ISCR Case 11-00391.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-00391.h1

deniedJul 1, 2011· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The applicant had a history of marijuana use from 1978 to June 2010, including testing positive during employer-administered random drug screenings in September 2008 and shortly after a June 2010 incident, which led to his termination. He continued to use marijuana while holding a clearance.

A key factor in the denial was the intentional falsification of his 1996 security clearance application, where he failed to disclose his marijuana use. While it was determined he did not deliberately falsify his 2010 SF 86, the earlier misrepresentation was significant. Although the applicant's alcohol consumption history raised concerns, it had not resulted in any arrests or legal issues, and mitigating conditions were applied for both alcohol consumption and personal conduct.

Ultimately, the intentional falsification of his application regarding drug use, coupled with documented ongoing marijuana involvement in 2008 and 2010 while holding a clearance, led to the denial. These issues raised substantial doubts about his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally falsified his security clearance application regarding marijuana use.
The applicant tested positive for marijuana use in 2008 and 2010, demonstrating ongoing drug involvement despite having a security clearance.
The applicant's drug use raised significant doubts about his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.25.araisedAny Drug Abuse
H.25.braisedTesting Positive for Illegal Drug Use
H.25.graisedAny Illegal Drug Use After Being Granted a Security Clearance

Mitigating

E.17.cappliedThe Offense Is so Minor, or so Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Is so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unique Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur and Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgment
G.23.aappliedSo Much Time Has Passed, or the Behavior Was so Infrequent, or It Happened Under Such Unusual Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur or Does Not Cast Doubt on the Individual’s Current Reliability, Trustworthiness, or Good Judgment
G.23.bappliedThe Individual Acknowledges His or Her Alcoholism or Issues of Alcohol Abuse, Provides Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome This Problem, and Has Established a Pattern of Abstinence (if Alcohol Dependent) or Responsible Use (if an Alcohol Abuser)

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 issuedApr 14, 2011
Answer filedMay 12, 2011
Hearing heldAug 31, 2011via video teleconference
Decision dateSep 6, 2011

Cite For

Intentional Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Ongoing Drug Involvement Concerns Under Guideline H
Mitigating Factors for Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline 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
2.a	Applicant intentionally falsified his SCA in 1996 when he failed to list his marijuana use.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	He did not deliberately falsify his SF 86 in 2010.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant intentionally falsified his SCA in 1996 when he failed to list his marijuana use.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

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

—

2.b

He did not deliberately falsify his SF 86 in 2010.

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol consumption that raises security concerns.	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Denied	(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	(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	Credited Abstinence Period Documented
3.b	The applicant's alcohol consumption has not resulted in any arrests or legal issues.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	(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	Credited Abstinence Period Documented

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

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

For Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Denied

(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed

(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

Credited

Abstinence Period Documented

3.b

The applicant's alcohol consumption has not resulted in any arrests or legal issues.

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Denied

(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed

(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

Credited

Abstinence Period Documented

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant smoked marijuana a few times a year from 1978 to June 2010.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.b	Applicant tested positive for the active ingredient in marijuana during a random drug screening test administered by his employer in September 2008.	Against Applicant	Drug Test FailureWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.c	Applicant continued to smoke marijuana while he held his clearance.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.d	Applicant smoked marijuana during a visit to the cabin in June 2010 and tested positive shortly thereafter, leading to his termination.	Against Applicant	Drug Test FailureWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant smoked marijuana a few times a year from 1978 to June 2010.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Occasional

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue

—

1.b

Applicant tested positive for the active ingredient in marijuana during a random drug screening test administered by his employer in September 2008.

Against Applicant

Drug Test FailureWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

1.c

Applicant continued to smoke marijuana while he held his clearance.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Occasional

Admitted

(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue

—

1.d

Applicant smoked marijuana during a visit to the cabin in June 2010 and tested positive shortly thereafter, leading to his termination.

Against Applicant

Drug Test FailureWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

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