Summary
A 33-year-old test-vehicle operator was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of four alcohol-related arrests between 2005 and 2011, which raised questions about the applicant's reliability and judgment.
The applicant's arrest history included a 2005 incident for resisting or interfering with police, which was dismissed after a fine, community service, and an ethics class. In 2006, the applicant was arrested for two counts of driving under the influence (DUI), with both charges dismissed. A 2009 arrest for DUI and failure to have mandatory insurance resulted in a plea agreement where those charges were dismissed, and the applicant pleaded guilty to reckless driving. The final incident was a 2011 arrest for felony aggravated assault, which was dismissed.
The judge found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns arising from these incidents. Doubts remained regarding the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, primarily due to the frequency and recency of the alcohol-related arrests, leading to the denial of the security clearance.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant had a history of four alcohol-related incidents resulting in arrest from 2005 to 2011.
- The applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to explain or mitigate the security concerns related to his alcohol consumption and criminal conduct.
- The judge expressed doubts about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness based on the frequency and recency of his alcohol-related incidents.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- AG ¶ 31(c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged, Formally Prosecuted, or Convicted
- AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work, Such as Driving While Under the Influence, Fighting, Child or Spouse Abuse, Disturbing the Peace, or Other Incidents of Concern, Regardless of Whether the Individual Is Diagnosed as an Alcohol Abuser or Alcohol Dependent
- AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol to the Point of Impaired Judgment, Regardless of Whether the Individual Is Diagnosed as an Alcohol Abuser or Alcohol Dependent
- AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior Happened, or It Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good JudgmentThe judge found that the passage of time since the last incident was not sufficient to mitigate concerns.
- AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedThere Is Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation; Including but Not Limited to the Passage of Time Without Recurrence of Criminal Activity, Remorse or Restitution, Job Training or Higher Education, Good Employment Record, or Constructive Community InvolvementThe judge assessed the evidence of rehabilitation as lukewarm and insufficient.
- AG ¶ 23(a)rejectedSo Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Was so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur or Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Current Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good JudgmentThe judge expressed doubts about the applicant's future behavior based on past incidents.
Key Rule Quoted
“As noted by the Supreme Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, 'the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.'”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedSep 11, 2014
- Answer filed—
- Hearing heldAug 25, 2014
- Decision date—Decision issued after the hearing.
Cite For
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Multiple Alcohol-related Incidents
- Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Criminal Conduct Concerns
- Application of the Clearly Consistent Standard in Security Clearance Determinations