CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-00595.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-00595.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-00595.h1

deniedJan 11, 2013· Hon. James F. Duffy· hearing

Summary

A pro se applicant was denied a U.S. security clearance due to unmitigated concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology).

The denial stemmed from the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns. Specifically, the applicant did not adequately mitigate issues related to drug involvement or the misuse of information technology systems.

Furthermore, personal conduct issues raised during the review were not sufficiently resolved to meet the requirements for a security clearance. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to drug involvement.
The applicant's misuse of information technology systems was not adequately addressed.
Personal conduct issues were not sufficiently resolved to meet the security clearance requirements.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

HraisedDrug Involvement
MraisedMisuse of Information Technology Systems
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 30, 2012
Answer filedOct 1, 2012
Hearing held—
Decision dateJan 11, 2013

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Security Concerns Under Guideline H Regarding Drug Involvement
Failure to Address Issues Under Guideline M Concerning Misuse of Information Technology Systems
Insufficient Resolution of Personal Conduct Issues 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.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate personal conduct concerns under Guideline E. The decision resulted in a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–2.g	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate security concerns related to drug involvement. As a result, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a–1.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline M (Use of Information Technology) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns related to the misuse of information technology systems. The allegations under Guideline M were ruled against the Applicant, leading to the denial of security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶40)	Mitigating applied (¶41)	Mitigation
1.a–1.h	8 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline M). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-00595 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

Appearances

For Government: Chris Morin, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

01/11/2013 ______________

Decision

______________

DUFFY, James F., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guidelines H (Drug Involvement), M (Misuse of Information Technology Systems), and E (Personal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On August 30, 2012, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guidelines H, M, and E. This action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented on September 1, 2006.

The SOR set forth reasons why DoD adjudicators could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. On October 1, 2012, Applicant