Summary
A 44-year-old congressional relations representative for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to a history of alcohol- and drug-related offenses spanning from 1983 to 1995. The Statement of Reasons detailed numerous arrests and convictions, including a 1995 felony conviction for hit and run, DUI, and aggravated DUI, which resulted in over three years of prison time. Other charges included multiple instances of driving while intoxicated or with a suspended license, shoplifting, and possession of marijuana and dangerous drugs.
Disqualifying conditions DC 1 and DC 2 were raised, while mitigating conditions MC 1, MC 4, and MC 5 were considered. Although the applicant established that his criminal conduct was not recent, this was insufficient to overcome the security concerns.
The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate successful rehabilitation or that the underlying factors contributing to his violations were unlikely to recur. The judge also found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility, which negatively impacted the assessment of mitigating conditions. Consequently, the security clearance application was denied.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant failed to establish that the factors leading to the violations are not likely to recur.
- The applicant did not provide clear evidence of successful rehabilitation.
- The judge found the applicant's testimony not credible, impacting the assessment of mitigating conditions.
Conditions referenced
- DC 1raisedCriminal Conduct
- DC 2raisedA History or Pattern of Criminal Activity Creates Doubt About an Applicant's Judgment, Reliability, and Trustworthiness.
- MC 1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent.
- MC 4rejectedFactors Leading to the Violation Are Not Likely to Recur.The applicant failed to demonstrate that the factors leading to his violations are unlikely to recur.
- MC 5rejectedClear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation.The applicant's testimony was deemed not credible, lacking sufficient evidence of rehabilitation.
Key rule quoted
“"The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk."”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedJun 29, 2006
- Answer filedAug 8, 2006
- Hearing heldNov 14, 2006Hearing conducted with consent of the parties.
- Decision dateDec 11, 2006
Cite for
- Evaluation of Credibility in Assessing Rehabilitation Under Guideline J
- Impact of Historical Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Criteria for Establishing Successful Rehabilitation in Security Clearance Cases.