On May 19, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she concluded that an individual should not be granted access authorization. Pursuant to criteria (k) of part 710.8 and the Bond Amendment, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited the individual’s positive drug test for cocaine during a random urinalysis on April 15, 2012, while holding a security clearance at his previous job, for which his security clearance was eventually suspended. Under criteria (f), the LSO cited the individual’s failure to report during his Office of Personnel Management background investigation that he used illegal drugs within the last seven years, his outstanding debt and judgment for $1,982.49, his arrest in mid-2005 for pulling a fire alarm at a high school, his security clearance suspension and his positive drug test. While the individual claimed that he never ingested cocaine, he failed to provide any corroborating evidence supporting his claims, particularly in light of the strong probative evidence relied upon by the LSO – the urinalysis result. The individual also did not mitigate the concerns associated with criterion (f), as he deliberated misrepresented significant information during his background investigation and did not provide any evidence to mitigate the LSO’s concerns. For these reasons, the Administrative Judge could not find that the individual resolved the security concerns related to this drug usage and deliberate misrepresentations during his background investigation under Criteria (f) and (k) and the Bond Amendment, and she decided that the individual should not be granted access authorization.
Shiwali Patel - Administrative Judge