PSH-26-0073

*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: March 18, 2026 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0073
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 12, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, 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 July 21, 2025, the Individual completed and signed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP) in connection with seeking access authorization related to his employment by a
DOE contractor. Exhibit (Ex.) 3 at 45. The Individual indicated on the QNSP that he had left a
position with his employer (Prior Employer) prior to the DOE contractor due to “no room for
advancement,” but also checked a box on the QNSP indicting that he had left the position
involuntarily on unfavorable terms. Id. at 19. The Individual checked a box marked “No” in
response to a question asking whether he had been “reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined for
misconduct” in connection with this employment. Id. In the section of the QNSP devoted to his
financial record, the Individual disclosed that he had not filed a Federal personal income tax return
for the 2018 tax year and estimated that he owed $40,000 in unpaid taxes for that tax year. Id. at
41. The Individual checked a box marked “No” in response to a question inquiring as to whether
he had any other instances of failing to file tax returns or pay taxes as required, and also checked
a box marked “No” in response to a question inquiring as to whether he had fallen into delinquency
on any debts in the prior seven years. Id. at 42.
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 -
As part of a background investigation of the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization, an
investigator contacted the Prior Employer which indicated that the Individual had been disciplined
on multiple occasions and that his employment was terminated for “falsifying his time report.” Id.
at 60. The investigator also obtained a copy of the Individual’s credit report (Credit Report) which
showed that the Individual had five debts, on which he owed a cumulative $42,663, referred to
collections. Id. at 70‒72.
The Individual was interviewed by an investigator on September 4, 2025, as part of the background
investigation. Id. at 51. During the interview, the Individual confirmed the accuracy of the
information he provided on the QNSP regarding his employment with the Prior Employer and lack
of delinquent debts. Id. at 51‒52, 55. The investigator then confronted the Individual with the
information obtained during the background investigation and the Individual admitted that he had
intentionally omitted the information from the QNSP. Id. at 53, 55. The Individual then
volunteered that he failed to file personal income tax returns or pay income taxes as required for
the 2023 and 2024 tax years. Id. at 56. In a December 10, 2025, response to a letter of interrogatory
(LOI) issued to him by the local security office (LSO), the Individual confirmed that his omissions
from the QNSP were intentional. Ex. 4 at 5.
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 1‒3. 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 4‒7.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative hearing. The LSO
submitted four exhibits (Ex. 1–4). The Individual submitted eleven exhibits (Ex. A‒K). The
Individual testified on his own behalf. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0073 (Tr.) at
6. 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 4‒
6. “Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any
failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative
or adjudicative processes.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. The SSC cited the Individual having
failed to disclose on the QNSP: (1) his termination and discipline by the Prior Employer; (2) his
failure to file personal income tax returns or pay personal income taxes for tax years 2023 and
2024; and (3) numerous delinquent financial accounts which were referred to collections and/or
- 3 -
charged off by the Individual’s creditors within the prior seven years.2 Ex. 1 at 4‒6. Additionally,
the LSO alleged that the Individual falsely denied being disciplined or terminated by the Prior
Employer or having fallen into delinquency on any debts in the prior seven years during the
interview with the investigator. Id. at 5‒6. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual deliberately
omitted, concealed, or falsified information on the QNSP and deliberately provided false or
misleading information to an investigator justify its invocation of Guideline E. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 16(a)‒(b).
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 personal income tax returns or pay personal income taxes as required
and the delinquent debts revealed during the background investigation on which the Individual
owed a cumulative balance of over $40,000. Ex. 1 at 6‒7. 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 personal income tax returns or pay 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
2 The SSC alleges that the Individual failed to disclose eleven financial delinquencies on the QNSP. Ex. 1 at 6. This
claim is inconsistent with the credit report obtained during the background investigation which shows only five such
debts. Ex. 3 at 73‒75. The credit report reflects several debts on which the Individual was thirty to sixty days late on
payments; however, the Individual was not required to report these untimely payments on the QNSP. Compare id. at
75‒77 (showing debts for which the Individual made late payments on the credit report) with Ex. 3 at 45‒46 (indicating
that the Individual was required to disclose debts for which he was over one hundred twenty days delinquent on the
QNSP). This apparent overcounting of the Individual’s delinquent debts, and thus his omissions on the QNSP, is of
no significance to my decision.
- 4 -
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 Employment History
The Individual was employed by the Prior Employer from April 2021 to May 2025. Ex. 3 at 18.
During this period, the Individual was issued a written warning for tardiness. Id. at 60. He was also
suspended for two weeks for failing to maintain a driver’s license which was required for his
position.3 Id. At some point in 2025, the Prior Employer investigated the Individual for time theft.
Id. at 62. Based on video footage reviewed during the investigation, the Prior Employer determined
that the Individual had falsified his timecard, and on that basis it terminated his employment. Id.
at 60, 62; see also Tr. at 19 (Individual testifying that he knowingly violated the Prior Employer’s
time and attendance policy). In June 2025, one month after his termination by the Prior Employer,
the Individual obtained employment with the DOE contractor. Ex. 3 at 17.
B. Individual’s Financial Difficulties
The Individual failed to timely file Federal or state personal income tax returns for tax years 2018,
2022, 2023, or 2024. Id. at 56; Tr. at 23, 25. The Individual failed to withhold sufficient taxes from
his paychecks and chose not to file tax returns because he “always owed taxes” and “just [could
not] afford to pay the money that [he] owe[d] . . . .” Tr. at 28; see also Ex. A at 4 (Federal tax
return prepared by the Individual for 2022 showing that he owed $4,784 in unpaid taxes); Ex. B at
4‒5 (state tax return prepared by the Individual for 2022 showing that he owed $227 in taxes); Ex.
C at 3 (Federal tax return prepared by the Individual for 2023 showing that he owed $3,539 in
taxes); Ex. D at 4 (state tax return prepared by the Individual for 2023 showing that he owed $269
in taxes).
In 2022 or 2023, the Individual purchased a timeshare at a vacation destination. Ex. 3 at 57. The
Individual also took international vacations in 2019, 2022, and 2023. Id. at 54‒55. From 2023 to
2024, the Individual opened at least four credit cards to pay household bills. Id. at 56‒57. Over the
ensuing months, the Individual fell behind on payments on each of the credit cards and eventually
stopped making payments altogether. Id. The Individual’s creditors then referred the delinquent
debts to collections. Id. at 56‒57, 70‒71.
C. The QNSP and Background Investigation
On July 21, 2025, the Individual completed and signed the QNSP. Id. at 48. As part of doing so,
the Individual certified that the answers he had provided therein were “true, complete, and correct
to the best of [his] knowledge and belief and [were] made in good faith.” Id.
3 The Individual held a commercial driver’s license which lapsed, and he did not timely obtain a personal driver’s
license. Tr. at 14‒17. As a result, he was not licensed to drive for a period of time and was disciplined by the Prior
Employer. Id.; Ex. 3 at 60.
- 5 -
In the section of the QNSP related to his employment history, the Individual disclosed his
employment with the Prior Employer. Id. at 18. The Individual checked a box marked “Yes” in
answer to a question asking if he had been “Fired,” “Quit after being told you would be fired,”
“Left by mutual agreement following charges or allegations of misconduct,” or “Left by mutual
agreement following notice of unsatisfactory performance.” Id. at 19. Despite answering yes to the
previous question, the Individual represented that he quit his position with the Prior Employer due
to “no room for advancement.” Id. The Individual also checked a box marked “No” in response to
a question asking whether he had “received a written warning, been officially reprimanded,
suspended, or disciplined for misconduct in the workplace” in the prior seven years. Id.
In the section of the QNSP related to his financial record, the Individual disclosed that he had
failed to file personal income tax returns or pay personal income taxes for the 2018 tax year. Id. at
41. The Individual estimated that he owed $40,000 in unpaid income taxes for that year. Id.; but
see Tr. at 28 (testifying at the hearing that $40,000 was a “[c]razy number” that he came up with
off of the “top of [his] head” when completing the QNSP and that he did not actually owe that
much). However, he checked a box marked “No” in answer to a question asking whether he had
failed to file any other tax returns or pay taxes as required in the prior seven years and did not
disclose his failure to comply with his tax obligations for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax years. Ex.
3 at 42.
The Individual also failed to disclose his delinquent debts as required. In answer to a question
asking whether he “had bills or debts turned over to a collection agency,” “had any account or
credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed,” or had “been over
120 days delinquent on any debt” in the prior seven years, the Individual checked a box marked
“No.” Id. at 42‒43.
As part of the background investigation into the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization,
an investigator contacted representatives of the Prior Employer who revealed the Individual’s
discipline and termination for falsification of his timecard. Id. at 60, 62. Additionally, the Credit
Report showed that the timeshare debt and the four aforementioned credit card debts, on which the
Individual owed a cumulative $42,663, had all been charged off or referred to collections by the
creditors. Id. at 70‒72. The Credit Report additionally showed that the Individual had fallen at
least thirty days behind on payments on seven other debts. Id. at 72‒74.
On September 4, 2025, the Individual met with an investigator for an interview under oath. Id. at
51. When asked about his employment with the Prior Employer, the Individual claimed that he
had “left the employment voluntarily,” “did not quit after being told [he] would be fired,” and
“accidentally selected the incorrect reason for leaving the employment on the [QNSP].” Id. The
investigator then asked the Individual to confirm that he had not been terminated from the
employment, that he had not been disciplined, and that he had not “experienced any issues at all
at the employment,” which the Individual claimed was correct. Id. at 52. The investigator gave the
Individual a final opportunity to correct these claims and reminded him that he was under oath, to
which the Individual denied that he had any reportable employment problems with the Prior
Employer. Id. The investigator then began confronting the Individual with each piece of derogatory
information obtained from the Prior Employer, one at a time, and provided the Individual an
opportunity to volunteer additional derogatory information after each piece of information. Id. at
- 6 -
52‒53. Each time, the Individual denied that he had any additional information to disclose, only
to be confronted with another piece of derogatory information provided by the Prior Employer. Id.
Ultimately, the Individual admitted to the accuracy of the information provided by the Prior
Employer and that he had not disclosed his discipline and termination for falsifying his timecard
due to shame. Id.; see also Tr. at 14 (testifying at the hearing that he intentionally provided false
information to the investigator because he was embarrassed and did not want the circumstances of
his termination by the Prior Employer to prevent him from obtaining the job with the DOE
contractor).
The investigator subsequently asked the Individual to confirm the accuracy of the financial
information that he disclosed on the QNSP. Ex. 3 at 55. The Individual denied that he had any
delinquent debts within the prior seven years to report and was then confronted by the investigator
with the delinquent debts reflected on the Credit Report. Id. at 55‒57. After being confronted, the
Individual admitted that he owed each of the debts and that they had fallen into delinquency. Id.
D. Individual’s Recent Efforts to Address His Financial Difficulties
On September 11, 2025, the Individual entered into an agreement with a debt consolidation
company to assist him in resolving his delinquent debts. Ex. H at 8. Pursuant to the agreement, the
Individual committed to make monthly $172.82 payments for thirty-six months, subject to change
based on the debts the Individual enrolled in the program with the debt consolidation company and
the results of the debt consolidation company’s negotiations with the Individual’s creditors. Id.
The agreement provided that the debt consolidation company would seek resolution of seven debts
on which the Individual owed a cumulative $14,284, including three of the credit card debts
identified on the Credit Report that fell into delinquency around 2024 and four additional debts
that subsequently fell into delinquency. Compare id. at 2 with Ex. 3 at 70‒72. The timeshare debt
reflected on the Credit Report was not included in the agreement with the debt consolidation
company. Compare Ex. H at 2 with Ex. 3 at 70‒72; Tr. at 31.
On December 10, 2025, the LSO issued the Individual the LOI. Ex. 4 at 1. In his response, the
Individual indicated that he had retained the debt consolidation company but had not yet resolved
any of the delinquent debts or filed any of his unfiled tax returns. Id. at 3‒4.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had not obtained his 2018 W2 and had no
recollection of having filed a personal income tax return for the 2018 tax year. Id. at 22‒24. The
Individual claimed that he had filed personal income tax returns for 2020 and 2021 but provided
no evidence of having done so. Id. at 25. As of the hearing date, the Individual had not filed
personal income tax returns for the 2022 or 2024 tax years. Id. at 25, 27; see also id. at 25
(testifying that he had prepared the 2022 tax returns but had not filed them because he could not
do so electronically and they would “have to be mailed”). The Individual filed his personal income
tax returns for 2023 and 2025. Id. at 26‒27; Ex. K attachment (att.) 1 (showing that the IRS had
received, but not yet processed, the Individual’s 2023 tax return); Ex. J att. 1‒4 (showing that the
Individual’s Federal and state personal income tax returns for the 2025 tax year had been received
and processed, and that the Individual was entitled to refunds).
- 7 -
The Individual estimated that he owed approximately $6,000 to $8,000 in Federal taxes “so far”
for the years he had filed. Tr. at 28. However, he admitted that he would not know how much he
owed until he filed all of his unfiled Federal and state tax returns. Id. at 29. The Individual testified
that he intended to set up payment plans after he determined his total tax liability. Id. at 8, 28‒29.
As of the hearing date, the debt consolidation company had negotiated settlements with some of
the Individual’s creditors and the Individual had made some payments towards satisfaction of
debts. Ex. I. However, the debt consolidation company had not yet negotiated agreements with all
of the creditors included in the agreement between the Individual and the debt consolidation
company. Tr. at 34; Ex. I (showing that one debt was “In Negotiations” and that other debts were
included in the agreement but not resolved). In addition, the Individual had not yet taken any action
to address the timeshare debt that was not included in the agreement with the debt consolidation
company. Tr. at 31.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline E
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline E include:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or
falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly
contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional
responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning
security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide
the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent,
or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the
behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or
factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior,
and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability; and
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased, or
occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations.
- 8 -
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
The investigator provided the Individual with numerous opportunities to reveal his omissions on
the QNSP prior to confronting him with the information uncovered during the investigation.
Despite this prompting from the investigator, the Individual continued to intentionally withhold
information he knew he was required to disclose. The first mitigating condition is not applicable.
Id. at ¶ 17(a).
The second mitigating condition is irrelevant because the Individual did not allege that he relied
on the advice of counsel or another representative in completing the QNSP or responding to
questions from the investigator. Id. at ¶ 17(b).
The Individual’s omissions on the QNSP and false statements to the investigator concerned prior
employment misconduct and significant financial liabilities, which are of significant importance
to the evaluation of the Individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, and willingness to
comply with rules and regulations. Considering the numerous opportunities the Individual was
provided to be forthcoming, his misrepresentations to the investigator were particularly flagrant
and indicative of a lack of trustworthiness. Thus, the conduct in question was not minor. The
Individual’s failure to truthfully disclose derogatory information occurred multiple times in the
past year and did not occur under any unusual circumstances. Accordingly, the third mitigating
condition is inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 17(c).
The Individual has admitted to his untruthfulness. However, he has not alleged that his behavior
is attributable to a cause that can be addressed through counseling and has not received any
counseling related to the untruthfulness. Therefore, the fourth mitigating condition is inapplicable.
Id. at ¶ 17(d).
The remaining mitigating conditions are not relevant to this case because the LSO did not allege
that the Individual engaged in activity that placed him at special risk of exploitation, manipulation,
or duress, did not rely on sources of questionable reliability, and did not allege that the Individual
associated with persons involved in criminal activities. Id. at ¶ 17(e)‒(g).
For the aforementioned reasons, 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;
- 9 -
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical
emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending
practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances;
(c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a
legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there
are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts;
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt
which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the
basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue;
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and,
(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 has not yet filed all of his outstanding tax returns, owes an unknown amount of
unpaid taxes, and has not taken any steps to resolve the delinquent timeshare debt. Since the
Individual’s failure to meet his financial obligations is ongoing, I cannot conclude that it is unlikely
to recur. Thus, the first mitigating condition is inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 20(a).
The Individual has not identified any event beyond his control that led to his financial
delinquencies; rather, it appears that the Individual lived beyond his means by taking on expenses
such as the timeshare debt. Even if the Individual had identified an extrinsic cause of his financial
difficulties that was outside of his control, the fact that the Individual has not yet taken any steps
to negotiate payment plans for his delinquent tax debt and the timeshare debt shows that he has
not acted responsibly under the circumstances. The second mitigating condition is inapplicable.
Id. at ¶ 20(b).
The third mitigating condition is inapplicable because the Individual does not claim to have
received financial counseling. He does not claim to have received financial counseling from the
debt consolidation company and even if he had I would conclude that this for-profit enterprise
hired by the Individual to negotiate debts on his behalf was not a credible source of financial
education. Furthermore, as described above, the Individual has not taken steps to resolve his most
significant financial delinquencies, and I cannot conclude that the problem is under control. Id. at
¶ 20(c).
- 10 -
While the Individual entered into payment arrangements with some of his creditors and has
provided evidence of adhering to those arrangements, I cannot conclude that the fourth mitigating
condition is applicable because the Individual has yet to take any action to resolve his largest
outstanding delinquent debt. As the timeshare debt, which is greater than the value of all of the
debts entered into the agreement with the debt consolidation company, is not being addressed, the
fourth mitigating condition is inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 20(d).
The fifth and sixth mitigating conditions are irrelevant because the Individual has not disputed the
delinquent debts cited by the LSO and the LSO did not allege that he displayed unexplained
affluence. Id. at ¶ 20(e)‒(f).
Finally, the seventh mitigating condition is not applicable because the Individual has not filed all
of his outstanding tax returns, does not know how much he owes in unpaid taxes, and has not taken
any actions to make arrangements to pay his unpaid taxes. Id. at ¶ 20(g).
For the aforementioned reasons, none of the mitigating conditions are applicable. Thus, 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.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals