ISCR Case 12-02227.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-02227.h1

deniedMay 28, 2013· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old electronics technician employed by a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant had a history of marijuana use from 1992 to 2011, including use after being granted a security clearance in 2002. In August 2011, he was arrested for DUI and simple possession of marijuana, though these charges were later dropped.

Significant concerns arose from the applicant's repeated false official statements. He answered "no" to questions about illegal drug use since 1990 in October 2012 DOD interrogatories and omitted his drug use over the previous seven years in his December 2011 eQIP. Similarly, in his 2001 SCA, he falsely stated he had not used illegal drugs in the last seven years, omitting marijuana use between 1994 and 2001.

The applicant also had a criminal history, including a 1998 conviction for battery resulting in jail time and probation, and a 1998 DUI conviction with probation. Other charges included a 1999 probation violation, a 1999 battery arrest (later dismissed), and 2001 charges for a noise ordinance violation, providing false information, and failure to surrender a driver’s license. The judge denied the clearance, citing the applicant's long-term drug use, criminal history, and attempts to mislead the government as undermining his trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to mitigate security concerns related to illegal drug use and personal conduct.
The applicant made multiple false official statements regarding his drug use in security applications and interrogatories.
The applicant's history of criminal misconduct raised doubts about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H.24raisedDrug Involvement
H.25(a)appliedAny Drug Abuse
H.25(c)appliedIllegal Drug Possession
H.25(g)appliedIllegal Drug Use After Being Granted a Security Clearance
E.15raisedPersonal Conduct
E.16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission or Falsification
E.16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False Information
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 issuedNov 21, 2012
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 6, 2013
Decision dateMay 28, 2013

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Long-term Illegal Drug Use Under Guideline H
Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
Significance of False Official Statements in Security Clearance Determinations

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	In October 2012, Applicant intentionally made a false official statement in response to DOD interrogatories by answering “no” when asked if he had used any illegal drug since 1990.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	That he intentionally made false official statements in his December 2011 eQIP when he answered “no” to all questions in Section 23 (Illegal Drugs), thereby omitting his drug use over the previous seven years.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.c	His use of drugs while holding a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.d	Applicant deliberately made false official statements in his 2001 SCA by answering “no” to question 27 (Use of Illegal Drugs in the Last 7 Years), thereby omitting his use of marijuana between 1994 and 2001.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.e	In March 2001, Applicant was charged with violating a noise ordinance, providing false information, and failure to surrender a driver’s license.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	In 1999, he was charged with violating probation.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.g	In March 1999, he was arrested for battery, a charge that was later dismissed.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.h	In September 1998, he was charged and convicted of battery, for which he was sentenced to 30 days in jail and 12 months probation.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.i	In February 1998, Applicant was charged and convicted of DUI, for which he was placed on probation for one year.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

In October 2012, Applicant intentionally made a false official statement in response to DOD interrogatories by answering “no” when asked if he had used any illegal drug since 1990.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

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

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

2.b

That he intentionally made false official statements in his December 2011 eQIP when he answered “no” to all questions in Section 23 (Illegal Drugs), thereby omitting his drug use over the previous seven years.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

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

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

2.c

His use of drugs while holding a security clearance.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

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

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

2.d

Applicant deliberately made false official statements in his 2001 SCA by answering “no” to question 27 (Use of Illegal Drugs in the Last 7 Years), thereby omitting his use of marijuana between 1994 and 2001.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

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

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

2.e

In March 2001, Applicant was charged with violating a noise ordinance, providing false information, and failure to surrender a driver’s license.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

2.f

In 1999, he was charged with violating probation.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

2.g

In March 1999, he was arrested for battery, a charge that was later dismissed.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

2.h

In September 1998, he was charged and convicted of battery, for which he was sentenced to 30 days in jail and 12 months probation.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

2.i

In February 1998, Applicant was charged and convicted of DUI, for which he was placed on probation for one year.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana between 1992 and 2011	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.b	In August 2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) and simple possession of marijuana, charges that were later nolle prosequi	Against Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	—	—
1.c	He used marijuana after being granted a security clearance in 2002	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant used marijuana between 1992 and 2011

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

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

—

1.b

In August 2011, he was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) and simple possession of marijuana, charges that were later nolle prosequi

Against Applicant

Drug Test Failure

Not Applicable

Admitted

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

—

1.c

He used marijuana after being granted a security clearance in 2002

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Frequent

Admitted

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

—

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