Case No. VSO-0220, 27 DOE ¶ 82,783 (H.O. Adeyeye November 23, 1998)

For full history of this case, and links to other cases, click here.

* 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 XXXXXXX’s.

Novmeber 23, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Hearing Officer’s Opinion

Name of Case: Personnel Security Hearing

Date of Filing: July 6, 1998

Case Number: VSO-0220

This Opinion concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as the “individual” ) to hold an access authorization under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled “Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material.” A Department of Energy Operations Office (DOE Operations Office) suspended the individual’s access authorization under the provisions of Part 710. This Opinion considers whether, on the basis of the evidence and testimony presented in this proceeding, the individual’s access authorization should be restored. As set forth in the Opinion, I recommend that the individual’s security clearance not be restored.

I. Background

The provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 710 govern the eligibility of individuals who are employed by or are applicants for employment with DOE contractors, agents, DOE access permittees, and other persons designated by the Secretary of Energy for access to classified matter or special nuclear material. Part 710 generally provides that “[t]he decision as to access authorization is a comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all relevant information, favorable or unfavorable, as to whether the granting of access authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).

In this case, a DOE contractor requested the reinstatement of the individual’s access authorization in conjunction with his employment at a DOE facility. The individual had held a clearance previously while employed by another DOE contractor. However, that clearance was suspended as

a result of derogatory information about the individual that was derived from a background investigation. At the time of suspension, the DOE Operations Office had begun an administrative review of the individual’s case. The review process was not concluded because the individual’s employer no longer required that he hold a security clearance. As a result, the issues surrounding the derogatory information remained unresolved. Therefore, when the individual’s current employer requested access authorization for the individual, the DOE Operations Office issued a Notification Letter to the individual which specified the same derogatory information. That information is set forth in the Notification Letter, and is summarized below.

The Notification Letter states that the derogatory information regarding the individual falls within 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f) and (l). The DOE Operations Office invokes Criterion F, 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f), on the basis of its finding that the individual “has deliberately misrepresented, falsified, or omitted significant information from a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ), a personnel qualifications statement, or a personnel security interview.” In this regard, the Notification Letter contends that the individual: (1) failed to disclose a 1970 arrest on a 1981 PSQ; (2) failed to list a 1970 criminal charge on a 1988 PSQ; (3) failed to list a 1988 criminal charge on a 1988 PSQ; and (4) gave conflicting information about his past drug use in a 1991 PSI.

The DOE Operations Office also invokes Criterion L, 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l), on the basis of findings that the individual has “engaged in unusual conduct or is subject to circumstances which tend to show that [the individual is] not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to believe that [the individual] may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress, which may cause [the individual] to act contrary to the best interests of the national security.” In this regard, the Notification Letter describes three allegations against the individual: (1) that the individual elected to use drugs after signing a DOE Drug Certification, even though he was aware that drug use was against DOE policy; (2) that the individual engaged in a scheme to defraud an insurance company by having a friend steal his car and then reporting the car as stolen; and (3) that the individual stole tools from a previous employer.

In a letter to DOE Personnel Security, the individual exercised his right under Part 710 to request a hearing in this matter. 10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b). On July 9, 1998, I was appointed as Hearing Officer in this case. After conferring with the individual and the appointed DOE counsel, 10 C.F.R. § 710.24, I set a hearing date. At the hearing, the DOE counsel did not call any witnesses. The individual elected to call as witnesses his former attorney, a psychiatrist, two personal friends, and a former co-worker. The individual also testified. The transcript taken at the hearing shall be hereinafter cited as “Tr.” Various documents that were submitted by the DOE counsel and the individual during this proceeding constitute exhibits to the hearing transcript and shall be cited as “Ex.”

II. Analysis

A DOE administrative review proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 is not a criminal matter, in which the burden is on the government to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. SeePersonnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0078, 25 DOE ¶ 82,802 (1996). In this type of case, we apply a different standard designed to protect national security interests. A hearing is “for the purpose of affording the individual an opportunity of supporting his eligibility for access authorization.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b)(6). Once the DOE Operations Office has made a showing of derogatory information raising security concerns, the burden is on the individual to come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that restoring his access authorization “would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). This standard implies that there is a strong presumption against the granting or restoring of a security clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest” standard for the granting of 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), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).

I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions of the parties, the evidence presented and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing convened in this matter. In resolving the question of the individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided by the applicable factors prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c): the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the voluntariness of the participation; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; the likelihood of continuance or recurrence; and other relevant and material factors. After due deliberation, it is my opinion that the individual’s access authorization should not be restored since I am unable to conclude that such restoration would not endanger the common defense and security or would be clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). The specific findings that I make in support of this determination are discussed below.

A. Findings of Fact

The facts in this case are uncontested. The individual has been employed by various DOE contractors for the past 20 years. The DOE Operations Office conducted a background investigation of the individual in 1976 at the request of his then employer. Ex. 38; Ex. 15 at 4. In a 1976 PSQ, the individual indicated that he was arrested in 1970 and charged with a weapons violation and possession of narcotics, but the narcotics charge was dismissed. Ex. 38; Ex. 4; Tr. at 63. In his first personnel security interview (PSI), the individual also described a period of extensive drug use, terminating in 1971. Ex. 33. However, based upon a determination that six years of abstention was adequate evidence of rehabilitation, DOE granted his clearance in 1977. Ex. 33 at 3. At that time, the individual also signed a DOE Drug Certification, promising not to use drugs while holding a clearance. Ex. 35.

As part of a routine reinvestigation, the individual completed another PSQ in 1981. Ex. 32. However, he answered “no” when asked on the questionnaire if he had any previous arrests, detentions, or criminal charges filed against him. Ex. 32 at 4. In the following years, the individual’s marriage became troubled, and he and his wife attended counseling sessions. Tr. at 26, 41; Ex. 29. After the couple divorced, the individual used cocaine for a brief period. Tr. at 61. In 1988, the individual and his ex-wife engaged in an altercation in a public place, resulting in the ex- wife filing a charge of assault and battery against the individual. Ex. 29. The individual did not notify the DOE Operations Office or his employer of the charge filed against him, but his ex-wife notified the DOE Operations Office of the incident. Ex. 29 at 1, 3. Two months after the assault charges were filed, the individual completed another PSQ, and again failed to mention the assault charge. Tr. at 63; Ex. 30 at 4. At trial, the individual pled “no contest,” and charges were dismissed after he performed community service. Tr. at 38-40; Ex. 29. Around this time(1), someone stole the individual’s car, which the individual reported to his insurance company. Tr. at 68; Ex. 25 at 32-34. The individual accepted payment from the insurance company for the loss of his car, even though the individual believed that he knew who had stolen the car. Id. After an OPM investigation disclosed some derogatory information about the individual, the DOE conducted another PSI with the individual in 1991. Tr. at 66-72; Ex. 25 at 3. In that PSI, the individual admitted using drugs after his divorce. Ex. 25 at 22-25. In a 1998 PSI, the individual also admitted possessing drugs in 1994. Ex. 6 at 14.

B. Criterion L

Criterion L applies where an individual has “[e]ngaged in unusual conduct or is subject to any circumstances which tend to show that the individual is not honest, reliable or trustworthy; or may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress which might cause him to act contrary to the best interests of the national security.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8 (l). As explained below, I find that the individual has engaged in unusual conduct as described in Criterion L as regards his drug use and his actions surrounding the theft of his vehicle.

1. Violation of the DOE Drug Certification

According to the Notification Letter, the individual violated a Drug Certification by admittedly using cocaine and marijuana over an eight-week period in 1987 while holding a clearance. Ex. 1 at 4. These facts are not disputed. Such an action raises a serious question concerning his judgment and reliability. Even though the individual had signed the certification 10 years earlier, he testified that he was still aware that drug use was against DOE’s policy. Tr. at 61. He did not offer any mitigation for his behavior, testifying only that he was under stress and stopped using drugs when he realized that what he was doing was wrong. Tr. at 61. In addition, the violation was not a one- time occurrence. The individual also admitted to possessing marijuana in 1994, two years after his clearance had been suspended for drug use. Tr. at 60-63.

Although I applaud the individual’s honesty in admitting his mistake, I find no significant mitigating factors regarding his repeated violations of the Drug Certification. See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0155, 26 DOE ¶ 82,798 (1997) (self-disclosure of earlier involvement with illegal drugs does not mitigate a violation of a Drug Certification). Compare Personnel Security Hearing,Case No. VSO-0045, 25 DOE ¶ 82,774 (1995) (violation of Drug Certification mitigated by one-time occurrence). The individual’s actions have shown that the DOE Operations Office is justified in being concerned about his judgment and reliability. I find that the individual has engaged in conduct that tends to show that the individual is not reliable or trustworthy. Therefore, I conclude that the individual’s violation of the drug certification demonstrates that the DOE Operations Office properly relied on Criterion L in suspending the individual’s clearance.

2. Unauthorized Use of Company Property

The Notification Letter alleges that the individual admitted taking tools home from his job without permission, and that some of the tools may not have been returned. Ex. 1 at 4. If this were true, it would exhibit dishonest conduct. However, a review of the record shows that, contrary to the allegations in the Notification Letter, the individual at no time stated that he took his employer’s tools home without permission, nor did he definitively state that he ever retained any borrowed item. Transcript of May 1991 PSI at 31 (hereinafter cited as Ex. 25). In fact, the individual testified at the hearing that the allegations in the Notification Letter were not accurate.

Q. Once again, in the May 1991 PSI you admitted you took tools home from your employer?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. It also says that you took them without permission, Is that accurate?

A. No.

Tr. at 69.

The individual has thus consistently stated under oath that he did not take tools home without permission. See Tr. at 69; Ex. 19.; Ex. 25. In addition, he did not admit keeping any tools without authorization. In fact, the record indicates that he never failed to return any borrowed tools, but may have a kept a pencil or writing pad or similar item. Tr. at 70; Ex. 25 at 31; Ex. 19 at 3. The DOE Operations Office presented no documentary evidence or testimony to support the allegations in the Notification Letter. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the individual has engaged in unusual conduct by taking his employer’s tools home without permission.

3. The Stolen Car

According to the Notification Letter, the individual stated in a May 1991 PSI that a friend stole the individual’s antique car, and that the individual subsequently filed an insurance claim without telling the insurance company who took the car. Ex. 1 at 4. The Notification Letter further alleged that the individual was afraid that this “friend” would harm him if the individual told the insurance company who stole the car. The insurance company paid the individual for the loss of the car, and the individual never disclosed his suspicions about the fate of the car to the company. Id.

After a careful review of the record, I find no support for the DOE Operations Office’s allegations in the Notification Letter that the individual arranged the theft of his own car for monetary gain. The individual testified that he did not arrange to have the car stolen, did not see the car being stolen, and never saw the car after it was stolen. Tr. at 68-69. The individual indicated that he heard rumors after the theft that an acquaintance stole the car. Tr. at 58-59; 68. Given this clarification of the individual’s statements in the 1991 PSI, I have no evidence that the individual arranged the theft of his car.

However, there is testimony in the record that supports the DOE Operations Office’s security concerns that the individual engaged in unusual conduct with respect to the theft of his vehicle as described in Criterion L. The individual indicated in a 1991 PSI that he confronted the person he suspected, who then laughed at the individual and admitted having possession of the car. Ex. 25 at 34. In a later statement, the individual challenged the accuracy of the transcript of the 1991 PSI and declared that the suspect laughed at him during the confrontation, but denied having the car. Ex.19 at 3. No matter which account is true, I find it troubling that the individual felt so threatened by an acquaintance that he would not notify the insurance company or police department of his suspicions.(2)

The individual’s testimony about the incident raises questions about his judgment and reliability. Even though the individual did not arrange to have the car stolen, neither did he inform the insurance company of his sincere belief that the theft was suspicious. He also failed to inform the police of his suspicions. Tr. at 72. The individual was clearly so intimidated by the suspected thief that he admitted in the 1991 PSI that he was a “coward,” “embarrassed,” “ashamed,” and feared for his safety. Ex. 25 at 34. Coercion, in the form of intimidation by an acquaintance, caused the individual to act contrary to his own sense of proper behavior. This raises serious security concerns that the individual could also be coerced into activities that would compromise classified information. I find that the individual has engaged in unusual conduct regarding the theft of his car which furnishes reason to believe that he may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress which may cause him to act contrary to the best interests of the national security. Therefore, I find that the DOE Operations Office properly relied on Criterion L in suspending the individual’s clearance.

C. Criterion F

Criterion F concerns information that indicates an individual “[d]eliberately misrepresented, falsified, or omitted significant information” during an official inquiry concerning his eligibility for a clearance. Such information raises doubts about whether an individual should be entrusted with responsibility for safeguarding classified information or special nuclear material. For the reasons stated below, I find that the DOE Operations Office properly relied on Criterion F in suspending the individual’s clearance.

1. Opium Withdrawal

According to the Notification Letter, the individual stated in a 1991 PSI that he experienced withdrawal when he stopped using opium in 1970. Ex. 1. at 3. The Notification Letter alleged that this contradicted his statements in a 1977 PSI, where he denied going through withdrawal(3). After reviewing the record, I find that the individual did not deliberately misrepresent, falsify or omit significant information about his opium withdrawal during official inquiries about his clearance.

The individual used opium regularly for an eight week period in 1970. Tr. at 66. In a 1977 PSI, the individual stated that he did not suffer any withdrawal symptoms when he stopped using opium at the end of that period. Ex. 33 at 3. However, according to the Notification Letter, the individual indicated in 1991 that he “had experienced withdrawal when he stopped using the opium.” Ex. 1 at 4. After reviewing the 1991 PSI, I find no such statement that can be attributed to the individual. Rather, the individual indicated that when he felt himself becoming addicted to opium, he gave his remaining supply of opium to a friend and could not remember what happened during the next three weeks. Ex. 25 at 19. The DOE personnel security specialist asked the individual to describe what happened after giving away the opium:

Q. OK. Did you go through a treatment?

A. No. Did it myself. Just. . .

Q. Scary.

A. No, I don’t remember. That was the scary part.

Ex. 25 at 19.

I am not persuaded by the testimony above that the individual actually went through withdrawal. The record is not clear on whether the individual experienced a three-week blackout, which could be a symptom of withdrawal, or whether he merely had a vague recollection of events that occurred 20 years in the past. At the hearing, the individual testified that in 1970 he did go through a withdrawal period, although it was not a major withdrawal or a “major event” in his life. Tr. at 66- 67. This testimony clearly conflicts with the DOE Operations Office’s summary of the 1977 PSI. Nonetheless, I cannot conclude that the conflicts in the individual’s testimony were deliberate. The incident occurred 21 years before the PSI and 28 years before the hearing, and, according to the individual, was not a significant event in his life. Id. Thus, it is not unreasonable for the individual to have a limited recollection of what actually happened. See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0045, 25 DOE ¶ 82,774 (1995) ( passage of time was mitigating factor in individual’s faulty memory of non-traumatic event). Accordingly, I find that the individual did not deliberately misrepresent, falsify, or omit significant information from a PSI regarding the effects of discontinuing the use of opium.

2. Failure to List Previous Arrests on 1981 PSQ

The DOE Operations Office alleges that the individual did not list any criminal charges or arrests in a 1981 PSQ, despite having been arrested in 1970. Ex. 1 at 3. The individual, by way of explanation, testified that a DOE representative had advised him that he did not need to list an arrest that occurred 10 years ago. Tr. at 56-57. The record contains similar statements by the individual that he provided the DOE Operations Office with complete information on his arrest in 1976, was not aware that he needed to restate this information, and was not intentionally trying to hide his arrest. Ex. 19 at 2.

In 1976, the individual fully disclosed his 1970 arrest, and provided the DOE Operations Office a copy of the judgment. Ex. 38, 39. At this time, the individual had just begun working with a former employer, and may have needed the clearance to retain his position. Ex. 38 at 1. When he completed the 1981 PSQ in question, he still held a clearance and was still employed by the same company. Ex. 32. Thus, knowing that the DOE Operations Office and his employer were already aware of his criminal record, it is not likely that the individual would have anything to gain from deliberately omitting such significant information on his PSQ. Therefore, even though I am not persuaded by the individual’s statement that a DOE representative told him in 1981 that he was not required to disclose a 10-year old criminal charge, I cannot find that he deliberately omitted significant information about his criminal record. Criterion F applies only to omissions that are deliberate and involve significant information. Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0121, 26 DOE ¶ 82,775 (1997). I find that, although the information was significant, the omission was not deliberate. Therefore, I conclude that the individual’s action did not create a security concern under Criterion F.

3. Failure to Disclose A Dismissed Criminal Charge on 1988 PSQ

The DOE Operations Office also alleged that the individual did not list a 1970 charge for the possession of narcotics(4) on his 1988 PSQ, even though he had documented the charge on a 1976 PSQ. Ex. 1 at 3. See also Section II. A. In the record, the individual indicated that his memory of the narcotics charge was not clear after twenty years, and thought that it may have been dismissed. Ex. 19 at 2. At the hearing, the individual testified that he did not disclose the narcotics charge on his 1988 PSQ because the charge was dropped prior to trial. Tr. at 63. However, when DOE counsel pointed out to the individual that the PSQ question actually asks respondents to list all charges and arrests, even if dismissed, the individual said that he made a “human error” and “he was not intentionally trying to hide” what he had revealed to the DOE Operations Office in the past. Tr. at 64-65. After reviewing the record, I find that the individual did not deliberately misrepresent, falsify, or omit significant information regarding the narcotics charge from the 1988 PSQ.

The individual made full disclosure of his 1970 arrest on two criminal charges on his 1976 PSQ, the first security document that he completed in his pursuit of a clearance. Ex. 38. Were he trying to deliberately omit or misrepresent his past criminal record, such an action would be more likely to occur at his initial foray into the security system, not 12 years later when he was already holding a clearance. Thus, the record indicates that the individual displayed honesty in disclosing the arrest when first requested, at a time when he did not hold a clearance and may have needed one to keep his job. I also found the individual’s hearing testimony on this issue to be credible. Rather than concoct elaborate excuses for not providing this information on the 1988 PSQ, the individual testified frankly that he made an error in not reading the question closely and presumed that he did not have to provide the same information again. Tr. at 65. Therefore, I conclude that the individual did not deliberately misrepresent, falsify, or omit significant information about the narcotics charge during an official inquiry concerning his eligibility for a clearance.

4. Failure to Disclose 1988 Assault Charge on 1988 PSQ

The DOE Operations Office alleges that the individual failed to disclose on his 1988 PSQ a criminal assault charge filed against him two months prior to completing the PSQ. Ex. 1 at 3. The individual claimed that he did not list the charge because he was never arrested, and the PSQ question specifically asks the respondent to list arrests. Tr. at 37; Tr. at 65-66. I find that the individual deliberately omitted significant information about a recent criminal charge on a PSQ during an official inquiry.

The individual testified at the hearing that even though he received a summons on the charge, he did not think that the question applied to him because he was never arrested, he did not know what the fine would be, and he had not yet gone to trial. Tr. at 65-66. All of these statements may be true, but after reviewing the record, and taking into account the fact that the individual had held a clearance for over 10 years, I find these responses to be disingenuous.

At the hearing, the individual went to great lengths to explain that he did not disclose the 1988 assault charge because he was not arrested or detained, and because the PSQ solicits information about arrests. Tr. at 38; Tr. at 65-66. He also did not recollect if he was informed of the charges prior to his trial later that year. He acknowledged that someone from the court telephoned him, but was not sure when he received that call. Tr. at 38. However, in 1991, the individual stated that “a couple of days after the incident, I got a letter from the police department that I was being charged with assault and battery.” Ex. 25 at 4-6 (emphasis added). The individual’s former attorney testified that, to the best of his knowledge, the court issued a summons, and the individual, accompanied by his attorney, entered a plea at the courthouse. Tr. at 37-38. Most importantly, the attorney also testified that summonses are issued “fairly quickly” in misdemeanor cases, and therefore the individual should have been aware of the charge very soon after it was filed. Tr. at 43-44. In fact, he also stated that it would be very unusual if the court had not called the individual about the summons within two weeks. Id. This corroborates the individual’s 1991 statement that the court called him soon after the incident occurred. Thus, according to the attorney, the individual should have been aware of the charge prior to his 1988 PSI. Tr. at 44-45.

Based on the testimony at the hearing, and evidence in the record, I find that the individual deliberately omitted significant information from his PSI regarding the criminal assault charge. First, even though the individual did not remember the incident well at the hearing, the individual stated in 1991 that he was notified of the charges soon after they were filed. Second, after holding a clearance for 10 years, the individual should have recognized that DOE security would consider the altercation, the summons for a criminal charge, and his court appearance to be significant, reportable events. This omission differs significantly from his omission of the 1970 arrest on his 1981 PSQ. See Section II. C. 3. Even though the individual omitted information on his 1981 PSQ, he had already disclosed the same information earlier to the DOE Operations Office, and was a relative newcomer to the ranks of clearance holders. At the time of this latter omission, the individual should have been well-versed in his responsibilities while holding a security clearance. See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0153, 26 DOE ¶ 82,795 (1997) (failure to report information on a QSP may indicate a carelessness that is incompatible with the responsibilities of a clearance holder). When I take into account the absence of mitigating factors for the omission, I conclude that valid security concerns exist relating to Criterion F, and that the individual has failed to mitigate those concerns. Therefore, I find that the individual deliberately omitted significant information from a PSQ during an official inquiry into his eligibility for DOE access authorization.

III. Conclusion

As explained in this Opinion, I find that the DOE Operations Office properly invoked 10 C.F.R. § 710.8 (l) and 710.8 (f) in suspending the individual’s access authorization. The individual has failed to present adequate mitigating factors or circumstances to erode the factual basis for these findings or otherwise alleviate the legitimate security concerns of the DOE Operations Office. In view of this criterion and the record before me, I cannot find that restoring the individual’s access authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and would be consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I find that the individual’s access authorization should not be restored.

The regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28 (a) provide that the Office of Security Affairs or the individual may file a request for review of this Hearing Officer’s Opinion within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Opinion. Any such request must be filed with the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-0107, and served on the other party. If either party elects to seek review of the Opinion, that party must file a statement identifying the issues on which it wishes the OHA Director to focus. This statement must be filed within 15 calendar days after the party files its request for review. The party seeking review must serve a copy of its statement on the other party, who may file a response within 20 days of receipt of the statement. 10 C.F.R. § 710.28 (b). The address where submissions must be sent for the purpose of serving them on the Office of Security Affairs is as follows:

Director

Office of Safeguards and Security, NN-51

Office of Security Affairs

U. S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

Valerie Vance Adeyeye

Hearing Officer

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: November 23, 1998

(1)The exact date of the theft does not appear in the record.

(2)The individual did relate his suspicions to a friend who was also a police detective, but the individual was aware that the detective did not take any official action to investigate the new information. Tr. at 72.

(3)No transcript of the January 1977 PSI was entered into the record. Instead, Exhibit 33 is a 1977 DOE memo that summarizes that interview.

(4)The individual fully disclosed his arrest in 1970 on a weapons violation on the 1988 PSQ. Ex. 30 at 4.