Summary
A 37-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), stemming from two alcohol-related driving incidents.
The applicant was arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) on January 20, 2005, pleading guilty on December 14, 2006, resulting in a fine of approximately $1,500 and two years of probation. While this 2005 DWI trial was pending, he was charged with DWI and Open Container of Alcohol on October 28, 2006. This second case was dismissed when he pled guilty to the 2005 DWI. The applicant did not disclose the 2006 alcohol-related arrest on his security clearance application, believing it did not need to be reported since it was dismissed at the time of the first conviction.
Despite acknowledging his past mistakes and demonstrating good employment performance, the judge found insufficient mitigation. The denial was based on the two alcohol-related driving incidents, which raised concerns about his judgment and reliability. Additionally, the applicant's reported continued consumption of alcohol to intoxication once a month suggested a likelihood of future incidents, and his misunderstanding of the application question did not mitigate the concerns related to his criminal conduct.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant had two alcohol-related driving incidents, raising concerns about his judgment and reliability.
- The applicant's continued consumption of alcohol to intoxication once a month suggested a likelihood of future incidents.
- The applicant's misunderstanding of the security clearance application question did not mitigate the concerns raised by his criminal conduct.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 31(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 31(c)raisedCriminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedCriminal ConductThe applicant has not had any alcohol-related incidents since 2006, but the judge found it too soon for mitigation.
- AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedCriminal ConductThe applicant demonstrated remorse and good employment record, but continued excessive alcohol consumption raised doubts.
Key Rule Quoted
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedDec 10, 2008
- Answer filedDec 23, 2008
- Hearing heldJul 9, 2009
- Decision dateJul 22, 2009
Cite For
- Insufficient Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
- Impact of Alcohol-related Incidents on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Misunderstanding of Application Questions Does Not Negate Security Concerns