CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02469 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 18-02469

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date11/1/2019
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Noreen A. Lynch
Government Counsel: Kelly M. Folks
Applicant's Counsel: Daniel P. Meyer
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 30-year-old geospatial analyst for a defense contractor, who had previously served in the U.S. Army and held a security clearance since 2010. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), and J (Criminal Conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's admission of past marijuana use while holding a security clearance and his failure to disclose this information in multiple security clearance applications.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to using marijuana infrequently from 2007 to 2014, including while in a sensitive military position. He acknowledged that he did not disclose this drug use in his security clearance applications due to fear of negative consequences. Although he provided evidence of rehabilitation, including a drug evaluation that indicated no substance abuse disorder, the administrative judge found that the applicant's intentional falsification of material facts in his applications and interviews raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E, while mitigating concerns under Guidelines H and J. The judge emphasized that the applicant's history of dishonesty and lack of candor during the security clearance process outweighed the mitigating factors, leading to a denial of national security eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02469

deniedNov 1, 2019· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old geospatial analyst with military service was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to infrequent marijuana use from 2007 to 2014, including while holding a security clearance and while in a sensitive position on an active duty military base between September 2012 and January 2014. He has not used marijuana or any illegal drug since 2014.

However, the primary issue leading to denial was a pattern of dishonesty. The applicant admitted to falsifying material facts during a June 8, 2017, interview with an OPM investigator. He also admitted to intentionally falsifying material facts on his August 17, 2016, security clearance application (SCA) by not disclosing marijuana use in Section 23 and Section 22, and on his December 19, 2011, SCA by answering "No" to all questions regarding illegal drug use in the past seven years.

While the applicant successfully mitigated concerns related to drug involvement and criminal conduct, the judge found that his repeated dishonesty on multiple security clearance applications and during an interview undermined his credibility and raised serious questions about his reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to falsifying information on multiple security clearance applications.
The judge found that the applicant's pattern of dishonesty raised serious questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedTime Elapsed Since Criminal Behavior
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful Rehabilitation
AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 1, 2019
Answer filedJun 21, 2019
Hearing heldOct 8, 2019
Decision dateNov 1, 2019

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Concerns Under Guideline E Due to Dishonesty
Successful Mitigation of Drug Involvement and Criminal Conduct Concerns
Importance of Credibility in Security Clearance Determinations

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, determining that the applicant intentionally falsified material facts in multiple security clearance applications and interviews. Despite some mitigating factors related to other guidelines, the personal conduct concerns were not sufficiently mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant admitted that he falsified material facts during a personal subject interview on June 8, 2017, with an authorized investigator with OPM.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
3.b	Applicant admitted that he falsified material facts on his August 17, 2016, SCA in response to Section 23- Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity in the last seven years.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
3.c	Applicant admitted that in his August 17, 2016 SCA in Section 22 – Illegal Drug Use While Holding a Security Clearance, he did not disclose any of his marijuana use.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
3.d	Applicant admitted that he intentionally falsified material facts on his December 19, 2011, SCA by answering 'No' to all questions relating to illegal drug use in the past seven years.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana infrequently from 2007 to 2014 while holding a security clearance, and also admitted to using marijuana from September 2012 to January 2014 while employed in a sensitive position on an active duty military base. Despite some mitigation efforts, the overall outcome was a denial due to the applicant's failure to disclose this drug use in his security clearance applications.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted that he used marijuana infrequently over the course of 2007 through 2014 while holding a security clearance.	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	Claimed Passage of Time
1.b	He also admitted that he used marijuana from September 2012 to January 2014 while employed in a sensitive position on an active duty military base.	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	Claimed Passage of Time
1.c	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the criminal conduct concerns under Guideline J due to the passage of time and being drug-free for several years. However, the applicant's history of marijuana use while holding a security clearance and the failure to disclose this information on multiple security clearance applications raised significant concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	He has not smoked marijuana or any illegal drug since 2014.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Credited Passage of Time

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

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