Summary
A 28-year-old federal contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns raised under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct). The allegations stemmed from past drug involvement and criminal conduct, specifically a no-contest plea to a simple assault charge, which occurred within the context of an abusive relationship. Additionally, the applicant had failed to disclose illegal drug use on a January 2014 security clearance application while already holding a clearance.
Disqualifying conditions were raised regarding the applicant's intentional failure to disclose drug use and her criminal misconduct, which suggested an inability to follow rules and regulations and poor judgment. However, the judge applied several mitigating conditions.
The judge determined that the applicant's drug use was an isolated incident, motivated by a misguided attempt to assist her boyfriend. The applicant demonstrated significant personal growth through counseling, and her omission of drug use on the application was deemed unintentional, not reflecting a lack of trustworthiness. Ultimately, the judge found that the applicant had mitigated the concerns and demonstrated a commitment to avoiding future misconduct, leading to the granting of the security clearance.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant's drug use was an isolated incident motivated by a misguided desire to help her boyfriend.
- The applicant sought counseling and demonstrated significant personal growth since the incidents.
- The applicant's omission of drug use on her application was deemed unintentional and not indicative of a lack of trustworthiness.
Conditions referenced
- AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug Involvement
- AG ¶ 31(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 26(a)appliedDrug Involvement
- AG ¶ 26(b)appliedDrug Involvement
- AG ¶ 32(a)appliedCriminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 32(d)appliedCriminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 17(a)appliedPersonal Conduct
- AG ¶ 17(d)appliedPersonal Conduct
- AG ¶ 17(g)appliedPersonal Conduct
Key rule quoted
“A statement is false when it is made deliberately (knowingly and willfully). An omission of relevant and material information is not deliberate if the person genuinely forgot about it, inadvertently overlooked it, misunderstood the question, or genuinely thought the information did not need to be reported.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedSep 11, 2015
- Answer filed—Timely response requested a hearing.
- Hearing heldApr 28, 2016Hearing proceeded as scheduled.
- Decision dateMar 1, 2017
Cite for
- Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline D Due to Isolated Incident and Personal Growth
- Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline E Based on Circumstances of the Relationship
- Consideration of Unintentional Omission Under Guideline J as Not Indicative of Lack of Trustworthiness