CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01311 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01311

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/28/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Mark W. Harvey
Government Counsel: Andrew H. Henderson
Applicant's Counsel: Chris Snowden
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 50-year-old maintenance technician who had worked for federal contractors since 2009 and held a security clearance since that time. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) reviewed his eligibility for access to classified information under Guidelines H (drug involvement and substance misuse), J (criminal conduct), and E (personal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined multiple allegations, including the applicant's history of illegal drug use, multiple DUI arrests, and incidents of domestic violence.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to several allegations, including past drug use and criminal conduct, while denying others. He acknowledged using marijuana, methamphetamine, and cocaine at various times, particularly during a period of personal difficulties following his divorce. He also admitted to being arrested for DUI in 2019, where substances were found in his system. The applicant provided some mitigating information, including completion of counseling and treatment programs, but he was not currently attending any such programs at the time of the hearing.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the security concerns were not sufficiently mitigated. The judge noted the applicant's extensive history of substance misuse and criminal behavior, which raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability. Despite his claims of reform and completion of treatment, the judge found that the applicant's admissions and the nature of his past conduct did not align with the standards required for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal 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. 22-01311

deniedNov 28, 2023· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old maintenance technician 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 a history of drug use, specifically marijuana and methamphetamine, which raised significant security concerns.

Further issues included a record of criminal conduct, encompassing DUI arrests and domestic violence. The applicant's claims of rehabilitation were deemed insufficient to mitigate these concerns. Additionally, the applicant falsified information on security clearance applications, which severely undermined his credibility and trustworthiness.

Despite some mitigating factors presented, the judge concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessary reliability and trustworthiness required for access to classified information, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple instances of drug use, including marijuana and methamphetamine, which raised significant security concerns.
The applicant's history of criminal conduct, including DUI and domestic violence, was not sufficiently mitigated by his claims of rehabilitation.
The applicant falsified information on security clearance applications, undermining his credibility and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)appliedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Criminal Offenses
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedFalsification of Security Documents

Key Rule Quoted

“Once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against granting a security clearance.”
— Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 18, 2022
Answer filedDec 28, 2022
Hearing heldSep 8, 2023rescheduled from August 10, 2023
Decision dateNov 28, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Importance of Honesty in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E

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

Full decision

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