Summary
The applicant, a 48-year-old senior quality assurance analyst, faced security clearance denial under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations) and H (Drug Involvement) due to unresolved debts and past drug use. While he mitigated concerns regarding drug involvement by demonstrating a significant period of abstinence, he failed to address his financial obligations, having made no payments towards his debts in 2008 or 2009.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: did not make any payments towards the debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.a ($176) (2.a). did not make any payments towards the debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.b ($508) (2.b). did not make any payments towards the debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.c ($657) (2.c). did not make any payments towards the debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.d ($218) (2.d). did not make any payments towards the debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.e ($5,688) (2.e). did not make any payments towards the debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.f ($1,098) (2.f). did not make any payments towards the debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.g ($888) (2.g). did not make any payments towards the debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.h ($700) (2.h). did not make any payments towards the debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.i ($400) (2.i). did not make any payments towards the debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.j ($600) (2.j). Around the period of 1999 to 2000, Applicant purchased a small amount of cocaine from a friend. He used cocaine two or three times (1.a). During this same time period, his employer conducted a urinalysis test and Applicant tested 'positive,' establishing the presence of the cocaine metabolite in his urine (1.b). He also used methamphetamine shortly before he began driving on the trip where he was arrested (1.c). In October 2006, Applicant was arrested for possession of an open container of alcohol, driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), and possession of methamphetamine (1.d).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 26(a), AG ¶ 26(b). The decision turned on the following: Applicant did not make any payments towards his debts in 2008 or 2009, failing to demonstrate financial responsibility.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- Applicant mitigated drug involvement security concerns due to the isolated and non-recent nature of his drug use.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Unlikely to Recur
- AG ¶ 26(b)appliedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs in the Future
Key Rule Quoted
“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the Applicant meeting the criteria contained in the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG).”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedDec 31, 2008
- Answer filedFeb 2, 2009
- Hearing heldMay 19, 2009
- Decision dateMay 29, 2009
Cite For
- Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Due to Significant Abstinence Period
- Financial Responsibility Concerns Under Guideline F Due to Failure to Address Debts
- Evaluation of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations