ISCR Case 08-00574.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-00574.h1

deniedJul 1, 2008· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 27-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed primarily from the applicant's intentional falsification of his security clearance application, where he deliberately omitted relevant criminal conduct and drug-related arrests.

Specific allegations included a history of alcohol-related incidents, such as driving under the influence and habitual consumption leading to impaired judgment. Drug involvement was also noted, with the applicant admitting to smoking marijuana in 1997 and police discovering marijuana residue in his car in 2003.

While some mitigating conditions were applied regarding past drug use and alcohol consumption, these did not overcome the severe concerns raised by the applicant's intentional falsification of his application. The applicant's history of criminal conduct, combined with the deliberate misrepresentation, led to a determination that he lacked the reliability and trustworthiness required to safeguard protected information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally falsified his security clearance application by omitting relevant criminal conduct and drug-related arrests.
The applicant's history of criminal conduct, including drug possession and alcohol-related incidents, raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
No mitigating conditions were applicable to the applicant's violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 regarding falsification.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 30appliedCriminal Activity Creates Doubt About an Applicant’s Judgment, Reliability, and Trustworthiness
AG ¶ 25(a)appliedAny Drug Abuse
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Elapsed Since the Criminal Behavior Happened
AG ¶ 26(a)appliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent
AG ¶ 23(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Was so Infrequent

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 issuedSep 15, 2008
Answer filedNov 4, 2008Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateApr 16, 2009

Cite For

Intentional Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Mitigating Conditions for Drug Involvement and Alcohol Consumption Under Guidelines H and G.

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	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.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
4.b	Credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	—	—	—
4.c	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.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.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

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

—

4.b

Credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

—

4.c

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent	For Applicant	Alcohol Related Arrest	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur	—
3.b	habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
3.c	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent

For Applicant

Alcohol Related Arrest

Admitted

—

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

—

3.b

habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

—

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

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

3.c

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admitted to smoking marijuana in 1997.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Experimental	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Claimed Passage of Time
2.b	The police discovered a pipe that contained marijuana residue in his car in 2003.	For Applicant	Drug Possession with Intent	Not Applicable	Denied	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Claimed Passage of Time

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant admitted to smoking marijuana in 1997.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Experimental

Admitted

—

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

Claimed

Passage of Time

2.b

The police discovered a pipe that contained marijuana residue in his car in 2003.

For Applicant

Drug Possession with Intent

Not Applicable

Denied

—

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

Claimed

Passage of Time

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a–1.f	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 5 for the applicant).	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a–1.f

6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 5 for the applicant).

Mixed

—

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