ISCR Case 10-00898.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-00898.h1

deniedDec 30, 2010· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and H (Drug Involvement). The judge found that the applicant's history of drug use, including intermittent marijuana, ecstasy, and mushroom use while holding a security clearance, raised significant reliability concerns. Furthermore, he failed to disclose a 2002 arrest for marijuana possession on two separate security clearance applications, one in June 2003 and another in March 2007, stating he either rushed the application or did not believe he was "arrested."

The applicant also had unresolved delinquent debts totaling $16,000, which contributed to the denial. Disqualifying conditions cited included drug abuse, illegal drug possession, and financial irresponsibility, alongside a lack of candor. While mitigating conditions were considered, such as the passage of time since some drug use and efforts to address financial issues, they were insufficient to overcome the established concerns.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant's past drug involvement, repeated failures to disclose material information on security clearance applications, and ongoing financial difficulties demonstrated a lack of judgment and trustworthiness. Therefore, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of illegal drug use, including marijuana, ecstasy, and mushrooms, while holding a security clearance.
He failed to disclose his 2002 arrest for marijuana possession on multiple security clearance applications, raising questions about his honesty and reliability.
The applicant has unresolved financial issues, including delinquent debts totaling $16,000, which he did not adequately address or resolve.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.25.araisedDrug Abuse
H.25.graisedIllegal Drug Use After Clearance Granted
F.19.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.19.craisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E.16.araisedDeliberate Omission or Concealment of Relevant Facts
E.16.braisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Mitigating

H.26.arejectedBehavior Happened Long Ago or InfrequentlyThe applicant's drug use occurred while he held a security clearance and was not infrequent.
F.20.arejectedBehavior Happened Long Ago or InfrequentlyThe applicant's financial issues are ongoing and not resolved.
E.17.arejectedNo Prior Misconduct or IssuesThe applicant's omissions and misrepresentations were recent and serious.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 4, 2010
Answer filed—Timely response by applicant.
Hearing heldOct 5, 2010Hearing conducted after record was kept open for additional evidence.
Decision dateDec 30, 2010

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct 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	Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA) on June 9, 2003. He did not disclose his use of marijuana. He answered “No” to Question 24 concerning his police record. He states that he rushed through the SCA. He also did not list his 2002 arrest because he did not believe he was arrested.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant completed an SCA in March 2007. He did not disclose any illegal drug use in response to Section 23. He also answered “No” to Section 23(d) concerning any arrests or convictions related to drugs. He did not list the 2002 arrest for possession of marijuana because he did not believe he was “arrested.”	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant responded “No” to Section 24 concerning use of illegal drugs and drug activity while holding a security clearance. He did not disclose his use of marijuana, mushrooms or ecstasy and the fact that he held a security clearance during that period of time.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.d–2.e	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA) on June 9, 2003. He did not disclose his use of marijuana. He answered “No” to Question 24 concerning his police record. He states that he rushed through the SCA. He also did not list his 2002 arrest because he did not believe he was arrested.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.b

Applicant completed an SCA in March 2007. He did not disclose any illegal drug use in response to Section 23. He also answered “No” to Section 23(d) concerning any arrests or convictions related to drugs. He did not list the 2002 arrest for possession of marijuana because he did not believe he was “arrested.”

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.c

Applicant responded “No” to Section 24 concerning use of illegal drugs and drug activity while holding a security clearance. He did not disclose his use of marijuana, mushrooms or ecstasy and the fact that he held a security clearance during that period of time.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.d–2.e

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant currently has delinquent debts in the amount of $16,000. $16,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.b–3.n	13 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant currently has delinquent debts in the amount of $16,000.

$16,000

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.b–3.n

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	any drug abuse (see above definition);	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	testing positive for illegal drug use;	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Unknown	—	—	—
1.c	illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence;	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

any drug abuse (see above definition);

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Regular

Admitted

—

1.b

testing positive for illegal drug use;

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Unknown

—

1.c

illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;

Against Applicant

Drug Distribution or Dealing

Not Applicable

Unknown

—

1.d

diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence;

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Unknown

—

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