CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01219 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01219denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01219

deniedFeb 21, 2023· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old unmarried male applicant was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant admitted to using multiple illegal substances, including marijuana, cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA (Ecstasy), and LSD. He also admitted to a June 2018 arrest and guilty plea for Driving While Impaired.

Further issues arose from the applicant's willful falsification of his December 2021 e-QIP, where he failed to disclose his marijuana and cocaine abuse. He also admitted to willfully falsifying material facts during interviews with DoD investigators.

The administrative judge determined that the applicant's recent and willful misconduct, encompassing both drug use and a lack of candor, raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. These factors led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to using multiple illegal substances over several years, including marijuana and cocaine.
The applicant willfully falsified his security clearance application and was not candid during interviews with investigators.
The applicant's drug use and personal conduct violations were recent and serious, undermining his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)appliedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission or Falsification
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedProviding False or Misleading Information

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 1, 2022
Answer filedAug 4, 2022
Hearing held—Decision made on the record without a hearing.
Decision dateFeb 21, 2023

Cite For

Admissions of Drug Use Under Guideline H
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Recent Misconduct Impacting Reliability and Trustworthiness

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 multiple personal conduct allegations, including willful falsification of information on his e-QIP and during interviews with investigators, as well as a prior arrest for Driving While Impaired. The applicant admitted to these allegations but did not provide mitigating explanations. The overall outcome was unfavorable for the applicant regarding his personal conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.b	Applicant admits that in June of 2018 he was arrested and pled guilty to Driving While Impaired.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant admits that he willfully falsified his December 2021 e-QIP by failing to disclose his marijuana and cocaine abuse.	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	—	—
2.d	Applicant admits that he willfully falsified material facts during his interviews with DoD investigators.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	—	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant admitted to using multiple illegal substances, including marijuana, cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA, and LSD, with varying frequencies over several years. The decision was against the applicant due to the recent nature of the drug involvement and the applicant's failure to mitigate the associated security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that he used marijuana, cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA (Ecstasy), and LSD.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.a	Applicant admits that he used marijuana, cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA (Ecstasy), and LSD.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.a	Applicant admits that he used marijuana, cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA (Ecstasy), and LSD.	Against Applicant	Psilocybin	Experimental	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.a	Applicant admits that he used marijuana, cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA (Ecstasy), and LSD.	Against Applicant	MDMA	Experimental	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.a	Applicant admits that he used marijuana, cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA (Ecstasy), and LSD.	Against Applicant	LSD	Experimental	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—

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. 22-01219 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Tara R. Karoian, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se February 21, 2023

STATEMENT OF CASE

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: On December 13, 2021, Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP). On August 1, 2922, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DODCAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse); and E (Personal Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 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, effective on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR on August 4, 2022 (Item 2), and requested a decision on the record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on September 12, 2022. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, including documents identified as Items 1 through 5. He was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. He received the FORM on

September 29, 2022, and did not respond. Items 1 through 5 are admitted into evidence. The case was assigned to me on December 1, 2022.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR Applicant admitted all the factual allegations of the SOR, with no explanations. Applicant is 32 years old, unmarried, and has no children. (Item 3 at pages 5 and 20.) Guideline H - Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse & Guideline E - Personal Conduct 1.a.~1.e., and 2.a. Applicant admits that he used the following illegal substances: marijuana with varying frequency from 2010 through August 2018; cocaine with varying frequency from 2014 through August 2018; psilocybin mushrooms with varying frequency from 2012 through August 2013; NDMA (Ecstasy) on three occasions from 2012 through 2014; and LSD on two occasions in 2013. Guideline E - Personal Conduct 2.b. Applicant admits that in June of 2018 he was arrested, and subsequently pled guilty to Driving While Impaired. His subsequent urinalysis tested positive for cocaine. 2.c. Applicant admits that he willfully falsified his December 2021 e-QIP by failing to disclose his above mentioned marijuana and cocaine abuse. 2.d. and 2.e. Applicant admits that he willfully falsified material facts during his interviews with DoD investigators in February and again in March of 2022.

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. Two conditions are established: (a) any substance misuse (see above definition); and (c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant used marijuana, cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA (Ecstasy), and LSD. Therefore, AG ¶ 25 (a) and (c) 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. None of these apply, as Applicant’s misuse of illegal substances is fairly recent. Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse is found against 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. Three are 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; (b) deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical or mental health professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination, or other official government representative; and (c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole- person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information.

Applicant falsified his December 2021 e-QIP, and was not candid with investigators in his subsequent interviews. He also used illegal substances, and was convicted for his drug misuse. 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; (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; (c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and (d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur. None of these are applicable. His repeated falsifications were willful and fairly recent. Applicant also has a drug abuse problem. 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 the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. 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 security concerns arising from his drug involvement and substance abuse, and personal conduct.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a~1.e: Against Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 2.a~2.e: Against 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 national security eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge