Considering the security clearance application procedure and the approving choice; let’s consider the following from the adjudicator’s viewpoint. Each of the following nine topics can be applied to identify which mitigations would be appropriate for each of the 13 Adjudicative subjects from foreign impact to computer system usage. For the sake of this writing, let’s apply to drug use particularly. The reader can broaden the application to whichever adjudicative topic( s) they need to cover.
- the frequency and recency of the conduct. Here is where the adjudicator views how often the substance abuse occurred and when the last time drugs was used. If sufficient time has actually passed given that the last drug use (a year or more) the substance abuse risk could be reduced.
- the person’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct. This again points to reasons behind the drug use. If it took place many years previously and while the applicant was younger and the result of a couple of bad decisions while in school, then it could be alleviated.
- the level to which participation is voluntary. This extend could cover participating during a group experiment to in fact supplying drugs to the celebration goers. The adjudicator will want to have a mutual understanding of the habits that resulted in drug use contrasted with your current potential to reengage.
- the existence or lack of rehab and other irreversible behavioral changes. Finishing a rehabilitation program shows an inspiration towards favorable change. Voluntary rehab and conclusion is a positive endeavor. Quitting rehab is going to be a concern. If you participated in rehabilitation, you might want to describe the situations to consist of counselors’ notes, certificates, and letters of recommendation or other artifacts that support or show an irreversible modification in mindset or habits.
- the motivation for the conduct. This is a direct request for info. The adjudicator much comprehend the mental attitude behind the behavior. Was the attitude cavalier, did it reflect entitlement, or was it a weak minute never ever to be repeated. The thought is that past motivation might persist if not mitigated. A candidate could supply declarations from friends, colleagues, contemporaries or other influential people supporting a character change. This will assist the adjudicator picture a change in motivation or mindset.
- the capacity for pressure, browbeating, exploitation, or pressure. If the candidate has an attitude in favor of substance abuse, a sensation of entitlement to utilize drugs, or has a drug favorable ideal, this could be a big factor. Statement, letters of suggestion, or conclusion of rehab programs might prove to alleviate this capacity in the eyes of the adjudicator.
- the possibility of continuation or recurrence. The adjudicator needs to put all 8 points to the test. Once they think about the entire individual principle, they have actually got to rule in favor of national security on this one. If the possibility of recurrence or extension exists, the clearance will be rejected.
- the nature, extent, and severity of the conduct. The adjudicator would want to know what type of drugs were being used, and the quantity of drugs being used at each event.
- the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include educated involvement. This is where you can discuss why you used drugs. Was it a one-time use after browbeating from a peer group, or part of a religious practice? Was it a bad choice based upon an intoxicated event or just something you wanted to do? The point is to paint a picture of the inspiration behind the substance abuse so that later you can discuss whether the scenarios still use.
Concerning each of the 13 Adjudicative Criteria, the candidate needs to collect all information offered to discuss the habits that could cause a denial of a security clearance. The information needs to be presented throughout follow up interviews or as requested for review. Being well prepared will assist with the adjudicative process and may lead to a beneficial choice. Nevertheless, an absence of preparation may not fare so well. Remember, the adjudicator makes choices with the concern being on risk to national security.
