ISCR Case 12-02918.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-02918.h1

deniedNov 7, 2013· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old telecommunications technician with a military background was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had two separate incidents where he was presumed to be driving under the influence, resulting in detention, fines, loss of driving privileges for three months, and responsibility for vehicle damage.

Between April and May 2011, the applicant smoked marijuana cigarettes approximately six times. He also received a citation for marijuana possession after being granted a security clearance. While the applicant attended employer-mandated AA sessions and demonstrated two-and-a-quarter years of responsible alcohol consumption, avoiding drinking and driving, he never received medical treatment or counseling for alcohol abuse.

Despite mitigating factors for alcohol and criminal conduct, the applicant's drug involvement was deemed insufficiently addressed. The decision highlighted multiple instances of marijuana use, including a post-clearance citation, and a lack of sufficient evidence, such as a signed statement of intent, demonstrating a commitment to future abstinence from drug use. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant mitigated concerns regarding alcohol consumption by demonstrating responsible behavior and compliance with requirements after an incident.
Applicant mitigated criminal conduct concerns by reporting the incident to his supervisor and complying with disciplinary actions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 25(a)raisedDrug Abuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedIllegal Drug Possession
AG ¶ 25(g)raisedIllegal Drug Use After Clearance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)appliedAlcohol Consumption MitigationThe applicant's isolated alcohol-related incident was viewed favorably due to responsible behavior since.
AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedDrug Involvement MitigationThe applicant's drug use occurred too recently and was not infrequent enough to mitigate concerns.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedIntent Not to Abuse DrugsThe applicant did not provide a signed statement of intent regarding future drug use.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance and access to classified information is denied.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 19, 2013
Answer filedJul 24, 2013Applicant requested a hearing.
Hearing heldSep 25, 2013Hearing convened as scheduled.
Decision dateNov 7, 2013

Cite For

Mitigating Factors for Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G
Disqualifying Conditions for Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J

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
4.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Admitted

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	The applicant was presumed to be driving under the influence because he had consumed alcohol before the incident. He was detained by the authorities, fined, lost his driving privileges for three months, and was required to pay for the damage to both vehicles.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

The applicant was presumed to be driving under the influence because he had consumed alcohol before the incident. He was detained by the authorities, fined, lost his driving privileges for three months, and was required to pay for the damage to both vehicles.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Between April and May 2011, Applicant smoked marijuana cigarettes approximately six times.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Experimental	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia (g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
2.c	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Denied

—

2.b

Between April and May 2011, Applicant smoked marijuana cigarettes approximately six times.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Experimental

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

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

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

—

2.c

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was presumed to be driving under the influence because he had consumed alcohol before the incident. He was detained by the authorities, fined, lost his driving privileges for three months, and was required to pay for the damage to both vehicles. AG ¶ 22(a) has been established.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
1.b	Applicant attended the AA sessions required by his employer. Applicant has never received any medical treatment or counseling related to the consumption of alcohol, and he has never been evaluated or diagnosed for alcohol abuse or dependence. Applicant still consumes alcohol, responsibly, and now avoids drinking and driving. When he drinks alcohol, he either takes a taxi or is driven by friends. He denies drinking to intoxication. Applicant’s two-and-one-quarter years of responsible alcohol consumption is viewed favorably.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was presumed to be driving under the influence because he had consumed alcohol before the incident. He was detained by the authorities, fined, lost his driving privileges for three months, and was required to pay for the damage to both vehicles. AG ¶ 22(a) has been established.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

1.b

Applicant attended the AA sessions required by his employer. Applicant has never received any medical treatment or counseling related to the consumption of alcohol, and he has never been evaluated or diagnosed for alcohol abuse or dependence. Applicant still consumes alcohol, responsibly, and now avoids drinking and driving. When he drinks alcohol, he either takes a taxi or is driven by friends. He denies drinking to intoxication. Applicant’s two-and-one-quarter years of responsible alcohol consumption is viewed favorably.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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