Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 58-year-old nuclear quality inspector, faced security clearance denial under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and H (Drug Involvement) due to a history of financial irresponsibility, drug use, and falsification of security clearance applications. The judge found that the applicant's admissions and lack of credible evidence to mitigate the concerns led to the denial of his security clearance.

Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant falsified his SCAs in February 2008 and February 2012 by deliberately failing to disclose his drug involvement (3.a). Applicant falsified his SCAs in February 2008 and February 2012 by deliberately failing to disclose his drug involvement (3.b). The SOR also cross-alleges SOR ¶ 2.c under this guideline (3.c). The two student loans for $38,399 and $37,599 have been consolidated and have been in a rehabilitation program since May 2015 (1.a). The two student loans for $38,399 and $37,599 have been consolidated and have been in a rehabilitation program since May 2015 (1.b). The same debt is alleged SOR ¶¶ 1.c and 1.s. It was satisfied by garnishment in January 2015 (1.c). In April 2015, Applicant began making regular payments on the $1,950 debt to a furniture store, and his payments were current as of the date of the hearing (1.d). Applicant made a $150 payment in April 2015 on the credit card account, a $60 payment in August 2015, and a $25 payment in September 2015 (1.i). Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in January 2002, which was dismissed. He converted his bankruptcy to Chapter 7, and his debts were discharged (1.u). Used marijuana from high school to about 2007 (2.a). Grew marijuana (2.b). Intends to resume using marijuana (2.c). Convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance in about 1977 (2.d). Cited for possession of marijuana in 1981 (2.e).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c), AG ¶ 25(a), AG ¶ 25(c), AG ¶ 25(h), AG ¶ 16(a), AG ¶ 16(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(d), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 26(a), AG ¶ 26(b). The decision turned on the following: The applicant had numerous delinquent debts and a history of financial irresponsibility, indicating poor self-control and judgment; The applicant admitted to past drug use and expressed intent to resume using marijuana, raising questions about his reliability and trustworthiness; The applicant falsified his security clearance applications by failing to disclose his drug involvement, demonstrating a lack of candor.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

• The applicant had numerous delinquent debts and a history of financial irresponsibility, indicating poor self-control and judgment.
• The applicant admitted to past drug use and expressed intent to resume using marijuana, raising questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
• The applicant falsified his security clearance applications by failing to disclose his drug involvement, demonstrating a lack of candor.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the AG.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedMay 20, 2015
• Answer filedUndated
• Hearing heldSep 23, 2015
• Decision dateDec 4, 2015

Cite For

• Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
• Denial Due to Drug Involvement and Intent to Resume Use Under Guideline H
• Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E