ISCR Case 14-01736.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01736.h1

deniedJan 30, 2015· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 27-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol abuse and a pattern of dishonesty in his security clearance application.

Specific issues included a December 2006 arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) with a .084 breathalyzer result, and a November 2008 arrest for DUI with a .169 breathalyzer result, after being observed driving without headlights and failing field sobriety tests. In October 2008, he violated a direct order from his first sergeant by possessing alcohol in his barracks room. Earlier, between December 2005 and January 2006, he wrongfully used marijuana, confirmed by a positive urinalysis, resulting in nonjudicial punishment and forfeiture of pay. In March 2009, he received an honorable administrative discharge from the U.S. Army due to misconduct.

Further personal conduct issues included a 2011 citation for speeding and passing in a no-passing zone, resulting in fines and probation. In January 2013, he was charged with misdemeanor theft by taking after his girlfriend stole a statue and placed it in his truck, with him present. Crucially, the applicant provided false responses on his security clearance questionnaire, certifying them as true despite deliberate omissions and falsifications regarding his history. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a lengthy history of alcohol abuse, including excessive drinking and hospitalizations due to alcohol-related health issues.
The applicant admitted to multiple incidents of personal conduct violations, including DUI and dishonesty in his security clearance application.
The applicant failed to provide truthful responses on his e-QIP, which included deliberate omissions and falsifications.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information Indicating Questionable Judgment
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified 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 9, 2014
Answer filedJul 9, 2014Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateJan 30, 2015

Cite For

Denial Based on a Pattern of Alcohol Abuse Under Guideline G
Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Issues Under Guideline E
Importance of Honesty in Security Clearance Applications

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
1.a	In January 2013, after eating dinner with his girlfriend, as they were leaving the restaurant, Applicant’s girlfriend stole a small statue from the front of the restaurant and placed it in Applicant’s truck. Applicant was standing next to her when she took the item, but did not stop her from doing so. A security camera recorded Applicant’s license number, and when the police called him in to talk, the statue was still in his truck. While they were not arrested, they were both charged with theft by taking, a misdemeanor.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	On some unspecified date in 2011, Applicant was cited for (1) passing in a no-passing zone; and (2) speeding 35 MPH in a 25 MPH zone. He was fined $154 for the first charge, $372 for the second charge, and placed on probation for 12 months because he did not has sufficient funds to pay the entire fine at one time.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	As noted above, in March 2009, Applicant was administratively discharged under honorable conditions with a general discharge certificate due to misconduct.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	On or about October 29, 2008, Applicant was ordered by his first sergeant 'not to possess or have any alcohol in your room until you completed ASAP (Army Substance Abuse Program)' or words to that effect. Notwithstanding that order, Applicant kept alcohol in his barracks room, and it was discovered there during an inspection.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	The SOR alleged that on January 13, 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. Applicant denied the allegation. There is no evidence to support the allegation.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	—	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	On November 10, 2008, Applicant was observed on his military post driving at a high rate of speed without his headlights on. Upon being stopped by the police, he emitted a strong odor of alcohol. He failed the field sobriety tests that were administered to him and he was arrested. His breathalyzer test registered .169.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant has a lengthy history of inappropriate and criminal conduct, characterized for the purposes of his security clearance review as personal conduct and alcohol consumption, commencing in 2005, and it has continued through at least July 2013. His incidents were varied: alcohol-related, drug-related, driving violations, purely criminal in nature, or deliberate falsifications on a personnel security questionnaire.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	On December 9, 2006, Applicant was observed driving 71 miles-per-hour (MPH) in a 45 MPH zone. Upon being stopped by the police, he emitted a strong odor of alcohol. He failed the field sobriety tests that were administered and he was arrested. His breathalyzer test registered .084.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	During the period from about December 19, 2005 to January 4, 2006, while on active duty with the U.S. Army, Applicant wrongfully used marijuana (less than 30 grams), in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). His actions were revealed and confirmed when he tested positive after a random urinalysis test. He was administered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, and ordered to forfeit $589 per month for two months.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	Applicant answered 'no' to all the questions. He certified that the responses were 'true, complete, and correct' to the best of his knowledge and belief, but the responses to those questions were, in fact, false.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.k–1.m	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

In January 2013, after eating dinner with his girlfriend, as they were leaving the restaurant, Applicant’s girlfriend stole a small statue from the front of the restaurant and placed it in Applicant’s truck. Applicant was standing next to her when she took the item, but did not stop her from doing so. A security camera recorded Applicant’s license number, and when the police called him in to talk, the statue was still in his truck. While they were not arrested, they were both charged with theft by taking, a misdemeanor.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

1.b

On some unspecified date in 2011, Applicant was cited for (1) passing in a no-passing zone; and (2) speeding 35 MPH in a 25 MPH zone. He was fined $154 for the first charge, $372 for the second charge, and placed on probation for 12 months because he did not has sufficient funds to pay the entire fine at one time.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.c

As noted above, in March 2009, Applicant was administratively discharged under honorable conditions with a general discharge certificate due to misconduct.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.d

On or about October 29, 2008, Applicant was ordered by his first sergeant 'not to possess or have any alcohol in your room until you completed ASAP (Army Substance Abuse Program)' or words to that effect. Notwithstanding that order, Applicant kept alcohol in his barracks room, and it was discovered there during an inspection.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.e

The SOR alleged that on January 13, 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. Applicant denied the allegation. There is no evidence to support the allegation.

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

—

Denied

—

1.f

On November 10, 2008, Applicant was observed on his military post driving at a high rate of speed without his headlights on. Upon being stopped by the police, he emitted a strong odor of alcohol. He failed the field sobriety tests that were administered to him and he was arrested. His breathalyzer test registered .169.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.g

Applicant has a lengthy history of inappropriate and criminal conduct, characterized for the purposes of his security clearance review as personal conduct and alcohol consumption, commencing in 2005, and it has continued through at least July 2013. His incidents were varied: alcohol-related, drug-related, driving violations, purely criminal in nature, or deliberate falsifications on a personnel security questionnaire.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Admitted

—

1.h

On December 9, 2006, Applicant was observed driving 71 miles-per-hour (MPH) in a 45 MPH zone. Upon being stopped by the police, he emitted a strong odor of alcohol. He failed the field sobriety tests that were administered and he was arrested. His breathalyzer test registered .084.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.i

During the period from about December 19, 2005 to January 4, 2006, while on active duty with the U.S. Army, Applicant wrongfully used marijuana (less than 30 grams), in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). His actions were revealed and confirmed when he tested positive after a random urinalysis test. He was administered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, and ordered to forfeit $589 per month for two months.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

1.j

Applicant answered 'no' to all the questions. He certified that the responses were 'true, complete, and correct' to the best of his knowledge and belief, but the responses to those questions were, in fact, false.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

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

—

1.k–1.m

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The SOR alleged that on January 13, 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The SOR alleged that on January 13, 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Denied

—

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