ISCR Case 06-26372

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-26372

deniedFeb 5, 2008· Hon. Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and H (Drug Involvement). The applicant admitted to past drug use and alcohol-related incidents, but failed to disclose this information on security forms. This omission raised significant questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Specifically, the applicant's failure to disclose past drug use on security forms was a key factor under Guideline E, indicating questionable judgment and a lack of candor. Additionally, two alcohol-related incidents were considered disqualifying under Guideline E, further contributing to concerns about his personal conduct and judgment.

Despite some mitigating conditions being applied, the Administrative Judge concluded that the applicant's overall conduct did not meet the required standards for a security clearance. The denial was based on the combined impact of the undisclosed drug use and the alcohol-related incidents, which collectively undermined confidence in his ability to protect classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to disclose past drug use on security forms, raising concerns about personal conduct.
The applicant had two alcohol-related incidents, which were deemed disqualifying under Guideline E.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant deliberately omitted relevant facts from security questionnaires.
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol ConsumptionThe applicant had alcohol-related incidents away from work.
AG ¶ 25(a)appliedDrug InvolvementThe applicant engaged in illegal drug use.
AG ¶ 25(g)appliedDrug InvolvementThe applicant used illegal drugs after being granted a security clearance.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)appliedAlcohol ConsumptionThe applicant has not had an alcohol-related incident in nearly a decade.
AG ¶ 26(a)appliedDrug InvolvementThe applicant's drug use was sporadic and occurred a long time ago.
AG ¶ 17(e)appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant took positive steps to disclose past drug use.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information must be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 18, 2007
Answer filedMay 3, 2007Applicant admitted all allegations.
Hearing held—Decision issued based on written record.
Decision dateFeb 5, 2008

Cite For

Issues of Personal Conduct Related to Failure to Disclose Drug Use
Impact of Past Alcohol-related Incidents on Security Clearance
Consideration of Mitigating Factors Under Guidelines G and H

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	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 information.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
3.b–3.e	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

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 information.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

—

3.b–3.e

4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses.

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Occasional

Admitted

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION