Summary
A 51-year-old male, born in Afghanistan, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a 1991 felony drug conviction and subsequent omissions on security clearance applications.
In March 1991, the applicant was arrested at the U.S.-Canadian border for attempting to smuggle heroin. He was charged with felony possession of narcotics, pleaded guilty in 1995, and was sentenced to six years in federal prison, serving approximately three years, followed by five years of probation. He has no other criminal offenses or arrests. However, the applicant deliberately omitted this 1991 felony drug arrest from his August 14, 2011 Security Clearance Application and other applications.
The judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns related to his criminal history or his lack of candor in disclosing relevant information. Specifically, the 1991 felony conviction for heroin possession raised significant concerns under Guideline J, and the intentional omission of this arrest from multiple applications demonstrated a lack of candor under Guideline E. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant's 1991 felony conviction for possession of heroin raised significant security concerns under Guideline J.
- The applicant intentionally omitted his felony drug arrest from multiple security clearance applications, demonstrating a lack of candor under Guideline E.
Conditions Referenced
- J.30raisedCriminal Conduct
- E.15raisedPersonal Conduct
- E.16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification
- E.16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
- E.16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation
- J.32(a)rejectedTime Elapsed Since Criminal BehaviorThe judge concluded that the seriousness of the offense and the applicant's pattern of poor judgment did not support mitigation.
- J.32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe judge found that the applicant's overall lack of candor and poor judgment outweighed evidence of rehabilitation.
- E.17(a)rejectedPrompt Efforts to Correct OmissionsThe applicant's omissions were intentional and not corrected before confrontation.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedSep 17, 2016
- Answer filedOct 14, 2016
- Hearing heldSep 20, 2017Scheduled date agreed by parties.
- Decision dateFeb 2, 2018
Cite For
- Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
- Seriousness of Past Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
- Impact of Intentional Omissions on Security Clearance Eligibility