ISCR Case 09-05904.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-05904.h1

deniedAug 17, 2010· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 25-year-old contracts negotiations associate for a Department of Defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's history of drug use and deliberate omissions on his security clearance application (e-QIP).

Specifically, the applicant answered "no" to a question about criminal proceedings in the last seven years, despite having been cited for disturbing the peace in September 2003, trespassing with a motor vehicle in December 2003, and disorderly conduct in August or September 2006. He also failed to fully disclose the frequency of his past marijuana use and omitted his unprescribed Adderall use while in college. The applicant admitted to occasional marijuana use in high school and regular use in college, as well as unprescribed Adderall use during college.

The judge found that the applicant's deliberate omissions regarding his drug use and criminal citations, along with his acknowledgment of lying about the extent of his marijuana use, significantly undermined his credibility and raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately omitted material facts regarding his drug use and criminal citations from his e-QIP.
The applicant acknowledged lying about the extent of his marijuana use, which undermined his credibility.
The applicant's failure to provide truthful information during the security clearance process raised significant concerns about his reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E3.1.14appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
HappliedDrug Involvement
JappliedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

E3.1.15rejectedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the OmissionThe applicant did not demonstrate prompt efforts to correct his omissions.
HrejectedMitigating Conditions for Drug InvolvementThe applicant did not provide evidence of rehabilitation or a signed statement of intent regarding future drug use.
JrejectedMitigating Conditions for Criminal ConductThe applicant's admissions regarding his dishonesty did not mitigate the concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 15, 2010
Answer filedApr 7, 2010Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateAug 17, 2010

Cite For

Deliberate Omission of Drug Use Under Guideline E
Impact of Dishonesty on Security Clearance Eligibility
Nexus Between Criminal Conduct and Security Suitability Under Guideline J

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 omitted material facts from his e-QIP when he answered 'no' to Question a in Section 22, which asked if in the last seven years he had ever been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against him; are you on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges; or are you currently awaiting sentencing for a criminal offense?	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.b	Applicant failed to provide information about the frequency of his past use of marijuana in his answer to Question a in Section 23 and failed to acknowledge his use of Adderol.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Other	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant omitted material facts from his e-QIP when he answered 'no' to Question a in Section 22, which asked if in the last seven years he had ever been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against him; are you on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges; or are you currently awaiting sentencing for a criminal offense?

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

1.b

Applicant failed to provide information about the frequency of his past use of marijuana in his answer to Question a in Section 23 and failed to acknowledge his use of Adderol.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to Disclose

Other

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant smoked marijuana occasionally in high school and on a regular basis in college.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant used Adderol without a prescription while in college.	For Applicant	Prescription Stimulant Misuse	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant smoked marijuana occasionally in high school and on a regular basis in college.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Occasional

Admitted

—

2.b

Applicant used Adderol without a prescription while in college.

For Applicant

Prescription Stimulant Misuse

Occasional

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant was cited for disturbing the peace in September 2003 and for trespassing with a motor vehicle in December 2003. He was also cited for disorderly conduct in August or September 2006. He did not list these incidents on his e-QIP as he did not believe they were criminal matters.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant was cited for disturbing the peace in September 2003 and for trespassing with a motor vehicle in December 2003. He was also cited for disorderly conduct in August or September 2006. He did not list these incidents on his e-QIP as he did not believe they were criminal matters.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

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