ISCR Case 11-00987.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-00987.h1

deniedMar 9, 2012· Hon. Philip S. Howe· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old engineer 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 from a history of alcohol and drug use, including multiple alcohol-related driving arrests and convictions, one of which was reduced to reckless driving. His breathalyzer results from two arrests were .16% in September 2004 and .141% in July 2010. He admitted to heavy drinking from 1998 to June 2011 and to drinking during an alcohol education program required for probation.

The applicant also admitted to marijuana use over a 13-year period, including after being granted a security clearance. Furthermore, he provided misleading information regarding his drug use on his security clearance application, which constituted a deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts.

Despite the applicant's claim of sobriety since June 2011, the judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation and determined that ongoing risks associated with his past behavior remained. The decision highlighted a pattern of excessive alcohol consumption, admitted illegal drug use, and a lack of candor, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple alcohol-related arrests, including two DUIs, demonstrating a pattern of excessive alcohol consumption.
He admitted to using marijuana over a 13-year period, including after receiving a security clearance.
The applicant provided misleading information regarding his drug use on his security clearance application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.2.araisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G.2.craisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
H.2.araisedAny Drug Abuse
H.2.craisedIllegal Drug Possession
H.2.graisedIllegal Drug Use After Being Granted a Security Clearance
H.2.hraisedFailure to Commit to Discontinue Illegal Drug Use
E.2.araisedDeliberate Omission or Concealment of Relevant Facts
E.2.braisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
E.2.craisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
E.2.eraisedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation

Mitigating

G.3.brejectedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Abuse and Actions Taken to Overcome ItThe applicant's efforts at rehabilitation were deemed insufficient and unsubstantiated.
H.3.arejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago or Was InfrequentThe applicant's drug use was extensive and recent.
E.3.arejectedPrompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct OmissionsThe applicant's omissions were deliberate and not corrected until confronted.

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 issuedJun 8, 2011
Answer filedAug 18, 2011Second copy received after initial delay.
Hearing heldDec 7, 2011
Decision dateMar 9, 2012

Cite For

Denial Based on Multiple Alcohol-related Incidents and Drug Use
Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Application
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Efforts After Substance Abuse

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	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	Other	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
3.c	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	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.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

Other

Denied

—

3.b

deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

3.c

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has three alcohol-related driving arrests and convictions (the first arrest charge was reduced to reckless driving).	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	Applicant admitted he drank heavily before driving, while at home and college from 1998 to June 2011. His September 2004 arrest breathalyzer was .16%. His July 2010 arrest breathalyzer result was .141%.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.c	Applicant has never been formally diagnosed by a medical professional with any alcohol problem. He drank while attending his most recent alcohol and driving education program which was part of his probation.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has three alcohol-related driving arrests and convictions (the first arrest charge was reduced to reckless driving).

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

Applicant admitted he drank heavily before driving, while at home and college from 1998 to June 2011. His September 2004 arrest breathalyzer was .16%. His July 2010 arrest breathalyzer result was .141%.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

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

—

1.c

Applicant has never been formally diagnosed by a medical professional with any alcohol problem. He drank while attending his most recent alcohol and driving education program which was part of his probation.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	any drug abuse (see above definition)	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—
2.b	illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
2.c	any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance; and expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue drug use.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use AgainWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue (d) diagnosis of a substance use disorder	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

any drug abuse (see above definition)

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Regular

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

—

2.b

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

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia

—

2.c

any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance; and expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue drug use.

Against Applicant

Stated Intent to Use AgainWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

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

(d) diagnosis of a substance use disorder

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
4.a–4.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

4.a–4.c

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

Against Applicant

—

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