PSH-25-0191

*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: August 20, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0191
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 1, 2026
____________________________
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 should not be granted access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 2, 2024, the Individual completed and signed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP) in connection with seeking access authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 7 at 102.2 In the
QNSP, the Individual disclosed that he had not filed personal income tax returns as required for
tax years 2019 and 2021. Id. at 96. The Individual additionally disclosed that he owed a $2,500
debt that had been turned over to a collection agency. Id. at 98. He checked boxes marked “No” in
response to questions asking whether, in the prior seven years, he had failed to file tax returns or
pay taxes, or had fallen into delinquency involving routine financial accounts, in any instances
besides those he disclosed. Id. at 96, 98‒99. The Individual also checked a box marked “No” in
response to a question concerning whether he had “EVER been charged with an offense involving
alcohol or drugs.” Id. at 92 (emphasis in original).
As part of a background investigation into the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization, the
Office of Personnel Management obtained a credit report (Credit Report) for the Individual in
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 -
January 2024. Ex. 5. The Credit Report revealed numerous delinquent debts from the prior seven
years that had been referred to collections or charged off by creditors but which the Individual had
failed to disclose on the QNSP. Id. at 26‒27. The Credit Report additionally revealed that the
Individual had a vehicle repossessed by a lender and that three other debts owed by the Individual
had fallen one hundred twenty or more days past due, none of which information had been
disclosed by the Individual on the QNSP. Id. at 28‒29. A review of criminal records as part of the
background investigation additionally revealed that the Individual had been arrested and charged
with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in 2011 and 2022. Ex. 9 at 207‒08.
The Individual was interviewed by an investigator on January 18, 2024, as part of the background
investigation. Id. at 178. During the interview, the Individual admitted that he had not filed
personal income tax returns for tax years 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022. Id. at 184. In June 2025, 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. In response to a question on the LOI concerning whether he had filed his 2023
and 2024 personal income tax returns, the Individual stated that he “plan[ned] on filing all [his]
taxes simultaneously.” Id. at 36.
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 7‒9. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that
the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines E and F of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. Id. at 5‒6.
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
in April 2026. The LSO submitted nine exhibits (Ex. 1–9). The Individual submitted three exhibits
(Ex. A‒C). The Individual testified on his own behalf. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-
25-0191 (Tr.) at 3, 11. 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’s failure
to disclose on the QNSP: (1) having been arrested and charged with DUI on two occasions; (2)
having failed to file personal income tax returns for tax years 2020 and 2022; and (3) five
delinquent financial accounts referred to collections and/or charged off by the creditor and four
financial accounts on which the Individual fell one hundred twenty or more days behind on
payments, including an auto loan that resulted in the repossession of the vehicle. Ex. 1 at 5‒6. The
- 3 -
LSO’s allegations that the Individual deliberately omitted, concealed, or falsified information on
the QNSP justify its invocation of Guideline E. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(a).
The LSO also cited Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as
another basis for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization.
Ex. 1 at 6. “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 failure to file Federal personal income tax returns or pay Federal personal income
taxes for tax years 2019 through 2024 and six delinquent debts on which the LSO estimated that
the Individual owed a cumulative $28,516. Ex. 1 at 6‒7. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual
demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, demonstrated a history of not meeting
financial obligations, and failed to file Federal personal income tax returns or pay Federal personal
income taxes as required justify its invocation of Guideline F. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 19(a)‒
(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”
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
- 4 -
A. Individual’s Arrests for DUI
In 2011, while serving in a branch of the U.S. military in a foreign country, the Individual was
arrested and charged with DUI. Ex. 9 at 209. The Individual was subjected to military discipline
as a result of the DUI. Id. at 183, 209‒11.
The Individual was arrested and charged with DUI again in 2022.3 Id. at 212‒13. The Individual
pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of Reckless Driving to resolve the 2022 DUI charge. Id. at 213.
In his 2024 interview with an investigator, the Individual admitted that he was charged with DUI
in 2022. Id. at 183. The Individual claimed to the investigator that another driver “ran [him] off
the side of the road” while he was driving, a friend “came and picked [him] up,” and he was
arrested and charged with DUI when he later returned to the vehicle to wait for a tow truck. Id. At
the hearing, the Individual claimed that he “misspoke” to the investigator, that he was a passenger
in a vehicle driven by a friend when the vehicle was run off the road, the friend went “to get help,”
and the Individual was arrested and ultimately convicted of reckless driving despite having only
been a passenger. Id. at 60‒63.
B. Individual’s Divorce and Financial Difficulties
At some point after 2017, a creditor charged off a credit card debt on which the Individual owed
$2,117. Tr. at 39; Ex. 5 at 27. A notation on the Credit Report obtained during the background
investigation of the Individual indicates that the Individual had fallen one hundred fifty days past
due on payments on the credit card prior to it being charged off by the creditor. Ex. 5 at 27.
In September 2019, the Individual and his wife, with whom he has several children, divorced. Ex.
9 at 151‒52, 157. In 2020, the Individual attempted to file a Federal personal income tax return for
the 2019 tax year in which he sought to claim the children he shared with his ex-wife as
dependents. Id. at 184. However, the IRS rejected the tax return because the Individual’s ex-wife
had already filed a personal income tax return in which she claimed the children as dependents.
Id. The Individual subsequently failed to file Federal personal income tax returns for tax years
2020 through 2024 due to “confusion” as to how to proceed.4 Id.; Ex. 6 at 36; Tr. at 18.
3 In his hearing testimony, the Individual represented that he had received “a ticket for reckless driving” and denied
that he was charged with DUI. Tr. at 13. He subsequently modified his testimony to indicate that he was charged with
“suspicion of DUI” only to then reverse himself and testify that he “was not charged with a DUI or a suspected DUI”
and then reverse himself again to indicate that “Yes. It was suspicion . . . of DUI.” Id. at 41‒42. Considering that the
law enforcement records obtained during the background investigation indicated that the Individual was charged with
DUI, and that the Individual admitted to the investigator that he had been charged with DUI in 2022, I do not credit
his inconsistent hearing claims. Infra pp. 6‒7.
4 At the hearing, the Individual offered an alternate explanation for his failure to timely file tax returns involving his
ex-wife having “swapped the . . . direct deposit information” associated with his IRS account resulting in the
Individual’s “taxes and stimulus checks [being] stolen” and expressed that he chose not to file tax returns in subsequent
years because he feared that she would, somehow, intercept tax refunds again. Tr. at 17, 19. I find it highly dubious
that the Individual’s ex-wife possessed the Individual’s IRS log-in credentials when the Individual sought to file his
2019 Federal personal income tax return in 2020, many months after their divorce was finalized, much less years after
- 5 -
The Individual took out two personal loans to pay legal fees associated with his divorce. Ex. 5 at
26‒27; Ex. 9 at 184‒85. In May 2020, the Individual was terminated from his job for failing to
comply with his employer’s time and attendance policies. Ex. 9 at 141‒42; see also id. at 179
(Individual alleging to an investigator that he was late to work on numerous occasions due to his
ex-wife being late to custody exchanges of their children, which prevented him from dropping the
children off at daycare in time to arrive at work at his start time). The Individual was unemployed
for two months before he obtained employment with the DOE contractor. Id. at 140‒41.
In 2021, one of the two personal loans the Individual took out in connection with his divorce, on
which he owed $3,199, was charged off by the creditor. Ex. 5 at 26; Ex. 9 at 184. Later that year,
the Individual fell one hundred twenty days past due on his mortgage payments. Ex. 5 at 28; Ex. 9
at 186; see also Ex. 9 at 186 (Individual representing to an investigator that he stopped making
payments on the mortgage pursuant to the forbearance provisions of the COVID-19 Relief Act).
In 2022, the Individual came to terms with his mortgage lender to bring his account current. Ex. 9
at 186; see also Ex. 5 at 28 (indicating that the Individual paid his mortgage as agreed as of the
January 2024 Credit Report).
In 2022, a lender repossessed a vehicle from the Individual after the Individual fell one hundred
twenty days past due on payments. Ex. 5 at 28; see also Ex. 9 at 186 (Individual claiming to an
investigator that his ex-wife had communicated with the lender and directed it to repossess the
vehicle to resolve the delinquency without the Individual’s consent). In 2023, a $668 debt owed
by the Individual to a telecommunication company, a $2,032 personal loan the Individual incurred
in connection with his divorce, and an unidentified third debt on which the Individual owed $3,198
were referred for collection. Ex. 5 at 27; see also Ex. 9 at 185 (Individual indicating to the
investigator that he did not know the source of the $3,198 debt). At some point after 2021, an auto
loan for a vehicle possessed by the Individual’s ex-wife, on which the Individual was a co-
borrower, was charged off by the creditor.5 Ex. 5 at 26; Ex. 9 at 185 (reflecting that the Individual
told an investigator that the vehicle was involved in an accident in 2021 and was “declared a total
loss” prior to falling into delinquency). The Individual additionally fell one hundred twenty days
behind on payments for a water softener installed in his residence, and a credit card, on which the
Individual owed $128, was closed by the creditor after the Individual fell more than one hundred
twenty days behind on payments. Ex. 5 at 28‒29; Ex. 9 at 186‒87; see also Ex. 6 at 52 (attributing
his delinquency on the debt for the water softener to believing his payments were “on auto-pay”
and only realizing that the payments were not being made when he received notice after more than
one hundred twenty days of non-payment).
C. The QNSP and Background Investigation
their divorce when the Individual had ample opportunity to change the credentials before filing tax returns for tax
years 2020 through 2024.
5 In his hearing testimony, the Individual represented that this debt fell into delinquency in 2019 or 2020. Tr. at 37.
Considering that his recollection of the delinquency was fresher when he was interviewed by an investigator in 2024,
I credit that account which indicated that the delinquency occurred after the 2021 accident. However, even if the debt
fell into delinquency earlier, it would make no difference to my determination in this case.
- 6 -
The Individual signed and submitted the QNSP on January 2, 2024. Ex. 7 at 102. As part of
completing the QNSP, the Individual certified that the contents thereof were “true, complete, and
correct to the best of [his] knowledge and belief and [were] made in good faith.” Id. The Individual
checked a box marked “No” on the QNSP in response to a question asking whether he had “EVER
been charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs” and did not disclose either of his DUI
charges. Id. at 92 (emphasis in original).
With respect to his tax filing history, the Individual disclosed that he had not filed Federal personal
income tax returns for the 2019 and 2021 tax years or paid Federal personal income taxes for the
2019 tax year. Id. at 96. The Individual checked a box marked “No” in response to a question
concerning whether he had any other instances of having failed to file tax returns or pay taxes as
required and did not disclose his failure to file tax returns for the 2020 and 2022 tax years. Id. The
Individual represented on the QNSP that he would “fil[e] all [his] taxes this month 12/23.” Id.
Regarding delinquent financial accounts, the Individual disclosed one of his personal loans and
indicated that it was referred to collections in 2021.6 Id. at 98. On the QNSP, the Individual
attributed the cause of the delinquency to “COVID” and indicated that he was “trying to find out
who is in charge of payments for the loan.” Id. The Individual checked a box marked “No” in
response to a question asking, other than the delinquent debt he disclosed, whether he had any
possessions or property repossessed, had any debts turned over to a collection agency, had any
account suspended, charged off, or cancelled, for failure to pay, or had fallen over one hundred
twenty days delinquent on any debt. Id. at 99.
The Credit Report revealed that the Individual had failed to disclose numerous financial
delinquencies he was required to report on the QNSP. Ex. 5 at 26‒29. Additionally, law
enforcement records obtained as part of the background investigation revealed the DUI charges
that the Individual had failed to disclose on the QNSP. Ex. 9 at 207‒11.
On January 18, 2024, the Individual met with an investigator for an interview as part of the
background investigation. Id. at 178. The Individual denied having ever been charged with an
alcohol or drug related offense, after which the investigator confronted him with his two DUI
charges. Id. at 182‒83. The Individual acknowledged his 2011 DUI charge and claimed that he did
not report it on the QNSP because he had forgotten about it. Id. at 182; but see Tr. at 13 (claiming
at the hearing that he had omitted the 2011 DUI charge from the QNSP because he believed “10
years was the cutoff for [disclosing] information” and he “received a nonjudicial punishment . . .
[not] a DUI or something you [] receive in the [United] States”). Regarding the 2022 DUI charge,
the Individual represented that, because the charge had been reduced to Reckless Driving, he was
“unsure how to list” it on the QNSP and therefore did not disclose it. Ex. 9 at 183. At the hearing
6 Although the name of the creditor provided by the Individual on the QNSP does not correspond to the name of any
of the Individual’s creditors on the Credit Report, it is sufficiently clear from the amount of the debt the Individual
reported on the QNSP, the date in which the Individual represented that the debt was referred to collections, and the
Individual’s subsequent statements to the investigator that the Individual was disclosing one of the personal loans he
took out following his divorce. See Ex. 5 at 26 (indicating that one of the personal loans had a principal balance of
$2,500 and was charged off by the creditor in 2021); Ex. 7 at 98 (Individual’s disclosure on the QNSP that the loan
had a balance of $2,500 and fell into delinquency in 2021); Ex. 9 at 184‒85 (Individual’s statements to the investigator
indicating that he was trying to disclose one of the personal loans).
- 7 -
concerning this matter, the Individual changed his account and claimed that he had never been
charged with DUI in February 2022. Tr. at 13; supra note 3.
The Individual volunteered to the investigator that he had not filed personal income tax returns for
tax years 2019 through 2022 and represented that he omitted his failure to file a personal income
tax return for 2022 from the QNSP in error. Ex. 9 at 184; see also Tr. at 47‒48 (testifying that he
intended to disclose all of his unfiled tax returns and that his failure to do so was “a mistake”). The
Individual attributed his failure to file a Federal personal income tax return for tax year 2019 to
his return being rejected by the IRS and “confusion in how to file taxes.” Ex. 9 at 184. The
Individual told the investigator that he was “working with a tax professional” and would file his
tax returns in February 2024. Id.
Regarding his financial delinquencies, the Individual verified that he owed the personal loan debt
that he listed on the QNSP and represented that he was attempting to identify which institution
owned the debt so that he could make arrangements to pay. Id. The Individual denied that he had
any other financial delinquencies he was required to report on the QNSP and was then confronted
by the investigator with the information from the Credit Report. Id. The Individual indicated that
he did not believe that he was required to disclose the auto loan debt for which he was a co-
borrower with his ex-wife due to his ex-wife possessing the vehicle. Id. at 185. He denied
knowledge of the $3,198 debt and speculated that it was the personal loan he had disclosed on the
QNSP, denied knowledge of the credit card debt of $121, and represented that he had not disclosed
the debt to the telecommunications company because he did not believe that he owed the debt. Id.
at 185‒87. The Individual acknowledged the other delinquent debts and indicated that he omitted
them from the QNSP due to forgetting about them. Id.; see also Tr. at 56‒57 (attributing his failure
to disclose his delinquent debts to being “ill prepared” and not knowledgeable about his debts
rather than an intent to deceive). The Individual represented to the investigator that he was in the
process of selling his home and expected to be able to “clear all of his debt” with the proceeds. Ex.
9 at 187.
D. Individual’s Subsequent Efforts to Address His Financial Difficulties
In June 2025, over fifteen months after the Individual’s interview with the investigator, the LSO
issued the Individual the LOI. Ex. 6. In his June 12, 2025, response, the Individual admitted that
he had not filed personal income tax returns for tax years 2019 through 2024 and that he did not
know his outstanding tax liability. Id. at 35‒36. The Individual represented that he had retained
tax professionals to prepare and file his tax returns. Id. at 35.
Regarding his delinquent debts, the Individual asserted that he had hired a for-profit credit repair
company to dispute the debts listed on the Credit Report as having been referred to collections or
charged off by the creditor, with the exception of the debt to the telecommunications company
which he represented that he had paid in full. Id. at 37‒46. The Individual also represented that he
had paid the debt for the water softener and the credit card in full. Id. at 47‒49. The Individual
attributed his financial issues to his divorce and represented that his financial situation had since
stabilized. Id. at 50.
- 8 -
At the hearing, the Individual testified that, in approximately October 2025, he had filed Federal
personal income tax returns for tax years 2019 through 2024. Tr. at 11, 16. The Individual testified
that at least two of his tax returns had not been processed by the IRS and that he did not know how
much he owed in unpaid Federal personal income taxes but speculated that the amount was “in the
thousands.” Id. at 22‒23 (indicating that the IRS had not yet confirmed receipt of his 2019 tax
return and that his 2022 tax return was “pending” and not yet accepted by the IRS).
Regarding his delinquent debts, the Individual indicated that he was no longer working with the
credit repair company and had retained a financial professional to help him negotiate with his
creditors and dispute derogatory entries on his credit reports. Id. at 14. The Individual testified that
he had paid the telecommunications debt but provided no evidence of having done so. Id. at 49.
The Individual claimed to have disputed the auto loan debt for $15,470 but provided no evidence
of having done so and admitted that he was a co-signer on the debt with his ex-wife who he asserted
“should be settling that [debt].” Id. at 25‒26. The Individual claimed that he was in negotiations
to settle another debt reflected on the Credit Report for $3,199 but provided no evidence of the
negotiations. Id. at 28. Other debts the Individual acknowledged and expressed the intention to pay
but admitted he had not taken any steps to resolve as of the hearing date. Id. at 29‒30, 32‒33.
According to the Individual, his net pay is at least $2,700 every two weeks and he receives $4,100
monthly in disability payments from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Id. at 34; see
id. at 68 (indicating that he was receiving VA benefits at least as early as 2020). He does not
dispute that he has the financial resources to pay his debts; however, as of the date of the hearing,
he estimated that he had only about $4,000 in his bank account. Id. at 34‒35. The Individual
asserted that legal fees associated with child custody disputes with his ex-wife and the cost of
paying utility bills for two residences in 2024 when he was seeking to sell his primary residence
had impacted his ability to address his delinquent debts. Id. at 71‒72; but see id. at 35 (indicating
that he sold his home in April 2024 and received approximately $50,000 in profit).
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;
- 9 -
(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 Individual denied that he intentionally omitted derogatory information from the QNSP, instead
attributing his omissions to misunderstanding what he was expected to disclose regarding his DUI
arrests and negligently omitting financial information due to a lack of preparedness. The
Individual’s disclosure of his failure to file personal income tax returns for 2019 and 2021, but
omission of his failure to file for 2020 and 2022, seems to fit this explanation; it seems improbable
that a rational person seeking to intentionally mislead the LSO would disclose half of the years in
which he failed to file personal income tax returns.
On the other hand, the Individual’s explanations for his omission of his DUIs from the QNSP were
implausible and suggestive of bad faith. The Individual’s claim that he omitted the 2022 DUI
because he was not charged with DUI is directly contradicted by both the criminal records obtained
during the background investigation and the Individual’s statements to the investigator. Moreover,
the Individual’s attempts during the hearing to recharacterize the circumstances of his arrest,
denying even that he was driving the vehicle in question during the accident that precipitated his
arrest, directly contradicts what he told the investigator. Further, the Individual’s claim that he did
not believe he was required to disclose his 2011 DUI is unreasonable in light of the plain, emphatic
language of the QNSP that any alcohol-related charge, “EVER”, must be disclosed and his claim
that he forgot the charge is undercut by his various, conflicting explanations for why he did not
disclose the charge on the QNSP. With respect to the Individual’s delinquent debts, I find it
dubious that the Individual remembered a single delinquent debt from years prior to completing
the QNSP but forgot or negligently omitted numerous delinquent debts that were more recent
and/or larger. Unlike the Individual’s tax issues, where he disclosed half of the unfiled tax returns
and there was no distinction between the severity of the concerns presented by the unfiled tax
returns, the Individual’s disclosure of one of his older and smaller delinquent debts, while
concealing more recent and much larger debts, causes me to suspect that he intentionally
minimized the extent of his financial delinquencies when completing the QNSP rather than
negligently omitted debts. At a minimum, disclosing only a single delinquent debt was not
indicative of good faith considering the Individual’s testimony as to the extent of his financial
difficulties which demonstrates that he was aware he had much more extensive financial problems.
- 10 -
Considering the foregoing, I find it more likely that the Individual intentionally omitted some
information from the QNSP than that all of his omissions were unintentional.
Turning to the mitigating conditions, the Individual disclosed his failure to file personal income
tax returns as required for tax years 2020 and 2022 to the investigator before being confronted
with the facts. Accordingly, I find that the Individual’s omission of that information from the
QNSP is resolved pursuant to the first mitigating condition. Id. at ¶ 17(a).
However, the Individual was confronted by the investigator with his DUIs and undisclosed
delinquent debts. Thus, these omissions from the QNSP are not resolved pursuant to the first
mitigating condition. Id.
The second mitigating condition is irrelevant to the facts of this case because the Individual did
not allege that he relied on the advice of counsel or another person with professional
responsibilities for advising him in completing the QNSP. Id. at ¶ 17(b).
The Individual’s omissions on the QNSP were significant; indeed, had the LSO relied on the
Individual’s assertions without further investigation it would have failed to identify the
Individual’s lengthy history of failing to satisfy his debts that makes up a significant portion of the
allegations at issue in this proceeding under Guideline F. The Individual has not alleged that the
omissions occurred under unusual circumstances, and the Individual continued to offer implausible
explanations for his conduct, particularly with respect to the omission of the DUIs, during the
hearing. For these reasons, I find the third mitigating condition inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 17(c).
The remaining mitigating conditions are irrelevant to the facts of this case because the Individual
does not claim to have received counseling related to untruthfulness, the LSO did not allege that
the Individual engaged in conduct that placed him at special risk of exploitation, manipulation, or
duress, there is no dispute that the Individual omitted the alleged information from the QNSP, and
the LSO did not allege that the Individual associated with persons involved in criminal activity.
Id. at ¶ 17(d)‒(g).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable to the
facts of this case. Accordingly, the Individual has not 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
- 11 -
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,
(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.
By the Individual’s own admission, his failure to satisfy his financial obligations is ongoing.
Moreover, the Individual’s failure to meet financial obligations has persisted for years while he
has been steadily employed by a DOE contractor. Considering that the Individual has made
minimal, if any, progress, I cannot conclude that his financial difficulties are unlikely to recur or
do not cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. Id. at ¶ 20(a).
The Individual’s divorce was an event beyond his control that appears to have precipitated his
financial difficulties. However, the Individual has not shown that he has acted responsibly under
the circumstances. The Individual has been continuously employed by the DOE contractor for
nearly six years and receives significant VA disability benefits. As the Individual did not provide
financial records, it is impossible to meaningfully evaluate whether it would have been reasonable
to expect the Individual to fully resolve his debts in this time. However, it would unquestionably
have been reasonable to expect a person with the Individual’s income to have entered into payment
plans and made some progress towards resolving each of his delinquent debts during the multiple
years since he submitted the QNSP. The fact that the Individual has not amply demonstrates that
he did not act responsibly, and therefore that the second mitigating condition is inapplicable. Id. at
¶ 20(b).
The third mitigating condition is inapplicable because the Individual claimed to have engaged for-
profit financial service providers to help him challenge debts and negotiate settlements rather than
a reputable not-for-profit financial counseling service. Even if the Individual had represented that
he was receiving financial counseling from a reputable source, there is insufficient information in
the record concerning the nature and extent of the services for the third mitigating condition to be
- 12 -
applicable. Moreover, as described above, the Individual has not satisfied his delinquent debts or
made sufficient progress for me to conclude that the problem is under control. Id. at ¶ 20(c).
The Individual has neither initiated nor adhered to good-faith efforts to resolve debts. While the
Individual claimed that he has experienced difficulties identifying and contacting creditors, he
might have had better success by this time if he had acted promptly to resolve his debts rather than
delaying. The fourth mitigating condition is inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 20(d).
While the Individual alluded to having disputed some of his debts, he did not bring forth any
evidence of having done so or of having a legitimate basis to do so. To the contrary, the
Individual’s characterization of his “disputes” suggests that they are based on his personal sense
of what his ex-wife should be responsible for rather than a legitimate claim that he is not legally
responsible for the debts. Accordingly, the fifth mitigating condition is inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 20(e).
The sixth mitigating condition is irrelevant to the facts of this case because the LSO did not allege
that the Individual demonstrated unexplained affluence. Id. at ¶ 20(f).
The Individual claimed that he filed all required tax returns but admitted that two of them had not
yet been accepted by the IRS. By his own admission he owes thousands of dollars in unpaid
personal income taxes, he will not know the extent of his liability until some uncertain date in the
future when the IRS computes his tax liability, and thus he has not made any arrangements to pay
taxes or demonstrated compliance with those arrangements. I further note that, despite representing
to an investigator that he would file his personal income tax returns in February 2024, the
Individual delayed nearly two additional years before doing so. See infra p. 8. The Individual’s
procrastination and lack of urgency in addressing this matter both prevented him from bringing
forward evidence that might have addressed the security concerns and aggravated the seriousness
of the concerns presented by his lack of attention to his legal obligation to file tax returns and pay
taxes. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring consideration of, among other things, “the circumstances
surrounding the conduct,” “the frequency and recency of the conduct,” and “the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence” in applying the mitigating conditions). For the aforementioned
reasons, I find the seventh mitigating condition inapplicable. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20(g).
As the Individual’s financial difficulties remain ongoing and he has taken minimal action to
address them despite the apparent ability to do so, I find that none of the mitigating conditions are
applicable. Accordingly, 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 Guidelines E and 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 should not be
- 13 -
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