Summary
The applicant, a 30-year-old male with prior military service, faced security clearance denial under Guidelines E, F, and H due to unresolved financial debts totaling approximately $35,948, and a history of marijuana use, including use while holding a security clearance. The judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible management of his debts and did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate concerns regarding his drug involvement and personal conduct.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant deliberately failed to fully disclose his marijuana use on his August 2002 and June 2003 security clearance applications (3.a). Applicant is indebted to a college for a delinquent tuition in the approximate amount of $10,284. This debt has been past due since 2008 or 2009 (1.a). The debt in SOR subparagraph 1.b became delinquent in the amount of approximately $4,168, after Applicant’s motorcycle was repossessed in 2007 or 2008. It represents the amount still owed on the loan after the motorcycle was resold (1.b). The debt in SOR subparagraph 1.c is for a store credit card account that is delinquent in the amount of $374. This debt has been past due since 2007 (1.c). Applicant was indebted to a bank for a delinquent credit card account in the approximate amount of $2,239 as alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.d. This debt has been past due since 2007 (1.d). Applicant was alleged to be indebted on a collection account for approximately $420, as alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.e. He presented documentation to show that this debt is a duplicate of the debt alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.h (1.e). Applicant is indebted on a repossessed vehicle in the approximate amount of $19,395, as alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.f. This debt has been past due since 2008 (1.f). The debt in SOR subparagraph 1.g is for a store credit card account that is delinquent in the amount of $5,895. This debt has been past due since 2007 (1.g). Applicant used marijuana from approximately 2000 to 2008, including use in 2004 while holding a security clearance (2.a). Applicant failed to fully disclose the extent of his marijuana use on two Security Clearance Applications (2.b).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(c), AG ¶ 25(a), AG ¶ 25(c), AG ¶ 25(g). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 26(a), AG ¶ 26(b). The decision turned on the following: Applicant has unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $35,948; Applicant admitted to marijuana use while holding a security clearance, which raises concerns about reliability and trustworthiness; Applicant failed to fully disclose the extent of his marijuana use on security clearance applications.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant has unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $35,948.
- Applicant admitted to marijuana use while holding a security clearance, which raises concerns about reliability and trustworthiness.
- Applicant failed to fully disclose the extent of his marijuana use on security clearance applications.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Drug Abuse
- AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Drug Possession
- AG ¶ 25(g)raisedAny Illegal Use After Being Granted a Security Clearance
- AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlApplicant failed to provide evidence that he acted responsibly under the circumstances of his financial problems.
- AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurApplicant's history of marijuana use raises doubts about his current reliability and trustworthiness.
- AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Drugs in the FutureApplicant has not demonstrated an appropriate period of abstinence from drug use.
Key Rule Quoted
“A security clearance adjudication is not a proceeding aimed at collecting an applicant’s personal debts. Rather, it is a proceeding aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedApr 30, 2014
- Answer filedMay 19, 2014
- Hearing heldSep 22, 2014
- Decision dateOct 24, 2014
Cite For
- Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Disqualifying Conditions Related to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
- Personal Conduct Concerns Due to Failure to Disclose Drug Use on Applications Under Guideline E