ISCR Case 06-09738.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-09738.h1

deniedAug 23, 2007· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 27-year-old engineer employed by a major defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to concerns about his judgment and reliability. The applicant failed to honestly report a marijuana possession arrest and occasional marijuana use on his SF-86 and during an initial investigator interview.

Specifically, the applicant answered "No" to questions regarding drug-related offenses on his SF-86, despite having a prior marijuana charge. He also initially told an investigator he had never used marijuana. Later, in response to government interrogatories, the applicant provided details of the New York charges and admitted to experimenting with marijuana no more than ten times between 2000 and 2004, correcting his earlier statements.

While the applicant stated he reflected on his earlier answers and sought to be completely honest in his corrected responses, the judge ultimately found that the initial omissions and false statements raised unmitigated security concerns. These actions indicated questionable judgment and unreliability, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to report an arrest for marijuana possession on his SF 86.
Applicant did not disclose occasional marijuana use over a two-year period on his SF 86 or during an investigator interview.
The judge found the omissions and false statements raised security concerns regarding the applicant's judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 15raisedQuestionable Judgment, Unreliability, and Unwillingness to Comply with Rules and Regulations
AG ¶ 16 aappliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
AG ¶ 16 bappliedFalse Statements to an Investigator

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17 arejectedPrompt, Good Faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionCorrection was not prompt and was made only in response to a government interrogatory.
AG ¶ 17 crejectedMinor Offense or Unlikely to RecurThe seriousness of the charges outweighed the mitigating factor.

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 16, 2007
Answer filedFeb 8, 2007Applicant responded to SOR allegations.
Hearing heldJun 26, 2007Hearing conducted with testimony from both parties.
Decision dateAug 23, 2007

Cite For

Failure to Report Arrests and Drug Use Under Guideline E
Implications of False Statements in Security Clearance Applications
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.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to honestly report the marijuana charge in his response to Question 24 Your Police Record-Alcohol /Drug Offenses and Question relating to being charged or convicted of any offense relating to alcohol or drugs. He answered “No” to that question.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.b	Applicant stated to the investigator that he had never smoked marijuana and never participated in illegal drug use. Subsequently, interrogatories were submitted by the government to Applicant and he responded with details of the disposition of the New York charges. He also stated at Question 6 relating the marijuana possession charge that he had experimented with marijuana no more than ten times from 2000 to 2004. This information was at variance with his statement to the investigator a year earlier.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.c	Applicant had reflected on his earlier answers given to the investigator and wanted to ensure that he was being completely honest so had corrected the information given to the investigator in the answers to his first interrogatory.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant failed to honestly report the marijuana charge in his response to Question 24 Your Police Record-Alcohol /Drug Offenses and Question relating to being charged or convicted of any offense relating to alcohol or drugs. He answered “No” to that question.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

1.b

Applicant stated to the investigator that he had never smoked marijuana and never participated in illegal drug use. Subsequently, interrogatories were submitted by the government to Applicant and he responded with details of the disposition of the New York charges. He also stated at Question 6 relating the marijuana possession charge that he had experimented with marijuana no more than ten times from 2000 to 2004. This information was at variance with his statement to the investigator a year earlier.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

1.c

Applicant had reflected on his earlier answers given to the investigator and wanted to ensure that he was being completely honest so had corrected the information given to the investigator in the answers to his first interrogatory.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

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

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES