ISCR Case 09-04753.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-04753.h1

deniedJul 5, 2011· Hon. Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old inspector with over 14 years at a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from a history of substance abuse and intentional failure to disclose drug use on a security clearance application.

The applicant had multiple DUI/DWI arrests and a history of excessive alcohol consumption, including one instance where he was asked to leave work due to a hangover. His drug use included marijuana, hallucinogenic mushrooms, LSD, cocaine, and ephedrine, with use generally ceasing by February 2007. He was diagnosed with alcohol and cannabis abuse during treatment between March and June 2002. Crucially, the applicant admitted to intentionally omitting his drug use on a security clearance application, acknowledging he was "ashamed" of this failure to disclose.

Although the applicant reported no drug use or excessive alcohol consumption since February 2007, he resumed moderate alcohol use approximately two years prior to the decision. Despite some rehabilitation efforts, the judge found insufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns, citing the applicant's history of alcohol and drug abuse, the intentional omission of drug use on his application, and a questionable prognosis for recovery due to a lack of a sober support system during treatment.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse, including multiple DUI/DWI incidents.
He intentionally omitted drug use on his security clearance application, which raised concerns about his honesty and reliability.
The applicant's prognosis for recovery was deemed questionable due to a lack of a sober support system at the time of his treatment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(b)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents at Work
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 22(f)raisedRelapse After Diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse or Dependence
AG ¶ 24raisedFailure to Disclose Drug Use on Security Clearance Application

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)rejectedTime Passed Since Last IncidentWhile time has passed since the applicant's last substance use, the judge found that the applicant's past behavior still casts doubt on his current reliability.
AG ¶ 23(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Abuse and Actions TakenThe applicant's acknowledgment of past issues was not sufficient to mitigate the concerns due to the severity of his past conduct.
AG ¶ 23(d)rejectedSuccessful Completion of Treatment and Support SystemThe applicant's treatment was deemed insufficient due to a lack of a supportive recovery environment at the time of evaluation.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 24, 2010
Answer filedJun 24, 2010Applicant admitted most allegations.
Hearing heldApr 19, 2011Hearing was conducted as scheduled.
Decision dateJul 5, 2011

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Alcohol and Drug Involvement Under Guidelines G and H
Issues of Personal Conduct and Honesty in Security Clearance Applications
The Importance of a Supportive Recovery Environment in Mitigating Substance Abuse Concerns

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 completed a security clearance application (SCA) on which he denied using illegal drugs since the age of 16 or in the preceding seven years. He now admits that the omission was intentional and notes that he is 'ashamed' of his volitional failure not to disclose his drug use.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	—
3.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA) on which he denied using illegal drugs since the age of 16 or in the preceding seven years. He now admits that the omission was intentional and notes that he is 'ashamed' of his volitional failure not to disclose his drug use.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

—

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

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

—

3.b

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has received multiple DUI/DWI arrests.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment (f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.b	The applicant consumed alcohol to excess on numerous occasions.	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment (f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.c	The applicant was once asked to leave the workplace while suffering from a hangover.	For Applicant	Intoxication at Work or Duty	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment (f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.d–1.g	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant has received multiple DUI/DWI arrests.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

1.b

The applicant consumed alcohol to excess on numerous occasions.

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

1.c

The applicant was once asked to leave the workplace while suffering from a hangover.

For Applicant

Intoxication at Work or Duty

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

1.d–1.g

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

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant used marijuana with varying frequency, usually two to three times a week, until he quit in February 2007.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	The applicant used and purchased hallucinogenic mushrooms and tried LSD a 'few times' between 1995 and 1999.	Against Applicant	Psilocybin	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	The applicant used cocaine about five times between about 2000 and, at the latest, February 2007.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	The applicant used ephedrine between 1999 and 2004.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	The applicant failed to disclose his drug use on a security clearance application in March 1999, which he now admits was intentional.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	The applicant was found guilty of operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol (DUI) following an April 1999 arrest.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.g	The applicant was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in December 2000, while other charges, including one for marijuana possession, were dismissed.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.h	The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol abuse and cannabis abuse during treatment for substance abuse between March 2002 and June 2002.	Against Applicant	Drug Diagnosed Disorder	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.i	The applicant has not used drugs or consumed alcohol to excess since February 2007, but resumed moderate use of alcohol about two years ago.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant used marijuana with varying frequency, usually two to three times a week, until he quit in February 2007.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Admitted

—

2.b

The applicant used and purchased hallucinogenic mushrooms and tried LSD a 'few times' between 1995 and 1999.

Against Applicant

Psilocybin

Experimental

Admitted

—

2.c

The applicant used cocaine about five times between about 2000 and, at the latest, February 2007.

Against Applicant

Cocaine

Experimental

Admitted

—

2.d

The applicant used ephedrine between 1999 and 2004.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.e

The applicant failed to disclose his drug use on a security clearance application in March 1999, which he now admits was intentional.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.f

The applicant was found guilty of operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol (DUI) following an April 1999 arrest.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.g

The applicant was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in December 2000, while other charges, including one for marijuana possession, were dismissed.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.h

The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol abuse and cannabis abuse during treatment for substance abuse between March 2002 and June 2002.

Against Applicant

Drug Diagnosed Disorder

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.i

The applicant has not used drugs or consumed alcohol to excess since February 2007, but resumed moderate use of alcohol about two years ago.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

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

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES