ISCR Case 07-16940.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-16940.h1

grantedAug 7, 2009· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 24-year-old assistant project manager for a Department of Defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The Statement of Reasons alleged deliberate omissions on his security questionnaire and a pattern of alcohol-related incidents, including two instances of driving while intoxicated and participation in alcohol counseling.

The judge determined that the applicant's omissions were not deliberate, noting his prompt, good-faith efforts to correct them before being confronted. Furthermore, his past alcohol-related incidents occurred over three years prior, and he had significantly reduced his alcohol consumption since then.

The applicant was not diagnosed with alcohol abuse and demonstrated behavioral changes indicating reliability and trustworthiness. Based on these mitigating factors, the judge found that the applicant had successfully addressed the security concerns, and his eligibility for a security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated prompt, good-faith efforts to correct omissions in his e-QIP before being confronted with the facts.
The applicant's past alcohol-related incidents occurred over three years ago and he has significantly reduced his alcohol consumption since then.
The applicant has not been diagnosed with alcohol abuse and has shown behavioral changes indicating reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant FactsThe applicant omitted material facts regarding his past drug use and alcohol counseling from his e-QIP.
AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From WorkThe applicant had multiple alcohol-related incidents during college, including citations for underage drinking.
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of AlcoholThe applicant engaged in excessive alcohol consumption while in college.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 17(a)appliedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct Omissions
AG ¶ 23(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedAcknowledgment of Behavior and Counseling

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 19, 2009Initial SOR detailing security concerns under Guideline E.
Amended SOR issuedMay 12, 2009Amended SOR detailing security concerns under Guideline G.
Answer filedMar 11, 2009Applicant responded to the SOR.
Hearing heldJun 23, 2009Hearing conducted as scheduled.
Decision dateAug 7, 2009

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Rebuttable Presumption of Rehabilitation Under Guideline G
Consideration of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions.

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	deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted (c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances (d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken	Claimed Other
1.b–1.c	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

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

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

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

(d) acknowledged the behavior; counseling/positive steps taken

Claimed

Other

1.b–1.c

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

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant has been cited for alcohol-related incidents away from work, including driving while under the influence.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur	—
2.b	The applicant has a pattern of habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur	—
2.c	The applicant has acknowledged driving a car while intoxicated on two occasions.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur	—
2.d	The applicant has participated in alcohol counseling programs as a result of his alcohol-related incidents.	For Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant has been cited for alcohol-related incidents away from work, including driving while under the influence.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

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

—

2.b

The applicant has a pattern of habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

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

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

—

2.c

The applicant has acknowledged driving a car while intoxicated on two occasions.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

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

—

2.d

The applicant has participated in alcohol counseling programs as a result of his alcohol-related incidents.

For Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

—

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

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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