Even with respect to that debt, the Individual accepted the offer after the
deadline, he provided no evidence of having returned the signed offer to the mortgage servicing
company, and he cannot demonstrate adherence to the updated mortgage payment schedule
contained in the offer because he only signed the agreement one day before the hearing.
Accordingly, I find the fourth mitigating condition inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 20(d).
- 13 -
The remaining mitigating conditions are irrelevant to the facts of this case. The Individual does
not claim to have pursued financial counseling. Id. at ¶ 20(c). Nor has he brought forth any
evidence of having a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of his debts. Id. at ¶ 20(e). The
LSO has also not alleged that the Individual displayed unexplained affluence or failed to comply
with his tax obligations. Id. at ¶ 20(f)‒(g).
Having concluded that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable to the facts of this case, I
find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline
F.
C. Guideline J
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline J include:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) the individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures are
no longer present in the person’s life;
(c) no reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; and
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the passage
of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with the terms
of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment record, or
constructive community involvement.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32.
With the exception of the 1996 Theft charge, all of the Individual’s criminal offenses from 2010
and earlier are mitigated pursuant to the first mitigating condition. Other than the Theft charge, all
of the Individual’s offenses from 2010 or earlier directly involved alcohol, except for the 2010
Driving with Suspended License offense which was indirectly related to alcohol because it was
preceded by the suspension of the Individual’s driver’s license due to the 2009 DUI. The Individual
has not been arrested or charged with an alcohol-related offense in over fifteen years. Moreover,
in light of the evidence he has submitted concerning the deterioration of his health, I accept his
representation that he no longer consumes alcohol. Considering the passage of over fifteen years
since the Individual’s most recent alcohol-related offense and the fact that he no longer consumes
alcohol, I find it highly improbable that he will commit alcohol-related offenses in the future. Thus,
I find the first mitigating condition applicable to the Individual’s 2010 and earlier criminal conduct,
with the exception of the 1996 Theft offense. Id. at ¶ 32(a).
The Individual’s 1996 Theft offense is not mitigated under the first mitigating condition because
he pleaded guilty to another Theft offense relatively recently in connection with the theft of
- 14 -
electronic equipment from Employer A. Stealing from one’s employer and selling the stolen goods
for personal gain presents extremely serious security concerns; if the Individual was willing to
steal electronic equipment from Employer A to sell, access to more valuable information and items
with DOE access authorization could foreseeably lead the Individual to repeat this conduct and
cause grave damage to national security. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring consideration of the
“nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct” in applying the Adjudicative Guidelines).
Considering the immediate and serious nature of the threat presented by a cleared individual’s theft
of goods or information, the fact that the Individual has been charged with Theft on multiple
occasions, and that his most recent Theft offense was relatively recent, I find the first mitigating
condition inapplicable to the Individual’s Theft offenses. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(a).
The second mitigating condition is irrelevant to the facts of this case because the Individual does
not allege that he was pressured or coerced into committing any unlawful conduct. Id. at ¶ 32(b).
Although the Individual denied that he intentionally stole the electronic equipment from Employer
A, and denied recollection of the details of the 1996 Theft offense which was dismissed, I find that
the concerns raised by these offenses are not mitigated under the third mitigating condition. The
criminal records obtained through the background investigation and the fact that the Individual
pleaded guilty to the 2022 Theft charge, combined with his unconvincing explanations for why he
believed that he was entitled to sell Employer A’s electronic equipment, lead me to conclude that
there is some reliable evidence that he committed the offense. Although the 1996 Theft charge was
dismissed, the reasons for the dismissal are unclear and the mere fact that the Individual was not
convicted does not establish that he did not commit the offense. Considering that the Individual
brought forward no information concerning the 1996 offense, and that he has pleaded guilty to a
more recent Theft offense, I do not find that he has brought forward sufficient evidence for me to
conclude that the third mitigating condition resolves that offense either. Id. at ¶ 32(c).
The Individual complied with a court’s order and paid restitution to Employer A related to the
2022 Theft charge. However, the Individual has not brought forward any other evidence of
rehabilitation and, considering the abovementioned serious concerns presented by a cleared
individual having a history of stealing and selling an employer’s property, I find that the evidence
of rehabilitation provided by the Individual’s payment of restitution is insufficient to overcome
the security concerns presented by his conduct. Id. at ¶ 32(d).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has only partially established the
applicability of the mitigating conditions and has not fully resolved the security concerns presented
by the LSO’s allegations under Guideline J.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines E, F, and J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. 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
find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to fully resolve the security
concerns asserted by the LSO. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual should not be
- 15 -
granted access authorization. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures
set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals