Summary
The applicant, a 34-year-old customer service supervisor, faced security concerns under Guidelines E, F, G, and J due to two arrests in January 2004 related to criminal conduct and alcohol consumption during a contentious divorce. After receiving an inheritance from her father's estate, she resolved her financial issues and demonstrated significant rehabilitation by reducing her alcohol consumption and maintaining stable employment. The judge granted her eligibility for a sensitive position, finding that she mitigated the concerns raised.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: $517 delinquent account placed for collection (1.a). $70 video store account placed for collection (1.b). $12,682 charged off credit card account (1.c). $7,813 charged off credit card account (1.d). $441 delinquent account placed for collection (1.e). $22,551 charged off credit card account (1.f). $356 charged off account (1.g). $3,678 charged off account (1.h). $3,118 charged off credit card account (1.i). $517 charged off account (1.j). $436 charged off department store account (1.k). $6,821 charged off credit card account (1.l). $1,639 collection account (1.m). The applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on February 7, 2004 (3.a). The applicant was charged with extreme DUI and leaving the scene of an accident involving vehicle damage (3.b). The applicant has significantly reduced her drinking and has had no further alcohol-related incidents since her DUI arrest (3.c). On January 26, 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with intimidate/threat/harass with phone and five counts of failure to comply with court order. She later pled nolo contendere to intimidate/threat/harass with phone. The five counts of failure to comply with court order were dismissed (2.a). On February 7, 2004, Applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI), extreme DUI, reasonable and prudent speed violation, and leaving the scene of an accident involving vehicle damage. She pled guilty to extreme DUI and leaving the scene of an accident involving vehicle damage (2.b). Applicant's conduct raises security issues under criminal conduct due to her history of arrests and convictions (2.c). The applicant's criminal conduct occurred during a contentious divorce and a period of unemployment, which contributed to her actions (2.d). The applicant has significantly reduced her drinking and has had no further alcohol-related incidents since her DUI arrest (2.e).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A10.1.2.1, E2.A10.1.2.2, E2.A6.1.2.1, E2.A6.1.2.3, E2.A7.1.2.1, E2.A7.1.2.5. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A6.1.3.3, E2.A6.1.3.4, E2.A6.1.3.6, E2.A10.1.3.1, E2.A10.1.3.3, E2.A7.1.3.1. The decision turned on the following: The applicant resolved all delinquent debts using funds from her father's estate; She demonstrated significant rehabilitation by reducing her alcohol consumption and had no further incidents since February 2004; The applicant's testimony indicated honesty and a commitment to change.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant resolved all delinquent debts using funds from her father's estate.
- She demonstrated significant rehabilitation by reducing her alcohol consumption and had no further incidents since February 2004.
- The applicant's testimony indicated honesty and a commitment to change.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
- E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work, Such as Driving While Under the Influence
- E2.A7.1.2.5raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol to the Point of Impaired Judgment
- E2.A6.1.3.3appliedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
- E2.A6.1.3.4appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem and There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Under Control
- E2.A6.1.3.6appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
- E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
- E2.A10.1.3.3appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
- E2.A7.1.3.1appliedThe Alcohol-related Incidents Are Not Recent and There Is 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 eligible for a security clearance.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 30, 2006
- Answer filedSep 12, 2006
- Hearing heldDec 5, 2006
- Decision dateJan 31, 2007
Cite For
- Mitigation of Financial Considerations Due to Circumstances Beyond Control
- Successful Rehabilitation After Criminal Conduct and Alcohol-related Incidents
- Honesty in Trustworthiness Applications Despite Omissions Due to Misunderstanding