Summary
A 34-year-old former U.S. Navy structural mechanic was denied a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a positive fentanyl test and a protection order issued due to domestic assault allegations.
Specifically, the applicant tested positive for fentanyl, a Schedule II drug, in a urinalysis conducted on October 12, 2021, with results dated November 2, 2021. He also disclosed a July 2009 arrest for marijuana possession and use. Furthermore, a continuous evaluation report dated May 3, 2022, revealed a protection order issued against him on March 11, 2022, by a city police department.
The judge determined that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or mitigation regarding his drug use and criminal conduct. The positive fentanyl test and the protection order raised significant concerns about his reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, and overall conduct, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant tested positive for fentanyl, a Schedule II drug, raising significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
- A protection order was issued against the applicant due to allegations of domestic assault, which further questioned his judgment and conduct.
- The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to his drug involvement and criminal conduct.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 25(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
- AG ¶ 25(b)raisedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
- AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 31(c)raisedCurrently on Parole or Probation
- AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's positive fentanyl test occurred less than two years ago, and there was no evidence of the duration or circumstances of his use.
- AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Drug InvolvementThe applicant did not acknowledge his fentanyl use and provided no evidence to establish a pattern of abstinence.
- AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedTime Passed Since Criminal BehaviorInsufficient time has passed to mitigate the applicant's fentanyl use.
- AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationMitigating evidence under AG ¶ 32(d) was limited, as the applicant did not fully accept past adverse conduct.
Key rule quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedOct 4, 2022
- Answer filedFeb 5, 2023
- Hearing heldFeb 8, 2023via Microsoft Teams
- Decision dateMar 31, 2023
Cite for
- Insufficient Evidence in Mitigation Against Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
- Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
- Importance of Demonstrating Rehabilitation and Acknowledgment of Past Conduct in Security Clearance Cases