ISCR Case 15-06881.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-06881.h1

deniedNov 8, 2017· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old mechanic for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and H (Drug Involvement). The applicant had a history of legal issues, including charges for assault on a female in 2005, driving while intoxicated (DWI) in 2006, and multiple driving-related offenses between 2010 and 2012, including street racing. In March 2014, he was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

The applicant also faced significant financial problems, owing at least $25,385.77 across ten delinquent or past-due debts, including unpaid cell phone accounts, delinquent credit accounts, a state tax bill from 2012, and a car repossession. Furthermore, the applicant made multiple false official statements on his e-QIP. He failed to disclose drug and alcohol-related arrests, his marijuana use within seven years of the e-QIP, and several delinquent debts, including a state tax debt and a debt enforced by civil judgment.

Despite the applicant's claims of misunderstanding e-QIP questions, the judge found that he failed to mitigate the concerns. The denial was based on his admitted illegal drug use and arrests, significant unresolved delinquent debts, and intentional omissions and inaccuracies in his e-QIP, which undermined his credibility.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to illegal drug use and multiple arrests, including a recent DWI charge.
The applicant's financial issues included significant delinquent debts and a lack of credible efforts to resolve them.
The applicant's omissions and inaccuracies in his e-QIP were deemed intentional, undermining his credibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Possession of a Controlled Substance
AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification
AG ¶ 17(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 3, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 11, 2017via video teleconference
Decision dateNov 8, 2017

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Under Guideline H Due to Illegal Drug Involvement
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Issues of Personal Conduct and Credibility Under Guideline E

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
2.a	In December 2005, Applicant was charged with assault on a female.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	In August 2006, he was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), speeding and civil revocation of a driver’s license.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	In August 2010, he was charged with speeding and driving without a license.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	In September 2010, Applicant was charged with driving without a license and having no car insurance.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	In June 2012, he was charged with speed competition (street racing), reckless driving, and wanton disregard.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	Applicant deliberately made multiple false official statements through his answers to questions in his e-QIP.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.g	Applicant failed to disclose the drug and alcohol-related arrests alleged at SOR 1.a and 2.b.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.h	Applicant deliberately failed to disclose that he used marijuana in the seven years preceding the e-QIP.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.i	Applicant deliberately omitted from his e-QIP a state tax debt alleged at SOR 3.h.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.j	Applicant deliberately omitted from his e-QIP a debt being enforced by civil judgment (SOR 3.a).	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.k	Applicant deliberately omitted from his e-QIP all of the delinquent debts alleged at SOR 3.a – 3.j.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

In December 2005, Applicant was charged with assault on a female.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.b

In August 2006, he was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), speeding and civil revocation of a driver’s license.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.c

In August 2010, he was charged with speeding and driving without a license.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.d

In September 2010, Applicant was charged with driving without a license and having no car insurance.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.e

In June 2012, he was charged with speed competition (street racing), reckless driving, and wanton disregard.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.f

Applicant deliberately made multiple false official statements through his answers to questions in his e-QIP.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

2.g

Applicant failed to disclose the drug and alcohol-related arrests alleged at SOR 1.a and 2.b.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

2.h

Applicant deliberately failed to disclose that he used marijuana in the seven years preceding the e-QIP.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

2.i

Applicant deliberately omitted from his e-QIP a state tax debt alleged at SOR 3.h.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

2.j

Applicant deliberately omitted from his e-QIP a debt being enforced by civil judgment (SOR 3.a).

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

2.k

Applicant deliberately omitted from his e-QIP all of the delinquent debts alleged at SOR 3.a – 3.j.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant owes at least $25,385.77 for ten delinquent or past-due debts $25,385	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.b	failed to pay two cell phone accounts	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.c	accrued delinquent credit accounts	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.d	accrued delinquent credit accounts	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.h	could not pay a state tax bill for the 2012 tax year	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.i	lost a car to repossession	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant owes at least $25,385.77 for ten delinquent or past-due debts

$25,385

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.b

failed to pay two cell phone accounts

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.c

accrued delinquent credit accounts

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.d

accrued delinquent credit accounts

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.h

could not pay a state tax bill for the 2012 tax year

Against Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.i

lost a car to repossession

Against Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	In March 2014, Applicant was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Not Applicable	Admitted	(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

In March 2014, Applicant was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Not Applicable

Admitted

(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia

—

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