Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 49-year-old Engineering Manager, faced security clearance concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct) due to past arrests and a failure to disclose prior marijuana use. The judge found that the applicant had demonstrated rehabilitation and good judgment, ultimately granting the security clearance.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he intentionally falsified material aspects of his personal background during the clearance screening process (3.a). The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he abuses illegal drugs (1.a). The Applicant was arrested for Possession of Marijuana (1.b). The Applicant has a signed statement of intent under penalty of perjury stating that he has no intentions to ever use illegal drugs of any sort (1.c). The Applicant denied each of the allegations set forth under these guidelines (2.a). The Applicant explained that he was going through a horrible divorce and child custody battle (2.b). The Applicant has not used marijuana or any other drug since then (3.a). The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he engaged in criminal conduct (1.a). The Applicant was arrested for Domestic Violence, Non-Criminal, and the charges were dismissed (1.b). The Applicant was arrested for violation of a Protective Order, and the matter was subsequently dismissed (1.c). The Applicant was arrested for Possession of Marijuana, and the charge was dismissed after he attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings (2.a). The Applicant has provided evidence of successful rehabilitation, including a signed statement of intent not to use illegal drugs in the future (2.b). The Applicant has a history of criminal conduct that raises concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness (3.a).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions J 31.(a), J 31.(c), H 25.(a), H 25.(c), E 16.(a). The judge applied mitigating conditions J 32.(a), J 32.(d), E 17.(c), H 26.(a), H 26.(b). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's past criminal charges were dismissed, indicating no ongoing issues with criminal conduct; The applicant provided persuasive evidence of rehabilitation, including a long period without further incidents and positive work evaluations; The applicant's intent to avoid illegal drug use in the future was supported by a signed statement of intent.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant's past criminal charges were dismissed, indicating no ongoing issues with criminal conduct.
• The applicant provided persuasive evidence of rehabilitation, including a long period without further incidents and positive work evaluations.
• The applicant's intent to avoid illegal drug use in the future was supported by a signed statement of intent.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedMar 30, 2009
• Answer filedApr 30, 2009
• Hearing heldNov 10, 2009
• Decision dateMar 31, 2010

Cite For

• Mitigating Factors for Past Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
• Mitigating Factors for Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
• Consideration of Personal Conduct and Rehabilitation Under Guideline E.