Summary
A 28-year-old defense contractor employee was denied eligibility for a public trust position due to significant trustworthiness concerns, specifically under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of criminal conduct and drug involvement, which raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant admitted to using and purchasing marijuana, tested positive for the substance on two occasions, and was involved in numerous law enforcement incidents related to drug use. These incidents included arrests for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia following a noise complaint, an unsafe lane change, and being found with a hand-rolled cigar and a small plastic bag of marijuana. He was also arrested on outstanding bench warrants related to marijuana offenses from May 2002, March 2005, and March 2003, and for failure to appear in relation to a January 2001 marijuana offense.
Further criminal conduct included an arrest and charge for failure to appear related to a June 5, 2005 theft offense, and a charge for theft-control prop after taking a television from his supervisor’s desk. The applicant was also arrested for disorderly conduct after threatening a convenience store manager, and for assault and domestic violence following arguments with his former girlfriend. Despite the applicant's claim of intending to lead a drug-free life, the denial was based on his lengthy history of criminal conduct, repeated drug involvement, and inconsistent testimony that undermined his claims of rehabilitation.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had a lengthy history of criminal conduct involving multiple arrests and convictions.
- The applicant's drug involvement included repeated use and possession of illegal substances, particularly marijuana.
- The applicant's testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility, undermining his claims of rehabilitation.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 31(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 31(c)raisedCriminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug Involvement
- AG ¶ 25(b)raisedDrug Involvement
- AG ¶ 25(c)raisedDrug Involvement
- AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedCriminal ConductThe applicant failed to demonstrate successful rehabilitation despite completing probation and counseling.
- AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedDrug InvolvementThe applicant's drug involvement was recent and frequent, undermining claims of unlikely recurrence.
- AG ¶ 26(d)rejectedDrug InvolvementThe applicant did not provide evidence of a favorable prognosis from a qualified professional.
Key rule quoted
“"The standard that must be met for . . . assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person’s loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security."”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedOct 17, 2008
- Answer filedNov 14, 2008
- Hearing heldMar 26, 2009
- Decision dateJun 5, 2009
Cite for
- Denial of Eligibility Due to Extensive Criminal History Under Guideline J
- Denial Based on Drug Involvement and Lack of Rehabilitation Under Guideline H
- Credibility Issues Impacting the Assessment of Trustworthiness Under the Whole Person Concept