ISCR Case 14-02790.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02790.h1

deniedMar 9, 2016· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old former Marine Corps Captain and Military Analyst 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's issues stemmed from a May 2011 arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and subsequent charges for wrongful use of MDMA (ecstasy) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He admitted to using ecstasy in 2011 while holding a security clearance, and was diagnosed with "Alcohol Abuse" in June 2011.

Further complicating the case, the applicant answered "No" to a question about illegal drug use in the last seven years on his February 2013 e-QIP, despite his admitted ecstasy use in 2011. While he has not consumed alcohol since October 2011, and acknowledged that his actions "tarnished the trust and reliability others had in me," these mitigating factors were insufficient.

The judge ultimately determined that the applicant's lack of candor regarding his drug use on the e-QIP, combined with his past drug involvement and DUI, outweighed any mitigating circumstances. The applicant's criminal and personal conduct issues were not adequately mitigated by the passage of time or his abstinence from alcohol, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant falsified his e-QIP regarding illegal drug use, demonstrating a lack of candor.
The applicant's past drug use and DUI raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's criminal conduct and personal conduct issues were not sufficiently mitigated by the passage of time or abstinence from alcohol.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 25(a)raisedAny Drug Abuse
AG ¶ 25(g)raisedIllegal Drug Use After Being Granted a Security Clearance

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)appliedSo Much Time Has Passed That the Behavior Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 26(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent That It Is Unlikely to Recur

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 13, 2015
Answer filedMar 4, 2015
Hearing heldDec 2, 2015Hearing rescheduled twice for applicant's counsel availability.
Decision dateMar 9, 2016

Cite For

Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Impact of Past Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of Mitigating Factors in the Context of Personal Conduct Issues

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	On Applicant’s February 27, 2013 e-QIP, Section 23 - Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity asks In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances? To which he answered “No.”	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

On Applicant’s February 27, 2013 e-QIP, Section 23 - Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity asks In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances? To which he answered “No.”

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

2.b

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	In June of 2011, Applicant was diagnosed as suffering from “Alcohol Abuse.”	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
3.b	Applicant has not consumed alcohol since October of 2011.	For Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

In June of 2011, Applicant was diagnosed as suffering from “Alcohol Abuse.”

For Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional

—

3.b

Applicant has not consumed alcohol since October of 2011.

For Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	In his Answer to Subparagraph 2. of the SOR, Applicant admits “that . . . [his] use of MDMA [ecstasy] and driving while intoxicated tarnished the trust and reliability others had in me, including the Marine Corps.”	For Applicant	MDMAWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—
2.b	Applicant had been granted a security clearance in about May of 2004. He therefore used the illegal substance, ecstasy, in 2011 while possessing a security clearance.	For Applicant	MDMAWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

In his Answer to Subparagraph 2. of the SOR, Applicant admits “that . . . [his] use of MDMA [ecstasy] and driving while intoxicated tarnished the trust and reliability others had in me, including the Marine Corps.”

For Applicant

MDMAWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

—

2.b

Applicant had been granted a security clearance in about May of 2004. He therefore used the illegal substance, ecstasy, in 2011 while possessing a security clearance.

For Applicant

MDMAWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In May of 2011, Applicant was arrested for, and subsequently charged with, “Driving Under Influence of Alcohol/Drugs [DUI].”	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	After an Article 32 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Investigation, Applicant was also “referred for General Court Martial for violating Art[icle] 122a [of the UCMJ] wrongful use of (MDMA)”.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

In May of 2011, Applicant was arrested for, and subsequently charged with, “Driving Under Influence of Alcohol/Drugs [DUI].”

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

1.b

After an Article 32 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Investigation, Applicant was also “referred for General Court Martial for violating Art[icle] 122a [of the UCMJ] wrongful use of (MDMA)”.

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Conduct No Charge

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