ISCR Case 15-04086.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04086.h1

deniedJul 1, 2015· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old defense contractor's security clearance application was DENIED due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had a history of marijuana use from approximately 1995 to 2011, which included a positive drug test for his employer, leading to his resignation. He also failed to disclose this drug use, drug treatment, and his resignation on his SF 86 form, later admitting the omission was due to fear of losing his job. Additionally, he continued to associate with at least one friend who uses marijuana and was arrested for assault on a female in 2013.

Under Guideline F, the applicant had one charged-off debt totaling approximately $10,281. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's significant charged-off debt, which raised questions about his reliability and judgment. Furthermore, his intentional omission of past drug use and related issues from his SF 86 demonstrated a lack of candor and honesty, with his history of illegal drug use and attempts to conceal it indicating ongoing reliability concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a significant charged-off debt that he was unable or unwilling to pay, raising questions about his reliability and judgment.
The applicant intentionally omitted his past drug use and related issues from his SF 86, demonstrating a lack of candor and honesty.
The applicant's history of illegal drug use and attempts to conceal it indicated ongoing reliability concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E.16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
E.16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

Mitigating

F.20(c)rejectedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unique Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's drug use history and ongoing associations with drug users indicated that the behavior was not unlikely to recur.
E.17(c)appliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unique Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to RecurThe arrest for assault was not substantiated by evidence of serious injury or intent to harm.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 29, 2015
Answer filedFeb 25, 2016
Hearing heldMay 25, 2016
Decision date—

Cite For

Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F
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 purchased and used marijuana from approximately 1995 to 2011; submitted a urine test to his employer and resigned soon thereafter, knowing it would be positive for marijuana; falsified his SF 86 by failing to truthfully disclose his past drug use, drug treatment, and his resignation due to a positive drug test.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.b	Applicant did not report his illegal drug use on his SF 86.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.c	Applicant continued to associate with at least one friend that uses marijuana.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant's past drug use, failed urinalysis, and resignation because of a positive test result were not disclosed in his SF 86 for fear of losing his job, but were discussed in his PSI.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.e	Applicant was arrested for assault on a female in 2013.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant purchased and used marijuana from approximately 1995 to 2011; submitted a urine test to his employer and resigned soon thereafter, knowing it would be positive for marijuana; falsified his SF 86 by failing to truthfully disclose his past drug use, drug treatment, and his resignation due to a positive drug test.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Admitted

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

—

1.b

Applicant did not report his illegal drug use on his SF 86.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Admitted

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

—

1.c

Applicant continued to associate with at least one friend that uses marijuana.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant's past drug use, failed urinalysis, and resignation because of a positive test result were not disclosed in his SF 86 for fear of losing his job, but were discussed in his PSI.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Admitted

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

—

1.e

Applicant was arrested for assault on a female in 2013.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	one charged-off debt totaling approximately $10,281. $10,281	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

2.a

one charged-off debt totaling approximately $10,281.

$10,281

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

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