ISCR Case 11-12598.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-12598.h1

deniedJul 15, 2013· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance due to unresolved alcohol abuse issues and deliberate omissions on his security clearance applications, falling under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The applicant had a history of alcohol consumption to excess from 1977 until at least November 2012, including multiple alcohol-related arrests for underage drinking (1977), public intoxication (1979, 1983), disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after drinking (1982), and two DUIs (1999, 2002). Despite attending Alcoholics Anonymous, he continued to consume alcohol and did not follow recommendations for additional professional counseling after his 2002 DUI.

The applicant also had a history of workplace misconduct, including a demotion in 2003 after an altercation, a reprimand in 2005 for smoking and a "bad disposition," and another reprimand in 2008 for violating security procedures. Crucially, he made deliberate false official statements on his security clearance applications. He failed to disclose his alcohol-related arrests on his April 1999 security clearance application and his June 2011 eQIP. Additionally, he failed to disclose mental health-related problems, treatment, or counseling between 2005 and 2012 on his June 2011 eQIP.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to mitigate security concerns related to alcohol abuse and misconduct. His deliberate omissions of relevant information regarding alcohol-related arrests and mental health treatment, coupled with his continued alcohol consumption and lack of commitment to rehabilitation, raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns related to alcohol abuse and misconduct.
Applicant deliberately omitted relevant information regarding alcohol-related arrests and mental health treatment from his security clearance applications.
Applicant's continued alcohol consumption and lack of commitment to rehabilitation raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G ¶ 21raisedExcessive Alcohol Consumption
G ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents
G ¶ 22(c)appliedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
E ¶ 15raisedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment
E ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission or Falsification
E ¶ 16(c)appliedCredible Adverse Information

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 20, 2013
Answer filedNot specified
Hearing heldJul 15, 2013
Decision dateAug 12, 2013

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Alcohol Abuse Issues
Deliberate Omissions in Security Clearance Applications
Impact of Workplace Misconduct on Security Clearance Eligibility

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	The conduct alleged at SOR 1.c - 1.i was cross-alleged under Guideline E.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant deliberately made a false official statement to the Government when, in response to question 22.e of his June 2011 eQIP, he failed to disclose the alcohol-related arrests alleged at SOR 1.c - 1.i.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.c	Applicant's negative answer to question 21 of his June 2011 eQIP was also a deliberate attempt to mislead the Government because he failed to disclose mental health-related problems, treatment, or counseling between 2005 and 2012.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Mental Health	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.d	In August 2008, Applicant received a written reprimand from his employer for violating security procedures.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied with Explanation	(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.e	In June 2005, Applicant received a written reprimand from his employer for smoking and having a 'bad disposition'.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied with Explanation	(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.f	He was demoted at work in 2003 after an altercation with a co-worker.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied with Explanation	(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.g	Applicant deliberately omitted the alcohol-related arrests alleged in SOR 1.e - 1.i when he submitted a security clearance application (SCA) in April 1999.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The conduct alleged at SOR 1.c - 1.i was cross-alleged under Guideline E.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

—

2.b

Applicant deliberately made a false official statement to the Government when, in response to question 22.e of his June 2011 eQIP, he failed to disclose the alcohol-related arrests alleged at SOR 1.c - 1.i.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

2.c

Applicant's negative answer to question 21 of his June 2011 eQIP was also a deliberate attempt to mislead the Government because he failed to disclose mental health-related problems, treatment, or counseling between 2005 and 2012.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Mental Health

Denied

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

—

2.d

In August 2008, Applicant received a written reprimand from his employer for violating security procedures.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied with Explanation

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.e

In June 2005, Applicant received a written reprimand from his employer for smoking and having a 'bad disposition'.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied with Explanation

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.f

He was demoted at work in 2003 after an altercation with a co-worker.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied with Explanation

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.g

Applicant deliberately omitted the alcohol-related arrests alleged in SOR 1.e - 1.i when he submitted a security clearance application (SCA) in April 1999.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	From about 1977 until at least November 2012, Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b	Despite attending Alcoholics Anonymous twice weekly, he continued to consume alcohol until November 2012.	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.c	In May 2002, he was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and driving while intoxicated.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied with Explanation	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.d	As a consequence of the 2002 DUI arrest, he was ordered to complete an alcohol assessment, after which it was recommended that he seek additional counseling about his use of alcohol.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Denied with Explanation	(g) failure to follow a court order regarding alcohol	—	—
1.e	In October 1999, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied with Explanation	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.f	In June 1983, he was charged with public intoxication.	Against Applicant	Public Intoxication	Denied with Explanation	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.g	In February 1982 he was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, which occurred after he had been drinking.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Related Arrest	Denied with Explanation	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.h	In 1979, he was charged with public intoxication.	Against Applicant	Public Intoxication	Denied with Explanation	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.i	In 1977 he was charged with underage drinking.	Against Applicant	Underage Drinking	Denied with Explanation	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

From about 1977 until at least November 2012, Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

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

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

—

1.b

Despite attending Alcoholics Anonymous twice weekly, he continued to consume alcohol until November 2012.

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.c

In May 2002, he was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and driving while intoxicated.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Denied with Explanation

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

—

1.d

As a consequence of the 2002 DUI arrest, he was ordered to complete an alcohol assessment, after which it was recommended that he seek additional counseling about his use of alcohol.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Denied with Explanation

(g) failure to follow a court order regarding alcohol

—

1.e

In October 1999, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Denied with Explanation

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

—

1.f

In June 1983, he was charged with public intoxication.

Against Applicant

Public Intoxication

Denied with Explanation

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

—

1.g

In February 1982 he was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, which occurred after he had been drinking.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Related Arrest

Denied with Explanation

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

—

1.h

In 1979, he was charged with public intoxication.

Against Applicant

Public Intoxication

Denied with Explanation

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

—

1.i

In 1977 he was charged with underage drinking.

Against Applicant

Underage Drinking

Denied with Explanation

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

—

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