ISCR Case 06-17745.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-17745.h1

deniedJul 1, 2006· Hon. Paul J. Mason· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old supply chain manager was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed primarily from the applicant's intentional falsification of his security clearance application (SCA) on August 25, 2005, where he denied ever being charged with an alcohol or drug-related offense. He also failed to disclose a September 1995 marijuana possession charge during subsequent interviews, including one on January 27, 2006, and another between January 5 and May 1, 2006.

The applicant admitted to two charges under subparagraph 1.a. of the Statement of Reasons, where plea negotiations reduced a CCW charge to a misdemeanor and dropped the marijuana charge. While he admitted to subparagraph 2.c., it was mitigated by the passage of over 12 years. He denied using marijuana until 2005 as alleged in subparagraph 2.a. and stated he had taken several drug tests since 1995, requiring him to quit marijuana use to maintain his job.

Despite some mitigating factors related to his criminal history and drug use, the intentional falsification of his SCA and the failure to disclose past drug charges were deemed significant. The applicant's explanations for these omissions were not considered credible, ultimately undermining his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally falsified his security clearance application by denying past drug-related charges.
The applicant failed to disclose his marijuana possession charge during interviews, indicating a pattern of dishonesty.
The applicant's explanations for his omissions were not credible, undermining his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.1raisedCriminal Conduct (CC)
E2.A2.2raisedDrug Involvement (DI)
E2.A2.3raisedPersonal Conduct (PC)

Mitigating

E2.A2.1appliedCriminal Conduct (CC)The passage of time since the criminal behavior mitigated concerns.
E2.A2.2appliedDrug Involvement (DI)The applicant's drug use occurred over 12 years ago and was infrequent.
E2.A2.3rejectedPersonal Conduct (PC)The applicant's pattern of dishonesty outweighed any mitigating factors.

Key Rule Quoted

“"Criminal behavior creates doubt about a person’s judgment and willingness to comply with laws."”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 27, 2006
Answer filedJan 4, 2007Requested decision on the record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the record.
Decision dateDec 17, 2007

Cite For

Intentional Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Mitigating Factors Related to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Impact of Drug Involvement on Security Clearance Eligibility 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
3.a	Applicant intentionally falsified his SCA on August 25, 2005 by denying he had ever been charged with an offense related to alcohol or drugs.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
3.b	Applicant did not disclose the possession of marijuana charge resulting from his arrest in September 1995 during interviews.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
3.c	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant intentionally falsified his SCA on August 25, 2005 by denying he had ever been charged with an offense related to alcohol or drugs.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

3.b

Applicant did not disclose the possession of marijuana charge resulting from his arrest in September 1995 during interviews.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

3.c

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant denied he used marijuana until 2005 as alleged under subparagraph 2.a.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant stated he took several drug tests since 1995, and had to quit using marijuana to maintain his job.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Subparagraph 2.c. was admitted by Applicant, but mitigated by the passage of more than 12 years.	For Applicant	Drug Diagnosed Disorder	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant denied he used marijuana until 2005 as alleged under subparagraph 2.a.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Not Applicable

Denied

—

2.b

Applicant stated he took several drug tests since 1995, and had to quit using marijuana to maintain his job.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Not Applicable

Denied

—

2.c

Subparagraph 2.c. was admitted by Applicant, but mitigated by the passage of more than 12 years.

For Applicant

Drug Diagnosed Disorder

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted both charges in subparagraph 1.a. of the SOR. Plea negotiations resulted in the CCW charge being reduced to a misdemeanor while the marijuana charge was dropped.	For Applicant	Weapons Offense	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
1.b	Subparagraph 1.b. alleges Applicant violated 18 U.S.C. 1001 by intentionally falsifying questions 23(d) and 24(a) of his August 25, 2005 SCA, and by failing to disclose the marijuana charge during an interview on January 27, 2006, and during a telephone interview between January 5, 2006 and May 1, 2006.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant admitted both charges in subparagraph 1.a. of the SOR. Plea negotiations resulted in the CCW charge being reduced to a misdemeanor while the marijuana charge was dropped.

For Applicant

Weapons Offense

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

1.b

Subparagraph 1.b. alleges Applicant violated 18 U.S.C. 1001 by intentionally falsifying questions 23(d) and 24(a) of his August 25, 2005 SCA, and by failing to disclose the marijuana charge during an interview on January 27, 2006, and during a telephone interview between January 5, 2006 and May 1, 2006.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

—

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

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES