ISCR Case 15-07059.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07059.h1

deniedOct 5, 2017· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and H (Drug Involvement). The applicant had a history of illegal marijuana use from 1995 to 2015, testing positive for the substance in 2014. Additionally, he failed to disclose Antabuse use on his SF-86.

Financial concerns included an automobile loan with a delinquent balance of $17,933, though some financial issues were mitigated. The applicant also had a history of alcohol consumption, admitting to a serious problem and driving under the influence.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's long history of substance misuse. He did not provide evidence of participation in a substance abuse treatment program or a favorable prognosis from a healthcare professional regarding his drug use. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence of a consistent pattern of abstinence or moderation from alcohol since 2014.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a long history of illegal drug use, including marijuana, and tested positive for THC in 2014.
The applicant did not provide evidence of participation in a substance abuse treatment program or a favorable prognosis from a healthcare professional regarding his drug use.
The applicant acknowledged a serious alcohol problem and admitted to driving under the influence, with insufficient evidence of a pattern of abstinence or moderation since 2014.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.25.araisedSubstance Misuse
H.25.braisedTesting Positive for an Illegal Drug
G.22.araisedAlcohol-related Incidents
G.22.craisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol

Mitigating

F.20.bappliedConditions Beyond ControlThe breakup with his girlfriend was a circumstance beyond his control that contributed to his financial issues.
F.20.dappliedGood-faith Effort to Repay DebtsThe applicant indicated he is making payments on his delinquent debt, although no documentary evidence was provided.
E.16.arejectedDeliberate OmissionThe applicant's failure to disclose the use of Antabuse was deemed credible as he had been honest about other issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 21, 2016
Answer filedMay 23, 2016
Hearing held—Decided on the written record without a hearing.
Decision dateOct 5, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Long History of Drug Involvement and Alcohol Consumption
Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under AG ¶ 20(b) and 20(d)
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Under AG ¶ 26 and AG ¶ 23 Due to Lack of Evidence of Rehabilitation.

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
4.a	Applicant failed to disclose that he used Antabuse in his SF-86.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

Applicant failed to disclose that he used Antabuse in his SF-86.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant is indebted to a company for an automobile loan in the amount of $15,000. $15,000	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Paid in Full Claimed Debt Settlement
2.b	The balance on that delinquent debt was $17,933. $17,933	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Paid in Full Claimed Debt Settlement

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant is indebted to a company for an automobile loan in the amount of $15,000.

$15,000

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

Claimed

Debt Settlement

2.b

The balance on that delinquent debt was $17,933.

$17,933

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

Claimed

Debt Paid in Full

Claimed

Debt Settlement

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol consumption that raises security concerns.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

The applicant has a history of alcohol consumption that raises security concerns.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

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

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant illegally purchased and used marijuana with varying frequency from 1995 to 2015. He tested positive for marijuana in 2014.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.b	Applicant participated in a drug test by his employer and tested positive for marijuana.	Against Applicant	Drug Test FailureWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.c	The evidence does not establish mitigation under AG ¶ 26(b)(3).	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant illegally purchased and used marijuana with varying frequency from 1995 to 2015. He tested positive for marijuana in 2014.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Frequent

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

1.b

Applicant participated in a drug test by his employer and tested positive for marijuana.

Against Applicant

Drug Test FailureWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

1.c

The evidence does not establish mitigation under AG ¶ 26(b)(3).

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED

Unspecified

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