[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-304553-105":53,"doc-detail-304553-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","administrative-judge-decision-case-no-psh-24-0001","Administrative Judge Decision - Case No. PSH-24-0001","","Administrative Judge Decision by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Hearings and Appeals in the matter of personnel security hearing, Case No. PSH-24-0001. The decision addresses the Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance under DOE regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 710). Based on background facts concerning derogatory financial information and concerns under Adjudicative Guidelines, the judge concludes that the Individual’s security clearance should not be granted.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/administrative-judge-decision-case-no-psh-24-0001/304553/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/administrative-judge-decision-case-no-psh-24-0001/304553.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Alex Sinclair","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-29","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":76},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What does this decision address?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"It addresses the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization (security clearance) under DOE regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 710.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"How was the administrative review initiated?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The Local Security Office issued a Notification Letter informing the Individual of substantial doubt and entitlement to a hearing before an Administrative Judge.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What is the outcome regarding the security clearance?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The Administrative Judge concludes that the Individual’s security clearance should not be granted.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},304553,1790506716,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":76,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":25,"language":135,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":139,"read_time":47},1099523882182,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","United States Department of Energy  \nOffice of Hearings and Appeals  \nIn the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )  \n)  \nFiling Date: October 3, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0001  \n)  \n  )  \nIssued: January 11, 2023  \nAdministrative Judge Decision  \nKristin L. Martin, Administrative Judge:  \nThis Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the Individual”) for access authorization under the Department of Energy ’s (DOE) regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710 , entitled, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material.”1 For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the Individual ’s security clearance should not be granted.  \nI. BACKGROUND  \nThe Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor in a position which requires that he hold a security clearance. Derogatory information was discovered regarding the Individual ’s finances. The Local Security Office (LSO) began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a Notification Letter to the Individual informing him that he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.  \nThe Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) . The Director of OHA appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e) and (g), the Individual testified on his own behalf. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-24-0001 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”) . The LSO submitted nine exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 9 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”) . The Individual submitted 27 exhibits, marked with letters, starting with Exhibit A.  \n1 Under the regulations,“‘[a]ccess authorization’ means 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.  \n§ 710.5(a) . Such authorization will also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.  \nII. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS  \nAs indicated above, the Notification Letter and the attached Summary of Security Concerns informed the Individual that information in the possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance. That information pertains to Guidelines E and F of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position, effective June 8, 2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines) . These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7.  \nGuideline E states that:  \nConduct 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.  \nAdjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. Conditions that could raise a security concern include:  \n(a) Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;  \n(b) Deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer","cbCaieHmdtRpSOj7","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaieHmdtRpSOj7","pdf",203206,"English","# Administrative Judge Decision\n## Background\n## The Notification Letter and the Associated Security Concerns","[{\"question\":\"What does this decision address?\",\"answer\":\"It addresses the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization (security clearance) under DOE regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 710.\"},{\"question\":\"How was the administrative review initiated?\",\"answer\":\"The Local Security Office issued a Notification Letter informing the Individual of substantial doubt and entitlement to a hearing before an Administrative Judge.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the outcome regarding the security clearance?\",\"answer\":\"The Administrative Judge concludes that the Individual’s security clearance should not be granted.\"}]","Administrative Judge Decision - Case No. PSH-24-0001 | PDF",1789814802]