Summary
A 53-year-old electrical engineer was denied a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) following two Driving Under the Influence (DUI) incidents within a 20-month period. The first DUI charge occurred in July 2011, leading to a pre-trial diversion completed in December 2012. A second DUI charge followed in March 2013, for which he completed a substance abuse driving education course in July 2013.
These incidents raised disqualifying conditions related to alcohol-related incidents away from work and a pattern of criminal conduct. While the applicant completed court-ordered counseling and expressed intentions to change, the judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation.
The denial was based on the recency of the incidents, the lack of a demonstrated pattern of abstinence, and the applicant's failure to fully disclose blood alcohol levels, which indicated an insufficient acknowledgment of his alcohol issues. Ultimately, the judge determined that these factors presented ongoing reliability concerns, leading to the denial of the security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant had two DUI incidents within a 20-month period, raising significant concerns about alcohol consumption and criminal conduct.
- The applicant's claims of rehabilitation were deemed insufficient due to the recency of the incidents and lack of a demonstrated pattern of abstinence.
- The applicant's failure to fully disclose blood alcohol levels during the incidents indicated a lack of acknowledgment of his alcohol issues.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
- AG ¶ 31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- AG ¶ 31(c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct
- AG ¶ 23(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Passed or the Behavior Was InfrequentThe incidents occurred within a short timeframe, indicating ongoing issues.
- AG ¶ 23(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Alcoholism and Evidence of Action TakenThe applicant's actions were too recent to demonstrate effective rehabilitation.
- AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal BehaviorInsufficient time had passed since the last DUI incident to establish reliability.
- AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant had not established a pattern of abstinence or rehabilitation.
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedNov 7, 2013
- Answer filedDec 4, 2013
- Hearing heldApr 29, 2014
- Decision dateMay 6, 2014
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Recent Alcohol-related Offenses
- Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Following Criminal Conduct
- Importance of Full Disclosure in Security Clearance Applications