ISCR Case 14-01246.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01246.h1

deniedDec 12, 2014· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old defense contractor employee was denied eligibility for a public trust position due to unresolved financial issues, drug involvement, and personal conduct concerns. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate trustworthiness concerns stemming from financial delinquencies, past drug use, and false statements made in her security clearance applications.

The applicant had a history of intermittent marijuana use from approximately 2001 to at least February 2012, and again in late 2013 or early 2014. In late 2007, she was terminated from a previous employer after failing a drug test. In February 2012, she was arrested, charged, and subsequently pleaded guilty to marijuana possession, completing a pretrial intervention program in February 2013 that included community service and a fine.

The denial was based on several factors, including the applicant's admission to multiple financial delinquencies totaling approximately $11,896, with no efforts made to resolve them. Additionally, she provided false information on her security clearance applications (SF 85A in 2007 and e-QIP in 2013) regarding her drug use, her arrest and conviction for marijuana possession, and her financial delinquencies. She admitted to concealing her marijuana use in 2013 due to fear of jeopardizing employment.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple financial delinquencies totaling approximately $11,896, with no efforts made to resolve them.
The applicant had a history of drug use, including a positive drug test that led to her termination from a previous job.
The applicant provided false information regarding her drug use and financial status in her security clearance applications.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 24raisedUse of Illegal Drugs
AG ¶ 4(a)raisedFalse Statements Regarding Drug Use
AG ¶ 4(b)raisedFalse Statements Regarding Drug Use
AG ¶ 4(f)raisedFalse Statements Regarding Financial Delinquencies

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 5, 2014
Answer filedJul 28, 2014Notarized statement responding to SOR allegations.
Hearing heldNov 19, 2014Hearing rescheduled to accommodate the applicant.
Decision dateDec 12, 2014

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Drug Involvement on Trustworthiness Under Guideline H
False Statements in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E and 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	On April 6, 2007, when Applicant completed her SF 85A, she responded to a question pertaining to drug use. The question in Section 21A asked if, in the last year, she had illegally used any controlled substance, including marijuana. Applicant answered the question with “no.” She certified that the response was “true, complete, and correct” to the best of her knowledge and belief. Her response to the question was false, for Applicant concealed her marijuana use during the period from about 2001 to at least the date she completed the SF 85A because that use continued for several years thereafter. Although, in her Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied intending to falsify her response, during the hearing she was unable to explain why she answered the question as she did.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
4.b	On January 17, 2013, when Applicant completed her e-QIP, she again responded to a question pertaining to drug use. The question in Section 23 asked if, in the last seven years, she had illegally used any drugs or controlled substances. Applicant answered the question with “no.” She certified that the response was “true, complete, and correct” to the best of her knowledge and belief. Her response to the question was false, for Applicant again concealed her marijuana use during the seven-year period leading up to the date she completed the e-QIP. Although, in her Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied intending to falsify her response, during the hearing she admitted she concealed her marijuana use because she feared the truth would jeopardize her chances of employment.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
4.c	In that same e-QIP, Applicant responded to other questions pertaining to her police record. The questions in Section 22 asked if, in the last seven years, she had been arrested by any police officer or other type of law enforcement official; or been charged, convicted, or sentenced of a crime in any court; and if she had EVER been charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs. Applicant answered “no” to the questions. She certified that the responses were “true, complete, and correct” to the best of her knowledge and belief, but the responses to those questions were, in fact, false. Applicant had been arrested, charged, and convicted for possession of marijuana only one year before she completed the e-QIP. Although, in her Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied intending to falsify her responses, during the hearing she offered several differing responses, including she thought she had answered “yes,” she did not have a printer when she completed the form, and “there is no explanation.”	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
4.d–4.e	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—
4.f	In that same e-QIP, Applicant responded to a question pertaining to her financial record. The question in Section 26 asked if she was currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt. Applicant answered “no” to the question. She certified that the response was “true, complete, and correct” to the best of her knowledge and belief, but the response to that question was, in fact, false for Applicant had concealed multiple accounts that were either placed for collection or were over 120 days delinquent. Although, in her Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied intending to falsify her response, during the hearing she offered only the comment that “there is no explanation for that.”	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

On April 6, 2007, when Applicant completed her SF 85A, she responded to a question pertaining to drug use. The question in Section 21A asked if, in the last year, she had illegally used any controlled substance, including marijuana. Applicant answered the question with “no.” She certified that the response was “true, complete, and correct” to the best of her knowledge and belief. Her response to the question was false, for Applicant concealed her marijuana use during the period from about 2001 to at least the date she completed the SF 85A because that use continued for several years thereafter. Although, in her Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied intending to falsify her response, during the hearing she was unable to explain why she answered the question as she did.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

4.b

On January 17, 2013, when Applicant completed her e-QIP, she again responded to a question pertaining to drug use. The question in Section 23 asked if, in the last seven years, she had illegally used any drugs or controlled substances. Applicant answered the question with “no.” She certified that the response was “true, complete, and correct” to the best of her knowledge and belief. Her response to the question was false, for Applicant again concealed her marijuana use during the seven-year period leading up to the date she completed the e-QIP. Although, in her Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied intending to falsify her response, during the hearing she admitted she concealed her marijuana use because she feared the truth would jeopardize her chances of employment.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

4.c

In that same e-QIP, Applicant responded to other questions pertaining to her police record. The questions in Section 22 asked if, in the last seven years, she had been arrested by any police officer or other type of law enforcement official; or been charged, convicted, or sentenced of a crime in any court; and if she had EVER been charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs. Applicant answered “no” to the questions. She certified that the responses were “true, complete, and correct” to the best of her knowledge and belief, but the responses to those questions were, in fact, false. Applicant had been arrested, charged, and convicted for possession of marijuana only one year before she completed the e-QIP. Although, in her Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied intending to falsify her responses, during the hearing she offered several differing responses, including she thought she had answered “yes,” she did not have a printer when she completed the form, and “there is no explanation.”

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

4.d–4.e

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

Against Applicant

—

4.f

In that same e-QIP, Applicant responded to a question pertaining to her financial record. The question in Section 26 asked if she was currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt. Applicant answered “no” to the question. She certified that the response was “true, complete, and correct” to the best of her knowledge and belief, but the response to that question was, in fact, false for Applicant had concealed multiple accounts that were either placed for collection or were over 120 days delinquent. Although, in her Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied intending to falsify her response, during the hearing she offered only the comment that “there is no explanation for that.”

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.l	12 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a–1.l

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant used marijuana intermittently, generally every other weekend or on a weekly basis, from about 2001 to at least February 2012.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	In late 2007, she was administered a urinalysis by her employer, but she failed the test and was terminated.	Against Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant used marijuana intermittently, generally every other weekend or on a weekly basis, from about 2001 to at least February 2012.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Admitted

—

2.b

In late 2007, she was administered a urinalysis by her employer, but she failed the test and was terminated.

Against Applicant

Drug Test Failure

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant used marijuana intermittently, generally every other weekend or on a weekly basis, from about 2001 to at least February 2012. In February 2012, while driving with her brother and one of her children’s fathers, they were stopped by the police and charged with possession of 28 grams or less marijuana/10 grams or less hash 1st, possession of a controlled substance in Schedule I to V 2nd or more, and prisoner/contraband O/T illegal drugs/weapons. After being arrested, handcuffed, and spending the night in jail, she was released on bond and eventually went to court. She was represented by an attorney and entered a plea of guilty to possession of marijuana. Applicant was entered into a pretrial intervention program, which included 40 hours of community service and a prison tour, and was fined $350. She completed the program in February 2013. Applicant resumed the use of marijuana, on at least one occasion, in late December 2013 or early January 2014.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant used marijuana intermittently, generally every other weekend or on a weekly basis, from about 2001 to at least February 2012. In February 2012, while driving with her brother and one of her children’s fathers, they were stopped by the police and charged with possession of 28 grams or less marijuana/10 grams or less hash 1st, possession of a controlled substance in Schedule I to V 2nd or more, and prisoner/contraband O/T illegal drugs/weapons. After being arrested, handcuffed, and spending the night in jail, she was released on bond and eventually went to court. She was represented by an attorney and entered a plea of guilty to possession of marijuana. Applicant was entered into a pretrial intervention program, which included 40 hours of community service and a prison tour, and was fined $350. She completed the program in February 2013. Applicant resumed the use of marijuana, on at least one occasion, in late December 2013 or early January 2014.

Against Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Admitted

—

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