PSH-26-0041

*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: January 13, 2026 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0041
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 27, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 9, 2024, the Individual completed and signed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP) in connection with seeking access authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 4 at 68.2 Therein,
the Individual disclosed that she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and had debts discharged in 2018,
that she subsequently fell into delinquency on numerous debts on which she estimated that she
owed a cumulative $7,598, that she had a vehicle repossessed in January 2020, and that she failed
to file Federal and state personal income tax returns or pay Federal and state personal income taxes
as required for tax years 2021 and 2022. Id. at 58‒65. The Individual also disclosed having been
fired by several employers, including one by which she was employed from February to April
2022 (Employer A) and a second by which she was employed from October 2022 to January 2023
(Employer B). Id. at 37‒38, 40‒41. The Individual indicated that she was unsure why she was
terminated by Employer A but that she “believe[d]” it was due to “lack of work.” Id. at 41. The
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 local security office (LSO) submitted its exhibits in two PDF notebooks. This Decision cites to the pages in the
LSO’s exhibit notebooks in the order in which they appear in each notebook regardless of their internal pagination.
- 2 -
Individual stated that she was terminated by Employer B as a result of “multiple errors due to lack
of training.” Id. at 38.
A credit report obtained in January 2024 as part of a background investigation into the Individual’s
eligibility for access authorization showed that the Individual had ten accounts placed for
collections on which she cumulatively owed over $10,000. Id. at 165‒67. Employer A was
contacted as part of the investigation, and a representative of Employer A indicated that the
Individual’s employment was terminated as a result of the Individual having “attendance issues.”
Id. at 91. Employer B was also contacted and a representative indicated that the Individual was
fired for, among other things, playing games and texting on her phone during work hours, making
significant errors on assigned tasks despite training, and time and attendance issues. Id. at 96‒97.
During a March 2024 interview with an investigator, the Individual denied having engaged in the
actions cited by Employer A and Employer B for her termination. Id. at 73‒75.
In August 2024, the LSO issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory (LOI) concerning her
employment history and financial circumstances. Ex. 6. In a series of responses from August 2024
to January 2025, the Individual represented that she “never had any issues” with Employer A, that
the reasons provided by Employer B for her termination were inaccurate, that she had filed all
required tax returns, and that she was making progress towards resolving her delinquent debts. Ex.
7 at 5, 8, 90. However, the Individual did not pay the Federal and state personal income taxes she
owed. Id. at 90. Additionally, the LSO obtained an updated credit report for the Individual on
October 8, 2025, which showed that she had not resolved her delinquent debts and that additional
debts had fallen into delinquency during the course of the adjudication of her eligibility for access
authorization. Ex. 5 at 181‒84.
The LSO issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising her that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding her eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1
at 2‒4. 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. Ex. 2 at 6‒11.
The Individual exercised her right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 3. 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 eight exhibits (Exs. 1–8). The Individual submitted seven exhibits (Exs. A‒G)3. The
Individual testified on her own behalf. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0041 (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 one basis for its
substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 2 at 9‒11.
“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
3 The Individual’s exhibits have been lettered by replacing the provided numbers with their corresponding letter.
- 3 -
or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative
processes.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. The SSC cited the Individual having made
representations on the QNSP, to an investigator, and in response to the LOI concerning the
circumstances of the termination of her employment by Employer A and Employer B which were
inconsistent with the explanations provided by Employer A and Employer B during the
background investigation. Ex. 2 at 9‒11. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual deliberately
omitted, concealed, or falsified information on the QNSP and deliberately provided false or
misleading information concerning relevant facts to an investigator and security officials justify
its invocation of Guideline E. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(a)‒(b).
The LSO cited Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the other
basis for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 2
at 6‒9. “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
having filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2018, the repossession of her vehicle in 2020, nine
financial accounts the Individual had not resolved as of the October 2025 credit report, and the
Individual’s failure to timely file personal income tax returns or pay personal income taxes for the
2021 and 2022 tax years. Ex. 2 at 6‒9. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual demonstrated an
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, 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.
- 4 -
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Individual’s Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Subsequent Financial Delinquencies
In March 2018, the Individual and her then husband filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in anticipation
of a divorce. Ex. 5 at 181; see also Tr. at 22 (Individual testifying that she and her ex-husband
“just wanted to get rid of the debts and have a clean start to everything”). The Individual’s debts
were discharged through the bankruptcy proceeding, and she exited the bankruptcy in July 2018.
Ex. 5 at 181; Ex. 4 at 76 (Individual stating to an investigator that approximately $15,000 in debts
were discharged). The Individual’s divorce was finalized in February 2019. Ex. G.
In 2020, a vehicle the Individual had purchased was repossessed by the lender after the Individual
failed to make payments as agreed. Ex. 4 at 63; Ex. 5 at 185. The vehicle was auctioned and the
proceeds of the sale were sufficient to satisfy the unpaid balance owed by the Individual. Ex. 4 at
58; Ex. 5 at 185.
In October 2021, the Individual was fired from her job. Ex. 4 at 41‒42; see id. (Individual
representing that she was “[f]ired due to being unable to verify [her] time sheet because of lack of
internet”). The Individual was unemployed for approximately four months until she was hired by
Employer A in February 2022. Id. at 40. Employer A terminated the Individual’s employment
approximately two months later. Id. at 41. The Individual regained employment in May 2022 but
was terminated in July 2022 after calling out sick from work. Id. at 39. The Individual was hired
by Employer B in October 2022 and fired in January 2023. Id. at 37‒38.
Following her exit from Chapter 7 bankruptcy in July 2018 up to her submission of the QNSP, the
Individual had ten consumer debts referred to collections. Id. at 165‒67; see also id. at 77‒79
(Individual telling an investigator that the debts referred to collections included, among other
things, payday loans, credit card accounts, and utility bills). As of January 2024, when the
Individual submitted the QNSP, she owed a cumulative $12,198 on the aforementioned debts
referred to collections. Id. at 165‒67. In an interview with an investigator and her response to the
LOI, the Individual indicated that she was challenging one of the debts referred to collections but
acknowledged that she owed the others and attributed her inability to meet her financial obligations
to her unstable employment.4 Id. at 77‒79; Ex. 7 at 6‒8.
In her August 2024 response to the LOI, the Individual represented that she had a “verbal
agreement” to make $20 monthly payments for one debt “on a month to month basis,” and that she
was pursuing settlement arrangements with her other creditors. Ex. 7 at 10‒11. A personal financial
statement provided by the Individual in response to the LOI indicated that she had monthly net
income of $2,299.04 and that she would use this surplus to pay down her outstanding debts. Ex. 8
at 98. However, as of an October 8, 2025, credit report obtained by the LSO, the Individual had
resolved only two of her debts on which she owed a cumulative $1,519. Compare Ex. 4 at 165‒67
with Ex. 5 at 182‒84. The October 2025 credit report showed that two additional debts owed by
4 The Individual represented to the investigator that she was disputing a $4,578 debt to a landlord because, according
to her, the landlord had sought to charge her for renovations to the unit after she moved out. Ex. 4 at 77‒78. However,
in her response to the LOI the Individual admitted that the debt was actually for unpaid rent and that a judgment had
been entered against her in the amount of $4,979 for the unpaid rent and late fees. Ex. 7 at 6.
- 5 -
the Individual had been referred to collections since her January 2024 submission of the QNSP,
several collections accounts had been charged off by the Individual’s creditors, and the cumulative
balance of the Individual’s delinquent debts was $11,028. Ex. 5 at 182‒84.
As of the hearing date, the Individual claimed that she was continuing to pay $20 monthly to satisfy
the debt for which a judgment was issued against her but provided no documentation to support
having done so. Tr. at 17, 49. She further claimed that she had entered into a payment plan with
creditors for utility debts but had not made any payments towards those debts as of the hearing. Id.
at 18‒19. The Individual testified that she intended to pay off her delinquent debts but had been
unable to do so due to underemployment and expenses, such as new tires for her vehicle. Id. at 20,
24. According to the Individual, she paid any money remaining each month after meeting her
current obligations to her father, with whom she was residing, for room and board. Id. at 44.
B. Individual’s Non-Compliance with Tax Obligations
The Individual did not timely file Federal or state personal income tax returns for the 2021 and
2022 tax years. Ex. 4 at 59‒60 (indicating that she “forgot about taxes” after her divorce from her
ex-husband); Tr. at 10 (indicating that her ex-husband prepared the couple’s tax returns during
their marriage). The Individual filed the outstanding tax returns at some point in 2024; however,
she did not pay the Federal or state personal income taxes she owed. Tr. at 14; Ex. 7 at 8, 10
(indicating that the Individual owed $1,570 in unpaid state personal income taxes as of her August
2024 response to the LOI); Ex. 7 at 62 (containing a notice from the IRS that the Individual owed
$1,840.36 in personal income taxes for the 2021 tax year).
In March 2025, the IRS applied the Individual’s tax refund for the 2024 tax year to her unpaid tax
balance for the 2021 tax year, reducing it to $597.36. Ex. C. The Individual did not resolve her
unpaid taxes over the subsequent year and as of the date of the hearing she owed the remaining
balance for her 2021 Federal personal income taxes as well as $2,869 in state personal income
taxes. Tr. at 13‒14. The Individual testified at the hearing that she planned to use refunds from the
2025 tax year towards the unpaid taxes.5 Id. at 14.
C. The QNSP, Background Investigation, and Subsequent Development of the
Individual’s Employment History
The Individual completed the QNSP on January 9, 2024, and, as part of doing so, certified that her
statements therein were “true, complete, and correct to the best of [her] knowledge and belief and
[were] made in good faith.” Ex. 4 at 68. In the section of the QNSP concerning her employment
history, she represented that she did not know why she was fired by Employer A but that she
5 The Individual claimed at the hearing that her Federal tax refund for 2025 would be large enough to fully pay her
unpaid Federal personal income taxes for the 2021 tax year. Tr. at 14; see also Ex. A (Individual’s Federal personal
income tax return for the 2025 tax year in which she calculated her refund at $1,563). In her Federal personal income
tax return for 2021, the Individual calculated that she was entitled to a $268 refund. Ex. 7 at 38. However, the IRS
apparently determined that the Individual miscalculated because she was assessed unpaid taxes in the amount of
$1,840.36. Id. at 62. Considering the Individual’s previous miscalculation of her tax liability, I do not find her
calculation of her 2025 Federal personal income taxes sufficiently reliable to determine that she is due a refund
sufficiently large to pay her unpaid Federal personal income taxes.
- 6 -
“believe[d]” it was due to “lack of work” and that she had been fired by Employer B due to “lack
of training and multiple errors due to lack of training.” Id. at 38, 41.
In response to outreach as part of the investigation of the Individual’s eligibility for access
authorization, a manager with Employer A submitted a statement indicating that the Individual
“called in sick or with other issues almost 1/2 the time she was here” and that the Individual was
terminated because “[h]er personality didn’t mesh well with other co-workers and due to
attendance issues . . . .” Id. at 91. In an interview with an investigator, her response to the LOI, and
her hearing testimony, the Individual represented that she lacked sufficient work with Employer
A and denied knowledge of the reason for her termination. Id. at 75; Ex. 7 at 5; Tr. at 38‒39.
During the investigation, a manager provided a list of reasons for which the Individual was
terminated from her employment with Employer B. Ex. 4 at 96‒97. The list provided by the
manager included the Individual being “[m]ore than 15 minutes late to work on a continual basis”
even after having been warned and written up, doing her nails in the workspace while other
employees were working on tasks, making frequent production errors that resulted in delays to
Employer B’s operations and the purchase of additional materials, and playing games and
watching videos on personal and company electronic devices for hours at a time. Id.; see also id.
at 98‒102 (text messages documenting the Individual notifying a manager that she was unable to
come to work for various reasons on numerous occasions, the Individual being warned that further
tardiness would result in her termination, and the Individual failing to produce products as
directed). The manager speculated that the Individual had misrepresented her knowledge and
abilities during an interview with Employer B and stated that the Individual’s time and attendance
and performance had not improved after counseling and training. Id. at 96‒97.
In her interview with an investigator and her response to the LOI, the Individual characterized her
termination from Employer B as due to errors she made on the job which she attributed to a lack
of training on how to use Employer B’s equipment. Id. at 74; Ex. 7 at 5. The Individual claimed
that she had occasionally been late to work due to inclement weather but denied having been
“excessively tardy.” Ex. 4 at 74. She also acknowledged having watched online videos at work but
represented that they were instructional videos she was encouraged to watch to learn how to use
Employer B’s equipment. Id. at 73; Ex. 7 at 5. She also acknowledged having done her nails at
work but characterized this as an isolated event. Ex. 4 at 74. The Individual reiterated these claims
at the hearing, although she admitted to having logged into a video streaming service on one
occasion “to see the new movies and stuff [that had] come out . . . .” Tr. at 27‒36.
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;
- 7 -
(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.
While the Individual denied that she was untruthful about the circumstances of her separations
from Employer A and Employer B on the QNSP, in an interview with an investigator, and in
response to the LOI, I find otherwise. First, I note that from 2021 to 2023, the Individual was fired
by four employers as a result of concerns related to her time and attendance. I find it extremely
improbable that this pattern would have occurred if not as a result of the Individual’s behavior, or
that representatives of both Employer A and Employer B would have falsely cited to the
Individual’s attendance as a basis for her termination when contacted in connection with the
investigation. Moreover, Employer B provided contemporaneous text messages showing that,
contrary to the Individual’s claim to have been tardy only due to inclement weather, she cited
numerous excuses for repeatedly failing to report to work on time. Further, Employer B reported
counseling the Individual on numerous occasions and one of the text messages submitted by
Employer B explicitly warned the Individual that further tardiness would be grounds for
termination. Accordingly, I conclude that the Individual was fired by both Employer A and
Employer B for misconduct, she was aware of these bases for her termination, and she intentionally
sought to minimize these concerns in the QNSP, in her interview with the investigator, and in
response to the LOI.
Turning to the first mitigating condition, the Individual was confronted by the investigator with
information from Employer A and Employer B related to the circumstances of her terminations.
Accordingly, the first mitigating condition is inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 17(a).
- 8 -
The second mitigating condition is irrelevant because the Individual did not allege that she relied
on the advice of counsel or another representative in completing the QNSP or responding to
questions from the investigator or LSO. Id. at ¶ 17(b).
The concerns presented by the Individual’s misrepresentations are not grave, particularly since she
disclosed that she was fired by both Employer A and Employer B on the QNSP. However, what
would otherwise have been relatively minor concerns are magnified by the Individual repeatedly
seeking to misrepresent the circumstances of her terminations even after having been confronted
with the facts and persisting in her dubious claims even in her hearing testimony. See 10 C.F.R. §
710.7(c) (requiring consideration of, among other things, the “frequency and recency of the
conduct” and “the likelihood of continuation or recurrence”). Considering the Individual’s ongoing
denial of the reasons for her terminations from Employer A and Employer B, and the routine
circumstances under which she did so, I find that the third mitigating condition is inapplicable.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(c).
The fourth mitigating condition is inapplicable because the Individual has neither acknowledged
her untruthful statements nor claimed to have pursued counseling related to the behavior. Id. at
¶ 17(d).
The fifth mitigating condition is irrelevant to the facts of this case because the LSO did not allege
that the Individual engaged in conduct that placed her at special risk of exploitation, manipulation,
or duress. Id. at ¶ 17(e).
The sixth mitigating condition is inapplicable because Employer B’s claims regarding the basis
for the Individual’s termination were partially corroborated by text messages and, for the reasons
set forth above, I find Employer A’s and Employer B’s explanations for the Individual’s
terminations more credible than the Individual’s claims. Id. at ¶ 17(f).
The final mitigating condition is irrelevant because the LSO did not allege that the Individual
associated with persons engaged in criminal conduct. Id. at ¶ 17(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
- 9 -
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.
Id. at ¶ 20.
The Individual’s financial irresponsibility has occurred on an ongoing basis for many years. The
Individual fell into financial delinquency relatively quickly after exiting Chapter 7 bankruptcy and
her financial situation has not improved in any meaningful respect since that time. The majority of
the financial delinquencies identified at the time the Individual submitted the QNSP remain
unresolved, two additional debts were referred to collections since that time, and I have no reason
to believe that the Individual will avoid falling into delinquency on additional debts in the future.
The first mitigating condition is therefore inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 20(a).
While the Individual attributes some of her financial delinquencies to employment instability, her
own behavior is the cause of her employment difficulties. As noted above, the Individual’s time
and attendance issues have repeatedly resulted in her losing her job. Thus, while her financial
situation is likely somewhat attributable to her employment history, the conditions that led to her
difficulties were not outside of her control. Accordingly, the second mitigating condition is
inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 20(b).
The third mitigating condition is inapplicable because the Individual did not claim to have pursued
financial counseling from a reputable source and her financial difficulties are neither resolved nor
under control. Id. at ¶ 20(c).
While the Individual claims to have made some efforts to repay debts, she has provided no
evidence to corroborate these claims and by her own admission has not made any payments
towards other debts. Considering the Individual’s lengthy history of not meeting her financial
obligations, her testimony alone is far too little evidence to demonstrate the applicability of the
fourth mitigating condition. Id. at ¶ 20(d).
- 10 -
The Individual has brought forward no evidence related to disputing the legitimacy of her debts
and has admitted that most of the debts resulted from her falling behind on payments. The fifth
mitigating condition is therefore 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 final mitigating condition is not satisfied because the Individual admits that she has not paid
all Federal and state personal income taxes that she owes and has not made any arrangements to
do so. While she intends to use the proceeds of future tax refunds to meet her past due obligations,
this is far too speculative of a basis upon which to conclude that she has resolved the security
concerns related to her unpaid taxes considering her many years of having failed to pay and her
history of miscalculating her tax obligations. Id. at ¶ 20(g).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that none of the mitigating conditions under Guideline F
are applicable to the facts of this case. 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
granted access authorization. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures
set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals