PSH-25-0118

*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 13, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0118
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: September 22, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Erin C. Weinstock, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (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’s access authorization should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 6.2 In January 2025, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for
National Security Positions (QNSP) in which he disclosed that he had failed to file his federal tax
return for tax years 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. Ex. 6 at 54–56. As a result of the Individual’s
disclosures, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued the Individual a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI),
which the Individual completed in February 2025. Ex. 5.
The LSO subsequently 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 5. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that
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 References to the Local Security Office’s (LSO) exhibits are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in
the top right corner of each exhibit page.
- 2 -
the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline F of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. Id.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. 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. The LSO
submitted six exhibits (Ex. 1–6). The Individual submitted thirteen exhibits (Ex. A–M). The
Individual testified on his own behalf. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0118 (Tr.).
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS
Guideline F, under which the LSO raised the security concerns, relates to security risks arising
from financial concerns. “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. In citing
Guideline F, the LSO relied upon the Individual’s admission that he had not filed his federal tax
returns for the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years. Ex. 1 at 5. The information cited by the LSO
justifies its invocation of Guideline F. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 19(f) (indicating that
“failure to file . . . annual Federal . . . tax returns” may raise a security concern under Guideline
F).
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 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
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). An individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting their eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. at
§ 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
- 3 -
When the Individual was supposed to file his federal tax return for 2019 in early 2020, he forgot
due to the chaos related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Tr. at 9. The next year, when he realized he
had not filed his 2019 tax return, the Individual did not file his 2019 or 2020 tax returns because it
was his understanding that he was not legally required to file a federal tax return if he would be
owed a tax refund. Id. He thought that failing to file his federal tax return just meant that he was
“forfeiting” his refund. Id. When it came time to file his 2023 federal tax return, the Individual
filed because he knew he would owe money because his wife began taking her Social Security
benefits. Id. at 10; Ex. G (tax compliance report showing that the Individual’s 2023 federal tax
return was timely filed). The Individual also filed his 2024 federal tax return in a timely fashion.
Ex. G (tax compliance report showing that the Individual’s 2024 federal tax return was timely
filed).
The Individual did not learn that he had a legal obligation to file a federal tax return each year until
he received notice that his security clearance was suspended on or about March 3, 2025. Tr. at 10.
The notice that his security clearance was suspended did not contain any information about why
his security clearance was suspended, but he decided to check the IRS website to confirm his
understanding about his federal tax obligations. Id. at 10–11. When he looked at the IRS website,
he learned that “any earnings over $15,000 and change per year requires [] filing federal income
tax [returns].” Id. at 11. He now understands that he has a legal obligation to file a federal tax
return if he earns more than that amount. Id.
After the Individual became aware of this obligation, he bought tax software that would help him
to file his federal tax returns for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. Id. at 11–12. The Individual testified
that he completed his federal tax returns and sent them to the IRS via certified mail on March 11,
2025. Id. at 12; Ex. A (completed 2019 federal tax return forms); Ex. B (completed 2020 federal
tax return forms); Ex. C (completed 2021 federal tax return forms); Ex. D (completed 2022 federal
tax return forms); Ex. E (certified mail receipt). Each of these federal tax returns was signed by
the Individual and his wife on March 10, 2025, and indicated that he did not owe any money to
the IRS. Ex. A; Ex. B; Ex. C; Ex. D. The tracking on the certified mail showed that the package
that the Individual indicated contained the federal tax returns was delivered to the IRS on March
15, 2025. Ex. F. The Individual submitted a tax compliance report from the IRS generated in
August 2025 that showed that he had properly filed his federal tax returns for tax years 2023 and
2024, that his 2022 federal tax return had been filed late, and that his 2021 federal tax return was
not on file. Ex. G.
V. ANALYSIS
An individual may be able to mitigate security concerns under Guideline F through the following
conditions:
a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or it happened under such
unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or 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
- 4 -
medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by 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 action to solve the
issue;
f) the affluence resulted from a legal form or income; and
g) the individual 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.
With regard to mitigating factor (a), the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns here
because he has not presented sufficient evidence that he actually filed his 2019 and 2020 federal
tax returns. While he provided copies of his completed tax returns for those two years, he did not
provide any kind of proof, for example tax transcripts, showing that the IRS received and processed
them. Without some kind of proof of those filings, I cannot conclude that the behavior alleged in
the SSC happened so long ago, was infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment. Therefore, the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns pursuant to mitigating
factor (a).
Even if I were to accept the Individual’s testimony that he did not file his federal tax return for
2019 in a timely fashion due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was a condition beyond his
control, I cannot say his subsequent failure to file for nearly five years was responsible behavior
under the circumstances. Additionally, I cannot say that the Individual’s lack of knowledge about
his federal tax obligations was a situation beyond his control that would excuse his failure to file
tax returns for four consecutive years. As such, the Individual has not mitigated the security
concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (b).
There is no indication that the Individual is receiving any kind of financial counseling, and,
therefore, mitigating factor (c) is inapplicable.
- 5 -
Mitigating factors (d), (e), and (f) do not apply here because there has not been any allegation that
the Individual had any kind of debt or unexplained affluence.
As I mentioned above, the Individual did not provide any evidence that the IRS received and
processed his federal tax returns for 2019 or 2020. Without some kind of documentation for these
years, I cannot find that the Individual has made arrangements to file his federal tax returns with
the appropriate authority. Therefore, the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns
pursuant to mitigating factor (g).
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO
under Guideline F.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guideline F 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 resolve the security concerns
set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Erin C. Weinstock
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals