ISCR Case 06-16865.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-16865.h1

deniedApr 3, 2007· Hon. Barry M. Sax· hearing

Summary

A 27-year-old computer specialist was denied a security clearance based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of misconduct, including time card violations in October 2004 and the falsification of his March 18, 2005 security clearance application (SF 86). On the SF 86, he falsely denied using illegal drugs, specifically omitting marijuana use in 2000 and 2005. He also used marijuana again in May 2005, after submitting the application. The deliberate falsification of his answer to Question 27 on the SF 86 constituted a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, a felony.

Further allegations included multiple instances of sexual misconduct. In June 2005, he had sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 16. Around the fall of 2001, he engaged in a three-month sexual relationship with a friend's daughter, who was between 16 and 17 years old. Additionally, a two-year sexual relationship that began around 1998 with his girlfriend, who was under 18 during the relationship, was also cited.

The applicant had previously been denied a security clearance by the National Security Agency (NSA) in October 2005, partly due to these issues. The judge found that the applicant's history demonstrated a serious lack of judgment and trustworthiness, with no mitigating factors established, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant had a history of time card violations and falsified drug use on his security clearance application.
Applicant engaged in sexual misconduct with minors, raising significant trustworthiness concerns.
Applicant's drug use continued even after obtaining a security clearance, indicating a disregard for rules.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A1.araisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
E2.A1.d.3raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations
E2.A2.araisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
E2.A2.craisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
E2.A3.araisedAny Drug Abuse
E2.A3.craisedIllegal Drug Possession
E2.A3.graisedAny Illegal Drug Use After Being Granted a Security Clearance

Key Rule Quoted

“A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 16, 2006
Answer filedOct 27, 2006
Hearing heldFeb 15, 2007
Decision dateApr 3, 2007

Cite For

Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Implications Under Guideline J
Drug Use and Its Impact on Security Clearance Under Guideline 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
1.a	Applicant was disciplined for Time Card Violations in October 2004.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant falsified material facts on his March 18, 2005 security clearance application (SF 86), in which he responded to Question 27 "Your Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity Since age 16 or in the last seven years, whichever is shorter, have you [used illegal drugs]," to which he answered "No," and deliberately failed to mention his use of marijuana in 2000 and again in 2005.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.c	Applicant used marijuana in May 2005, after he had completed his SF 86 on March 18, 2005.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant had sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 16 in about June 2005.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant resided with a friend in about the fall of 2001 and had a sexual relationship for about three months with his daughter, who was between the ages of 16 and 17.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant moved into the home of his girlfriend’s family in about 1998, and continued a two-year sexual relationship that had begun earlier. The female was under 18 during the relationship.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant was denied a security clearance by the National Security Agency (NSA) in about October 2005, due in part, to the information set forth in allegations 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., 1.e., and 1.f., above.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was disciplined for Time Card Violations in October 2004.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant falsified material facts on his March 18, 2005 security clearance application (SF 86), in which he responded to Question 27 "Your Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity Since age 16 or in the last seven years, whichever is shorter, have you [used illegal drugs]," to which he answered "No," and deliberately failed to mention his use of marijuana in 2000 and again in 2005.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Admitted

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

—

1.c

Applicant used marijuana in May 2005, after he had completed his SF 86 on March 18, 2005.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

1.d

Applicant had sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 16 in about June 2005.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

1.e

Applicant resided with a friend in about the fall of 2001 and had a sexual relationship for about three months with his daughter, who was between the ages of 16 and 17.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

1.f

Applicant moved into the home of his girlfriend’s family in about 1998, and continued a two-year sexual relationship that had begun earlier. The female was under 18 during the relationship.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

1.g

Applicant was denied a security clearance by the National Security Agency (NSA) in about October 2005, due in part, to the information set forth in allegations 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., 1.e., and 1.f., above.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant used marijuana in at least 2000, January 2005, and May 2005.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant used marijuana in at least 2000, January 2005, and May 2005.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Frequent

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	The deliberate falsification of his answer to Question 27 constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, a felony.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

The deliberate falsification of his answer to Question 27 constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, a felony.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

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

STATEMENT OF CASE

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES