CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-11803.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-11803.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-11803.a1

deniedJun 25, 2010· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

The applicant was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol-related arrests and the applicant's repeated provision of false information regarding his alcohol use and criminal record.

Specifically, the applicant had nine alcohol-related arrests and convictions between 1988 and 2001. During the clearance process, he provided false information about both his alcohol consumption and his criminal history on multiple occasions.

The appeal board affirmed the denial, noting a lack of evidence of rehabilitation or any acknowledgment of alcohol issues by the applicant. The decision highlighted ongoing concerns with alcohol consumption and the applicant's lack of candor, ultimately leading to the denial of his trustworthiness determination.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant provided false information regarding his alcohol use and criminal history multiple times.
The applicant has a history of nine alcohol-related arrests and convictions from 1988 to 2001.
There was no evidence of rehabilitation or acknowledgment of alcohol issues by the applicant.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 21raisedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 16raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Deliberate falsifications cast doubt on an applicant's current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 4, 2009
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateJun 25, 2010

Cite For

False Information Regarding Alcohol Use Under Guideline G
History of Alcohol-related Arrests Under Guideline J
Personal Conduct Violations Under Guideline E

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant deliberately provided false information to the government multiple times over the last decade. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-11803.a1 DATE: 06/25/2010 DATE: June 25, 2010 In Re: ---- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 06-11803

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) proposed to deny or revoke access to automated information systems in ADP-I/II/III sensitivity positions for Applicant. On December 4, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record. On April 13, 2010, after the close of the record, Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness determination. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination. The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant has consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from about 1975 to at least 2004. Applicant has a history of nine alcohol-related arrests and convictions beginning in 1988 and continuing through 2001. Applicant did not provide any information addressing whether he presently abstains from consuming alcohol or if he continues to drink. He did not provide information as to what rehabilitative steps he has taken. Applicant completed a Public Trust Positions Questionnaire in 2002. In response to a question asking if he had been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offenses in the last seven years, he deliberately failed to disclose four offenses that fell within the scope of the question. In 2004, Applicant completed another Public Trust Positions Questionnaire. In response to the same question about arrests, charges and convictions, he deliberately failed to disclose three arrests that fell within the scope of the question. Applicant falsified a signed and sworn statement in 2005 in that he stated he quit using alcohol in October 2002 and deliberately failed to disclose that he continued to drink alcohol until at least 2004. In response to interrogatories sent to Applicant by DOHA in 2006, Applicant falsified material facts in that he stated he had stopped drinking alcohol in October 2002, when in fact he failed to disclose he continued to consume alcohol to at least 2004. Applicant’s falsifications and omissions constitute a violation of federal law, Title 18 USC, Section 1001, and are felonies. The Judge concluded: Although a significant period of time has passed since his last criminal alcohol-related incident, without additional independent evidence as to present consumption, she could not find that his alcohol use would not be a recurring problem or not have a detrimental effect on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. There was no evidence that Applicant acknowledges his issues with alcohol or has taken actions to overcome his problem. There was insufficient evidence to determine that Applicant’s issues with alcohol were under control. No mitigating conditions applied. There was no evidence that Applicant made a prompt good-faith effort to correct his omissions or falsifications. No evidence was presented to conclude that his omissions, falsifications, and criminal actions occurred under unique circumstances that are unlikely to recur. Applicant’s deliberate falsifications cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment, and they were unmitigated. Applicant asserts that his 2004 questionnaire required him to go back seven years when listing arrests, charges, and convictions, and thus would start with the year 1998. His assertion fails to explain how the Judge erred in finding that he had deliberately failed to list two arrests in 1998 and 1999. Applicant mentions that he completed alcohol rehabilitation. The Judge found that Applicant stated that he attended a court-ordered drug and alcohol rehabilitation class sometime in the 2000 decade, but that he did not provide any additional information as to what rehabilitative steps he had taken. To the extent that Applicant is arguing that the Judge ignored or gave insufficient weight to his attendance at an alcohol rehabilitation class, he has not demonstrated error on the part of the Judge. Additionally, Applicant indicates that he has never disclosed personal information that he comes into contact with in the course of his employment. While this is favorable information that the Judge was required to consider, it does not mandate a favorable trustworthiness determination.

ORDER

The Judge’s unfavorable trustworthiness determination is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board