Summary
The applicant, a 50-year-old information systems engineer with a history of personal conduct issues, faced security concerns under Guideline E due to past drug use and theft. The judge found that the applicant had mitigated these concerns through evidence of rehabilitation and the passage of time since the incidents, ultimately granting the security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: being fired from a job for stealing money from a cash register in 1976 (1.a). using, purchasing, and selling various drugs between 1979 and 1984 (1.b). using, purchasing, and selling various drugs between 1979 and 1984 (1.c). being arrested in 1984 on a theft charge (1.d). using a prescription drug, Percocet, for non-prescribed use in 1997 and 2000, and while holding a security clearance (1.e). using a prescription drug, Percocet, for non-prescribed use in 1997 and 2000, and while holding a security clearance (1.f). using a prescription drug, Percocet, for non-prescribed use in 1997 and 2000, and while holding a security clearance (1.g). taking a computer chip home from work without authorization (1.h). making false statements on security clearance applications, to investigators, and in interrogatories concerning his Percocet misuse (1.i). making false statements on security clearance applications, to investigators, and in interrogatories concerning his Percocet misuse (1.j). being denied access to a classified program by another government agency in 2003 (1.k). making false statements on security clearance applications, to investigators, and in interrogatories concerning his Percocet misuse (1.l). making false statements on security clearance applications, to investigators, and in interrogatories concerning his Percocet misuse (1.m). making false statements on security clearance applications, to investigators, and in interrogatories concerning his Percocet misuse (1.n).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 16(e), AG ¶ 16(a), AG ¶ 16(b). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 17(c), AG ¶ 17(d), AG ¶ 17(e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's drug abuse ended 26 years ago, and he has remained sober since then; The applicant self-reported the minor incident of taking a computer chip home and faced no consequences; The applicant provided credible testimony and character references that supported his reliability and trustworthiness.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's drug abuse ended 26 years ago, and he has remained sober since then.
- The applicant self-reported the minor incident of taking a computer chip home and faced no consequences.
- The applicant provided credible testimony and character references that supported his reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability
- AG ¶ 16(a)rejectedDeliberate Omission or FalsificationThe judge found no factual basis to support the allegations of false statements.
- AG ¶ 16(b)rejectedProviding False or Misleading InformationThe judge concluded that the applicant did not misuse Percocet, negating the basis for these allegations.
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedMinor Offense or Time Passed
- AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment and Counseling
- AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPositive Steps to Reduce Vulnerability
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedDec 3, 2009
- Answer filedJan 15, 2010
- Hearing heldAug 10, 2010Hearing rescheduled to accommodate a witness.
- Decision dateNov 8, 2010
Cite For
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
- Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Past Drug Use
- Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions