ISCR Case 08-09399.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09399.h1

deniedOct 13, 2010· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from a history of excessive alcohol consumption, illegal drug use, and dishonesty on his security clearance application.

The applicant had two prior DUI arrests, one in 1977 or 1978 resulting in a reckless driving conviction and a $500 fine, and another in July 1996 leading to a DUI conviction, a $1,000 fine, and mandatory outpatient alcohol treatment. Despite recommendations from three treatment programs to abstain, he continued to consume alcohol, reporting three to four beers up to two six-packs on approximately five occasions in the year prior to the hearing. In April 2006, his employment was terminated after failing a urinalysis due to excessive alcohol. He was diagnosed as "Alcohol dependent with Psychological Dependence" in May 2009.

Additionally, the applicant admitted to using crystal methamphetamine approximately five times between 2001 and 2008, cocaine in approximately 2000, and unprescribed prescription drugs four or five times between 2001 and 2008. He failed to disclose this drug use on his February 28, 2008, security clearance application, answering "No" to a question about illegal controlled substance use since age 16 or in the previous seven years. He attributed this omission to misunderstanding an orally presented question. The judge found that his ongoing alcohol dependency and drug involvement, coupled with his lack of candor, were not mitigated by character references or rehabilitation efforts, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to excessive alcohol consumption, including multiple DUI arrests and a diagnosis of alcohol dependence.
The applicant's illegal drug use included crystal methamphetamine and cocaine, which he acknowledged but did not adequately mitigate.
The applicant provided false information on his security clearance application regarding his drug use, demonstrating a lack of candor.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol Consumption - Excessive Alcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedAlcohol Consumption - Alcohol-related Incidents
AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug Involvement - Any Drug Abuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedDrug Involvement - Illegal Drug Possession
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedPersonal Conduct - Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification

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 issuedJan 12, 2010
Answer filedFeb 12, 2010
Hearing heldApr 5, 2010
Decision dateOct 13, 2010

Cite For

Excessive Alcohol Consumption as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline G
Illegal Drug Use as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline H
Dishonesty in Security Clearance Applications 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
3.a	Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SCA), which was executed by him on February 28, 2008. Question #24 of the SCA asked since the age of 16 or in the previous seven years, whichever is shorter, had Applicant illegally used any controlled substance? Applicant answered "No" to this question, and he listed no illegal substances. The Government alleges, and the evidence is clear that Applicant should have included all of his illegal drug usage as included in subparagraphs 2.a. through 2.c., above. In his RSOR, Applicant wrote about this allegation, “In response to my dishonesty pertaining to section 24: The question was given orally I mistook the answer as ‘no’ instead of ‘yes’ that was my mistake and I admit to being wrong about my answer.” (Sic.)	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SCA), which was executed by him on February 28, 2008. Question #24 of the SCA asked since the age of 16 or in the previous seven years, whichever is shorter, had Applicant illegally used any controlled substance? Applicant answered "No" to this question, and he listed no illegal substances. The Government alleges, and the evidence is clear that Applicant should have included all of his illegal drug usage as included in subparagraphs 2.a. through 2.c., above. In his RSOR, Applicant wrote about this allegation, “In response to my dishonesty pertaining to section 24: The question was given orally I mistook the answer as ‘no’ instead of ‘yes’ that was my mistake and I admit to being wrong about my answer.” (Sic.)

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	In approximately 1977 or 1978, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). He pled guilty to the charge of Reckless Driving and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500. In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this allegation.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b	In approximately July 1996, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was convicted and found guilty of DUI and was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000, and to attend an outpatient alcohol treatment program. In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this allegation.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.c	The SOR alleges that despite receiving recommendations from three alcohol treatment programs that he attended to abstain from alcohol consumption, Applicant has continued to consume alcohol until at least January 18, 2009. Applicant testified that presently he continues to drink in an amount from three or four beers to two six-packs, on approximately five occasions during the last year before the date of the hearing.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.d	In approximately April 2006, Applicant’s employment was terminated for failing a urinalysis test, which detected excessive alcohol in his system. Applicant testified that he had consumed too much alcohol on the previous night, and it resulted in a positive urinalysis the next day at work.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.e	On or about May 8, 2009, Applicant was diagnosed by a licensed independent substance abuse counselor as 'Alcohol dependent with Psychological Dependence.'	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Unknown	(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

1.a

In approximately 1977 or 1978, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). He pled guilty to the charge of Reckless Driving and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500. In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this allegation.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

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

—

1.b

In approximately July 1996, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was convicted and found guilty of DUI and was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000, and to attend an outpatient alcohol treatment program. In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this allegation.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

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

—

1.c

The SOR alleges that despite receiving recommendations from three alcohol treatment programs that he attended to abstain from alcohol consumption, Applicant has continued to consume alcohol until at least January 18, 2009. Applicant testified that presently he continues to drink in an amount from three or four beers to two six-packs, on approximately five occasions during the last year before the date of the hearing.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

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

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

—

1.d

In approximately April 2006, Applicant’s employment was terminated for failing a urinalysis test, which detected excessive alcohol in his system. Applicant testified that he had consumed too much alcohol on the previous night, and it resulted in a positive urinalysis the next day at work.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

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

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

—

1.e

On or about May 8, 2009, Applicant was diagnosed by a licensed independent substance abuse counselor as 'Alcohol dependent with Psychological Dependence.'

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Unknown

(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
2.a	The SOR alleges that Applicant used Crystal Methamphetamine approximately five times during the period from 2001 to 2008.	Against Applicant	Methamphetamine	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	The SOR alleges that Applicant used cocaine in approximately 2000.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	The SOR alleges that Applicant used prescription drugs that were not prescribed to him, on approximately four or five occasions during the period from 2001 to 2008.	Against Applicant	Prescription Other Misuse	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

The SOR alleges that Applicant used Crystal Methamphetamine approximately five times during the period from 2001 to 2008.

Against Applicant

Methamphetamine

Occasional

Admitted

—

2.b

The SOR alleges that Applicant used cocaine in approximately 2000.

Against Applicant

Cocaine

Frequent

Admitted

—

2.c

The SOR alleges that Applicant used prescription drugs that were not prescribed to him, on approximately four or five occasions during the period from 2001 to 2008.

Against Applicant

Prescription Other Misuse

Occasional

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