CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02929 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 18-02929

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/5/2020
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Government Counsel: Jeff A. Nagel
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 35-year-old high school graduate who had served in the U.S. military and was seeking a security clearance. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct, primarily due to the applicant's court-martial for wrongful use of cocaine, which resulted in a bad conduct discharge. The SOR detailed multiple instances of the applicant's lack of candor, including false claims on his security clearance application regarding his discharge status and drug use.
In his response to the SOR, the applicant admitted to several allegations, including the misrepresentation of his discharge and the circumstances surrounding his court-martial. He denied having used illegal drugs while possessing a security clearance but did not provide explanations for his inconsistent statements. The administrative judge noted that the applicant's admissions and the lack of supporting documentation regarding his claims about the court-martial and drug use did not mitigate the security concerns raised.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance. The decision was based on the applicant's demonstrated lack of candor and the serious nature of his past conduct, which raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness. The judge emphasized that the protection of national security was paramount and that any doubts regarding the applicant's eligibility would be resolved in favor of national security.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against 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. 18-02929

deniedMar 5, 2020· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old male applicant with a high school education was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to a bad conduct discharge from the military and multiple instances of dishonesty. The applicant received a bad conduct discharge from the U.S. military in approximately July 2010 following a court-martial conviction for wrongful cocaine use.

The applicant made several misrepresentations on his August 2014 Security Clearance Application (SCA), falsely claiming a general discharge and denying any court-martial or disciplinary proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) within the last seven years. He also denied any criminal convictions in any court, including military courts, during that period. Furthermore, he denied illegal drug use in the last seven years or while holding a security clearance.

During an interview with an authorized investigator, the applicant initially denied receiving a bad conduct discharge and falsely denied any illegal drug use since age 18, despite a 2007 urinalysis positive for cocaine. The judge determined that the applicant's lack of candor and misrepresentation of facts raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant received a bad conduct discharge from the military for wrongful use of cocaine, which was confirmed by a court-martial.
The applicant falsified his security clearance application by misrepresenting the nature of his discharge and denying any criminal convictions.
The applicant's lack of candor during the OPM interview raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 18, 2019
Answer filedMay 25, 2019
Hearing held—Decision based on written record.
Decision dateMar 5, 2020

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Importance of Candor in Security Clearance Evaluations
Impact of Military Discharge on Security Clearance Eligibility

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, which included falsifications and omissions regarding his military discharge and drug use. The applicant's lack of candor and misrepresentations were deemed significant security concerns that were not mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant received a bad conduct discharge from the U.S. military in approximately July 2010 after being found guilty at a court-martial for wrongfully using cocaine.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(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	—	—
1.b	Applicant falsely claimed that he received a general discharge on his August 2014 SCA.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	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	—	—
1.c	Applicant denied being subject to a court-martial or other disciplinary proceeding under the UCMJ in the last seven years.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	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	—	—
1.d	Applicant denied being charged, convicted, or sentenced of any crime in any court, including a military court, in the last seven years.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	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	—	—
1.e	Applicant denied that he had illegally used any drug in the last seven years or ever while possessing a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(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	—	—
1.f	Applicant initially denied to an authorized investigator that he received a bad conduct discharge and falsely denied any use of illegal drugs since the age of 18 despite a urinalysis positive for cocaine in 2007.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND 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.

Full decision

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