ISCR Case 16-00512.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00512.h1

grantedJan 18, 2018· Hon. Stephanie C. Hess· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old network administrator and veteran was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's history included excessive alcohol consumption from approximately January 2009 to June 2014, resulting in four DUI arrests and an underage alcohol arrest. He was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and tested positive for alcohol during treatment, continuing to consume alcohol despite his diagnosis.

Additionally, the applicant used marijuana with varying frequency between October 2003 and September 2013, including while holding a security clearance, and was arrested twice in 2012 for marijuana possession. He was also terminated from employment in 2012 following a DUI arrest in a company vehicle. A significant concern was his intentional falsification of his e-QIP by failing to disclose his marijuana-related arrests.

However, the judge found these issues mitigated by the applicant's demonstrated commitment to sobriety since August 2015. He acknowledged his past alcohol and marijuana use, took responsibility for his actions, and provided evidence of positive life changes, including stable employment and family commitments. These factors led to the ultimate decision to grant the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence from alcohol since August 2015.
He acknowledged his past issues with alcohol and marijuana and took responsibility for his actions.
The applicant provided evidence of positive changes in his life, including stable employment and family commitments.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1raisedPersonal ConductThe applicant failed to disclose arrests on his e-QIP.
G2.A2.1raisedAlcohol ConsumptionThe applicant had multiple DUI arrests and a diagnosis of alcohol dependence.
H2.A2.1raisedDrug Involvement and Substance MisuseThe applicant admitted to marijuana use and related arrests.
J2.A1.1raisedCriminal ConductThe applicant's alcohol-related arrests were cross-alleged.

Mitigating

G2.A3.1appliedAlcohol ConsumptionThe applicant has maintained sobriety for over two years and participated in treatment.
H2.A3.1rejectedDrug Involvement and Substance MisuseThe applicant's last marijuana use was in 2013, and he has since ceased all use.
E2.A5.2appliedPersonal ConductThe applicant's failure to disclose was found to be unintentional.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant’s meeting the criteria contained in the AG.”
— Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 14, 2016
Answer filedJun 28, 2016
Hearing held—Decision made on the record without a hearing.
Decision dateJan 18, 2018

Cite For

Mitigation of Alcohol-related Security Concerns Under Guideline G
Unintentional Failure to Disclose Derogatory Information Under Guideline E
Demonstrated Commitment to Sobriety and Personal Improvement as Mitigating Factors.

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
4.a	Applicant intentionally falsified his e-QIP by failing to list his arrests for possession of marijuana.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
4.b	Applicant was terminated from employment in 2012 after being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in a company vehicle.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

Applicant intentionally falsified his e-QIP by failing to list his arrests for possession of marijuana.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

4.b

Applicant was terminated from employment in 2012 after being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in a company vehicle.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication from about January 2009 to at least June 2014, and that this excessive consumption resulted in four arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The applicant was arrested for underage purchase or possession of alcohol.	For Applicant	Underage Drinking	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence.	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.d	The applicant tested positive for alcohol while enrolled in a treatment program.	For Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Despite his diagnosis of alcohol dependence, the applicant continued to consume alcohol.	For Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f–1.i	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication from about January 2009 to at least June 2014, and that this excessive consumption resulted in four arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

1.b

The applicant was arrested for underage purchase or possession of alcohol.

For Applicant

Underage Drinking

Admitted

—

1.c

The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence.

For Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional

—

1.d

The applicant tested positive for alcohol while enrolled in a treatment program.

For Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Denied

—

1.e

Despite his diagnosis of alcohol dependence, the applicant continued to consume alcohol.

For Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

—

1.f–1.i

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

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Used marijuana with varying frequency between about October 2003 and September 2013, including while holding a security clearance.	For Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Arrested in about May 2012 for charges including possession of marijuana.	For Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Arrested in June 2012, and charged with possession of marijuana.	For Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

Used marijuana with varying frequency between about October 2003 and September 2013, including while holding a security clearance.

For Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Frequent

Admitted

—

2.b

Arrested in about May 2012 for charges including possession of marijuana.

For Applicant

Drug Distribution or Dealing

Not Applicable

Denied

—

2.c

Arrested in June 2012, and charged with possession of marijuana.

For Applicant

Drug Distribution or Dealing

Not Applicable

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a–3.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a–3.b

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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

FOOTNOTES