PSH-25-0171

*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: July 18, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0171
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: December 9, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, 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
On October 7, 2020, the Individual completed and signed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP) in connection with seeking access authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 6 at 72.2 The
Individual disclosed in the QNSP that he had not filed federal or state personal income tax returns
as required or paid federal or state personal income taxes for tax years 2018 and 2019. Id. at 60‒
61. On October 28, 2020, the Individual was interviewed by an investigator as part of a background
investigation into his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 8 at 161. The Individual told the
investigator that the unpaid taxes were related to payroll taxes for a business that the Individual
previously owned. Id. at 162‒63. The Individual disclosed that, in addition to not filing required
tax returns for the 2018 and 2019 tax years, he had also failed to file required tax returns for the
2017 tax year. Id. The Individual represented to the investigator that he was working with a
bookkeeper (Bookkeeper) to assist him in preparing his unfiled tax returns and developing a
payment plan to pay the back payroll taxes he owed. Id.
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 -
On March 30, 2021, the LSO issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory (First LOI) concerning
his financial situation. Ex. 7. In his response,3 the Individual indicated that he had not filed federal
or state personal income tax returns as required for tax years 2017 through 20194 and had not filed
“payroll taxes” for tax years 2017 through 2020. Id. at 75‒82. He claimed that the Bookkeeper was
“working on” his tax issues and that his tax returns for tax years 2017 through 2020 would be filed
“asap.”5 Id. at 77‒82. The Individual was subsequently granted access authorization.
In October 2024, the LSO received a personnel security information report revealing that the
Individual’s wages were being garnished to satisfy a civil judgment of nearly $60,000. See Ex. 3
at 10‒11 (describing the history of the review by the LSO of the Individual’s eligibility for access
authorization in a case evaluation sheet). Upon additional review, the LSO learned that, in addition
to the tax issues previously disclosed by the Individual, the Individual “was delinquent in filing
his 2012 to 2016 [s]tate and Federal taxes, and payroll for his company employees.” See id. at 10.
The LSO issued the Individual an LOI (Second LOI) in February 2025 concerning the new
information related to his financial situation. Ex. 5. In his response6 to the Second LOI, the
Individual did not respond to a question from the LSO concerning the status of his personal income
tax returns for tax years 2012 to 2016.7 Id. at 16. In response to a question concerning the status
of the payroll taxes for tax years 2012 through 2019, the Individual stated that they were “still in
the works.” Id. at 21‒22. Additionally, the Individual represented that he had filed federal and state
personal income tax returns for tax years 2023 and 2024 and that he owed approximately $10,000
in unpaid personal income taxes for tax year 2023. Id. at 21. However, in a May 2025 response to
a subsequent LOI (Third LOI), the Individual admitted that he had not yet filed his federal and
state personal income tax returns for the 2024 tax year. Ex. 4 at 13.
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 4‒6. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that
the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline F of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. Id. at 3.
3 As discussed infra, the Individual claimed that his wife submitted the response to the First LOI.
4 The Individual claimed that he had filed federal and state personal income tax returns for the 2020 tax year and did
not owe any unpaid personal income taxes for that tax year. Ex. 7 at 81.
5 Although not alleged as a security concern by the LSO, the Individual stated in response to the First LOI that he had
unresolved payroll taxes for the 2020 tax year. Ex. 7 at 77. As the LSO did not allege that the Individual’s compliance
with his obligations to file tax returns or pay taxes for the 2020 tax year presented security concerns, the 2020 payroll
taxes will not be discussed in this Decision.
6 As with the First LOI, the Individual claimed that his wife submitted the response to the Second LOI.
7 The specific question asked the Individual to confirm the accuracy of information obtained by the LSO concerning
delinquent debts owed by the Individual, the Individual’s federal and state personal income tax returns for 2012 to
2016, and the unpaid payroll taxes. Ex. 5 at 16. In his response, the Individual stated, “I was unaware of the collections
and the charge off. I will research this and get them paid.” Id. Thus, the Individual neither confirmed nor denied the
LSO’s allegation concerning his personal income tax returns for tax years 2012 through 2016.
- 3 -
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 11. 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 November 21, 2025. The LSO submitted nine exhibits (Ex. 1–9).8 The Individual submitted
nine exhibits (Ex. A‒I). The Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of his
daughter. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0171 (Tr.) at 3, 23, 34. The LSO did not
call any witnesses to testify.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 3.
“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 alleged that the Individual had
not filed federal or state personal income tax returns for tax years 2012 through 2019 and 2024
and that his failure to meet tax obligations persisted despite committing to resolving his tax issues
in response to the First LOI in 2021. Ex. 1 at 3. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual
demonstrated a history of not meeting financial obligations and failed to file Federal and state
personal income tax returns as required justify its invocation of Guideline F. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 19(c), (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 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”
8 The Individual objected to the admission of Ex. 4, Ex. 5, and Ex. 7 on the basis that his wife had written the responses
to the LOIs, signed them in his name, and submitted them to the LSO. Tr. at 8‒10; see also id. at 10 (stating that he
could not remember if he provided information to his wife to include in the responses to the LOIs and that he did not
remember reviewing the contents of the responses before they were submitted to the LSO); Ex. 9, Att. 14 at 4 (notes
of a representative of the LSO indicating that the Individual asked her to send the Third LOI to his wife in a phone
conversation and that the representative told the Individual that he could forward the email sent to his email address
containing the Third LOI to his wife). After the LSO submitted Ex. 9 following the hearing, the Individual was
provided an opportunity to respond and objected to the admission of Ex. 9 on the basis that it was submitted after the
hearing. I overruled each of the Individual’s objections. As an initial matter, there were no substantive indicia that the
Individual’s wife had completed or submitted Ex. 4, Ex. 5, or Ex. 7 as the Individual alleged, much less that she had
done so without his knowledge or input. As to Ex. 9, I authorized the LSO to submit the exhibit after the hearing to
help me evaluate the Individual’s claims with respect to Ex. 4, Ex. 5, and Ex. 7. Tr. at 11‒12. Moreover, the exhibits
in question were relevant and material and the Individual did not put forth sufficient basis to establish that exclusion
of the exhibits would be appropriate. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.26(h) (stating the standard for admission of exhibits in a
Part 710 proceeding).
- 4 -
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 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 Marriage and Disappearance of His Wife
The Individual and his wife married over twenty years ago. Tr. at 37. The Individual’s wife had
significant responsibility over managing household finances and the finances of a business owned
by the Individual. Id. at 36‒37, 39, 65; Ex. D (letter from Bookkeeper indicating that the
Individual’s wife had interacted with him regarding the couple’s tax returns). In 2025, the
Individual’s wife disappeared. Tr. at 25. As of the date of the hearing, the Individual’s wife
remained a missing person.9 Id. at 31.
B. Individual’s History of Failing to Meet His Tax Obligations
At some point in 2007 or 2008, a business owned by the Individual failed to pay approximately
$22,000 in federal and state payroll taxes. Ex. 8 at 162; see also id. (Individual attributing the
business’ inability to meet payroll tax obligations to clients failing to make payments for services
during the Great Recession). The Individual entered into payment plans to resolve the payroll tax
obligations but eventually fell out of compliance with those arrangements. Id. Additionally, the
Individual and his wife did not timely file federal or state personal income tax returns for tax years
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019. Tr. at 40‒44, 56; Ex. 7 at 75‒82.
On October 28, 2020, the Individual was interviewed by phone by an investigator as part of the
adjudication of his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 8 at 161. During the interview, the
Individual indicated that he had not filed federal personal income tax returns for tax years 2017,
2018, or 2019, and that his unpaid payroll taxes were not resolved. Id. at 161‒62. The Individual
told the investigator that “he began working with [the Bookkeeper]” to file his tax returns. Id. at
162‒63; see also Tr. at 68‒69 (testifying in the hearing that, although he did not remember the
details of the interview, his statements to the investigator would have had to have been about
personal income tax returns). He further estimated that he owed at least $58,000 in unpaid federal
and state taxes due to the accumulation of penalties and interest and stated that he intended to enter
into payment plans to resolve the unpaid taxes. Ex. 8 at 163. The Individual and the investigator
9 I have taken judicial notice of publicly available information concerning the disappearance of the Individual’s wife
and accept the Individual’s and his daughter’s account of the event.
- 5 -
did not discuss the Individual’s unfiled personal income tax returns for the years preceding 2017.
Id. at 162‒66.
In July 2021, the Bookkeeper prepared personal income tax returns for the Individual and his wife
for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014. Ex. D. However, the tax returns were never retrieved from the
Bookkeeper by the Individual or his wife. Id. According to the Bookkeeper, the Individual’s wife
“was to provide additional documentation to prepare the returns for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and
2019,” but failed to do so. Id.
The Individual did not pay his federal and state personal income taxes as required for tax years
2023 and 2024. Ex. 5 at 21. In the Individual’s response to the Second LOI, the Individual
estimated that he owed approximately $10,000 in unpaid personal income taxes for the 2023 tax
year and indicated that he did not know how much he owed for the 2024 tax year. Id. The Individual
also failed to timely pay local property taxes associated with a residence he owed. See Ex. C
(indicating that, as of 2025, the Individual owed $17,102.29 in unpaid property taxes).
C. Status of the Individual’s Tax Obligations
Based on the information provided by the Individual at the hearing, I conclude that he has neither
filed personal income tax returns nor paid personal income taxes for tax years 2012, 2013, 2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019. Tr. at 40‒44 (testifying that tax returns for these years were
either unfiled or that the status of the returns was unknown to him and that he had not paid personal
income taxes for any of the years); see also Tr. at 24, 44 (testimony of the Individual and his
daughter that, with the daughter’s assistance, the Individual electronically filed his personal
income tax returns for 2024); id. at 29 (testimony of the Individual’s daughter that she was
attempting to assist the Individual in setting up a payment plan but that the Individual was not on
a payment plan as of the date of the hearing). The Bookkeeper prepared federal personal income
tax returns for the Individual for tax years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2024. Ex. D; Ex. E; Ex. G; Ex.
H; Ex. I. Those tax returns indicate that the Individual owes over $7,000 in federal personal income
taxes for the four tax years. Ex. E at 2; Ex. G at 2; Ex. H at 2; Ex. I at 6; see also Tr. at 29
(Individual’s daughter estimating that he owed $6,000 in unpaid personal income taxes for the
2023 tax year). However, as the Individual did not present any evidence of having filed the tax
returns with the IRS or of the IRS having processed and approved the Individual’s calculation of
his tax obligations, I cannot conclude definitively how much the Individual owes in unpaid taxes
for those tax years. Moreover, the Individual admitted in his testimony that he does not know his
total unpaid tax obligations as the Bookkeeper has yet to prepare numerous tax returns for the
Individual. Tr. at 56.
Regarding the Individual’s property taxes, the Individual claimed to have fully resolved his unpaid
local property taxes. Id. at 58‒59. However, the Individual provided no evidence of having done
so and the documentation of his property tax obligations that he submitted into evidence showed
an unpaid balance of $17,102.29 as of the 2025 tax year. Ex. C. The Individual denied knowledge
of the status of his unpaid payroll taxes. Tr. at 65.
The Individual testified that he had taken a distribution of $25,000 from a retirement account with
the intention of using it to satisfy his tax obligations. Id. at 41. According to the Individual, he was
- 6 -
“waiting to see what the outcome [of the hearing] is” and would then “pay to what was going to
benefit [him in] keeping [his] job . . . .” Id. at 53.
D. Individual’s Knowledge of His Failure to Meet His Tax Obligations
The Individual claimed that his wife told him that the taxes were “completed, and [the Bookkeeper]
took care of that” prior to his receiving access authorization and that he never suspected otherwise
because he received access authorization. Id. at 45‒46. According to the Individual, he was
unaware of his unfiled personal income tax returns and the extent of his financial distress until
after his wife’s disappearance when he and his daughter reviewed emails and saw communications
related to the unpaid taxes. Id. at 45; see also id. at 27‒28 (corroborating testimony from the
Individual’s daughter). The Individual further claimed that his wife had completed the responses
to the LOIs, signed them in his name, and returned the responses to the LSO, and that he did not
recall whether she had consulted him about the responses before doing so. Id. at 38‒39; see also
id. at 9‒10 (making these claims in his objections to the LSO’s exhibits).
Records of the adjudication of the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization indicate that he
spoke with a representative of the LSO in February 2025 concerning the Second LOI and that he
said “he will be replying [to the Second LOI] as soon as he can.” Ex. 9, Attachment (Att.) 1. The
records also show that the response to the Second LOI was submitted from an email account
containing the Individual’s full name. Ex. 9, Att. 13. Considering that the Individual spoke to a
representative of the LSO about the Second LOI and that the response to the Second LOI was sent
from an email account attributable to the Individual, I find that there is no basis to conclude that
the Individual’s wife sent the response to the Second LOI without the Individual’s knowledge.
V. ANALYSIS
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;
- 7 -
(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,
(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.
The Individual’s failure to meet his tax obligations is longstanding and ongoing. The Individual
asserted that his wife managed the family’s financial matters, including filing tax returns and
paying taxes, that she misled him as to having resolved the tax issues after his interview with the
investigator, and that her conduct and subsequent disappearance constituted unusual
circumstances. As an initial matter, the Individual was made aware during the investigation of his
eligibility for access authorization that he was not in compliance with his personal income tax
obligations for numerous tax years in addition to his longstanding payroll tax issues. Assuming
that the Individual’s wife was responsible for financial matters as the Individual claims, he must
have been aware that she was not carrying out those responsibilities diligently at that time. Thus,
if the Individual was made aware during the investigation that his wife was not filing tax returns
as required, it would not be an unusual circumstance for her to continue to fail to file tax returns
after the investigation, and it would have been unreasonable and an exercise of poor judgment for
the Individual to have continued to defer management of the family’s taxes to his wife without any
involvement on his part. Moreover, considering the Individual’s statements to the investigator that
he was working with the Bookkeeper on his personal income tax returns and his documented phone
conversation with a representative of the LSO in February 2025 concerning the Second LOI, I do
not credit the Individual’s claim that he was entirely unaware of his tax situation until after his
wife’s disappearance as he claims. For these reasons, I find the first mitigating condition
inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 20(a).
The Individual’s payroll tax noncompliance may have been attributable to conditions beyond his
control at one time, though he brought forth no evidence to substantiate that his inability to meet
his payroll tax obligations was due to the Great Recession as he claimed. Even if he had, it is
apparent that the Individual has not acted reasonably under the circumstances given that over
fifteen years elapsed without the Individual resolving the situation and he is not on a payment plan
to resolve the unpaid taxes even now. As to his personal income tax returns, it was completely
within the Individual’s control to be knowledgeable about his financial situation and ensure that
his tax returns were timely filed annually. That the Individual might have chosen to defer this
responsibility to his wife, despite knowing that tax returns had not been filed as required in the
past, was not a situation beyond his control. Thus, the second mitigating condition is inapplicable.
Id. at ¶ 20(b).
The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth mitigating conditions are irrelevant to the facts of this case
because the Individual does not claim to have pursued financial counseling, the LSO did not allege
that the Individual owed delinquent private debts, the Individual does not have delinquent private
- 8 -
debts that he disputes that he owes, and the LSO did not allege that the Individual displayed
unexplained affluence. Id. at ¶ 20(c)‒(f).
While the Individual’s Bookkeeper prepared some tax returns for him, the Individual does not
claim to have filed all of his tax returns as required and has not produced IRS tax transcripts or
other acceptable evidence to show that he has filed any of the unfiled tax returns identified by the
LSO in the SSC. Moreover, the Individual does not claim to have resolved his unpaid taxes, or
even to know the total amount of unpaid taxes he owes, and has not produced any evidence of
having made any progress to pay his unpaid taxes. Accordingly, I find the seventh mitigating
condition inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 20(g).
For the aforementioned reasons, none of the mitigating conditions are applicable to the facts of
this case. Accordingly, I conclude 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 fully resolve the security
concerns asserted by the LSO. 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.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals