CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00010 — CASE

Case record

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

Decision Date1/20/2022
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 21-00010) →See the hearing decision (Case 21-00010) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · 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…

ISCR Case 21-00010denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00010

deniedJan 20, 2022· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 62-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to drug use and willfully falsifying security clearance applications.

Specifically, the applicant failed to disclose cocaine involvement on a May 2020 SF-86 and drug involvement on a November 2011 SF-86. Additionally, the applicant used marijuana approximately once or twice a month from January 2007 to December 2009, and cocaine on two occasions during the same period, while having access to classified information.

While the judge found the drug involvement mitigated due to the time elapsed, the willful falsification of two security clearance applications was not mitigated. The applicant made no prompt, good-faith effort to correct these falsifications before being confronted with the facts, leading to the denial of security clearance eligibility as inconsistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant willfully falsified two security clearance applications, failing to disclose drug involvement.
No prompt, good-faith effort was made to correct the falsifications before being confronted with the facts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)raisedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's drug involvement was over a decade ago.
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome the ProblemThe applicant submitted a signed statement of intent to abstain from drug involvement.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 7, 2021
Answer filedApr 15, 2021
Hearing heldNov 30, 2021
Decision dateJan 20, 2022

Cite For

Willful Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Due to Time Elapsed
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept 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 allegations of falsification related to his SF-86 forms, specifically for failing to disclose drug involvement. The applicant admitted to the allegations but did not successfully mitigate the personal conduct concerns, resulting in a denied outcome.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant falsified his May 2020 SF-86, in answer to Section 23, by failing to disclose his cocaine involvement.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (f) violation of a written commitment made as a condition of employment	—	—
1.b	Applicant falsified his November 2011 SF-86, in answer to Section 23, by failing to disclose his drug involvement.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern (f) violation of a written commitment made as a condition of employment	—	—

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 about once or twice a month and cocaine on two occasions while holding a security clearance. Despite the applicant's admission and claims of past drug use being over a decade ago, the judge ruled against the applicant due to the nature of the drug involvement occurring while granted access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant used marijuana, about once or twice a month, from about January of 2007 until December of 2009, while granted access to classified information.	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	Claimed Passage of Time
2.b	Applicant used cocaine, on two occasions, during the period from about January of 2007 until December of 2009, while granted access to classified information.	For Applicant	CocaineWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(f) any illegal drug use while holding a clearance or sensitive position	—	Claimed Passage of Time

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

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

HEARING

APPEARANCES

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 21-00010 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se January 20, 2022

STATEMENT OF CASE

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Statement of the Case On November 17, 2011, and again on May 28, 2020, Applicant submitted a security clearance applications (SF-86s). On April 7, 2021, in accordance with DoD Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive), the Department of Defense issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guidelines H and E. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on April 15, 2021, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on September 10, 2021. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on September 23, 2021. I convened the hearing as scheduled on

November 30, 2021. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 3, which were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and offered Applicant Exhibits (AppXs) A through D, which were admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on December 7, 2021. The record closed on November 30, 2021.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted to all the allegations in SOR. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is a 62-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been employed with the defense contractor since 1989. He has held a security clearance since about 1985. He is married, and has two children. (TR at page 12 line 1 to page 13 line 16.) Guideline H - Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

2.a. Applicant used marijuana, about once or twice a month, from about January of 2007 until December of 2009, while granted access to classified information. (TR at page 13 line 20 to page 14 line 25.) 2.b. Applicant used cocaine, on two occasions, during the period from about January of 2007 until December of 2009, while granted access to classified information. (TR at page 15 lines 1–14.) Guideline E - Personal Conduct 1.b. Applicant falsified his November 2011 SF-86, in answer to Section 23, by failing to disclose his drug involvement, noted above. (TR at page 22 line 24 to page 24 line 12, and GX 1 at page 22.) I find this falsification to be willful.

1.a. Applicant falsified his May 2020 SF-86, in answer to Section 23, by failing to disclose his cocaine involvement, noted above. (TR at page 22 line 24 to page 23 line 19, at page 24 line 17 to page 25 line 14, and GX 1 at page 22.) I find this falsification to be willful.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the

factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept. The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture. Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” A person applying for national security eligibility seeks to enter into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants national security eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified or sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.)

ANALYSIS

Guideline H - Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The security concern relating to the guideline for Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse is set forth at AG ¶ 24: The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises

questions about a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any "controlled substance" as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term adopted in this guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed above. The guideline at AG ¶ 25 contains seven conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. Three conditions are established: (a) any substance misuse (see above definition); (c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; and (f) any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or holding a sensitive position. Appellant used marijuana and cocaine. He had a security clearance for his job at that time. Therefore, AG ¶ 25 (a), (c), and (f) are established. The guideline at AG ¶ 26 contains four conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Two conditions may be applicable: (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and (b) the individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to: (1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and (3) providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or misuse is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility. Applicant’s drug involvement was more than a decade ago. He has submitted a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse. (AppX B.) The Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse guideline is found for Applicant.

Guideline E - Personal Conduct The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. The following will normally result in an unfavorable national security eligibility determination, security clearance action, or cancellation of further processing for national security eligibility: (a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms or releases, cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation, or polygraph examination, if authorized and required; and (b) refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination. The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 16. One is potentially applicable in this case: (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities. Applicant falsified two security clearance applications: in 2011 and again in 2020. The evidence is sufficient to raise these disqualifying conditions. AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 including: (a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and (b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a

person with professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully. Applicant’s willful falsifications cover a decade. He made no prompt, good-faith effort to correct this personal misconduct on either occasion. Personal Conduct is found against Applicant.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s national security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant national security eligibility must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the applicable guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines H and E in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under those guidelines, but some warrant additional comment. Applicant has a distinguished history of working in the defense industry and is respected in the workplace. He performs well at his job. (AppXs C and D.) However, overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the Personal Conduct security concerns.

________________________

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b: Against Applicant Paragraph 1, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 2.a. and 2.b: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge