ISCR Case 01-00038.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-00038.h1

deniedJan 14, 2002· Hon. Burt Smith· hearing

Summary

A thirty-eight-year-old security officer for a defense contractor was denied a DoD security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of personal misconduct, including deceptive answers on a security questionnaire and multiple arrests for criminal conduct between 1988 and 1996.

Specifically, the applicant deliberately omitted, concealed, or falsified relevant facts on his security questionnaire. He also had a history of drug involvement, smoking marijuana regularly from 1978 to 1984, with diminished use thereafter. In 1996, he was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, leading to community service and a drug rehabilitation program, after which the charges were dismissed, and he ceased marijuana use for five years.

Furthermore, the applicant engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, with three arrests between 1988 and 1996. These included an arrest in 1988 for participating in a fraud scheme involving a forged check and a 1995 arrest for domestic assault. The clearance was denied because the applicant provided false information on his questionnaire, exhibited a pattern of criminal conduct, and his admissions of past misconduct were not timely, failing to demonstrate sufficient reform.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant provided false and misleading information on the security questionnaire regarding his financial history.
Applicant has a pattern of criminal conduct, including arrests for felony theft and domestic assault, which raises concerns about his judgment and reliability.
The Applicant's admissions of past misconduct were not timely and did not demonstrate sufficient reform.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.2.raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A2.4.raisedPersonal Conduct or Concealment of Information That May Increase Vulnerability to Coercion
J2.A1.raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct
J2.A2.raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

H2.A1.appliedThe Drug Involvement Was Not Recent
H2.A3.appliedDemonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Any Drugs in the Future
H2.A4.appliedSatisfactory Completion of a Prescribed Drug Treatment Program
E2.A5.rejectedPositive Steps to Significantly Reduce Vulnerability to CoercionApplicant's claims of reform were not supported by documentary evidence.
E2.A7.rejectedAssociation with Persons Involved in Criminal Activities Has CeasedPast criminal behavior indicates ongoing vulnerability.
J2.A3.appliedNo Mitigating Conditions Have Application

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government is therefore appropriately concerned where available information indicates that an Applicant for clearance may be involved in repeated instances of off-duty drug usage, false official statements, and criminal conduct which demonstrates unreliability or reckless behavior on the Applicant's part.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 22, 2001
Answer filedJul 13, 2001
Hearing heldOct 25, 2001
Decision dateJan 14, 2002

Cite For

Deceptive Answers on Security Questionnaires Under Guideline E
Pattern of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H

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	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

—

2.b

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

—

2.c

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	During the approximate period 1978 to 1984 (when Applicant was 14 years to 20 years of age) he smoked marijuana on a regular basis, several times per week. In approximately 1984, when Applicant was in his early twenties, his desire for marijuana decreased, and his use of the substance diminished to only a few times per year thereafter.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	(c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—
1.b	In 1996 while walking to work Applicant was approached by two police officers, and as they came near he reached into his jeans and threw away a marijuana cigarette he carried in his pocket. Applicant was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, and he was later sentenced to community service and a drug rehabilitation program. Applicant completed his sentence, and the drug charges were then dismissed. Applicant has not used marijuana since completing the rehabilitation program, a sobriety period of five years.	For Applicant	Drug Diagnosed Disorder	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	(c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

During the approximate period 1978 to 1984 (when Applicant was 14 years to 20 years of age) he smoked marijuana on a regular basis, several times per week. In approximately 1984, when Applicant was in his early twenties, his desire for marijuana decreased, and his use of the substance diminished to only a few times per year thereafter.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Admitted

—

(c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended

—

1.b

In 1996 while walking to work Applicant was approached by two police officers, and as they came near he reached into his jeans and threw away a marijuana cigarette he carried in his pocket. Applicant was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, and he was later sentenced to community service and a drug rehabilitation program. Applicant completed his sentence, and the drug charges were then dismissed. Applicant has not used marijuana since completing the rehabilitation program, a sobriety period of five years.

For Applicant

Drug Diagnosed Disorder

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

(c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.1	In its SOR the Government alleges the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the past. Applicant's answer to the SOR admits that during the period 1988 to 1996 he was arrested three times for violations of criminal law.	Against Applicant	Multiple Arrests Pattern	Arrested Not Charged	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
3.2	In 1988 Applicant was arrested for knowingly participating in a fraud scheme in which he accepted $100 as payment for cashing a $1,000 forged check unlawfully taken from an insurance company.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Arrested Not Charged	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
3.3	In 1995 Applicant was arrested on charges of domestic assault arising out his physical attack upon a female companion.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Arrested Not Charged	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.1

In its SOR the Government alleges the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the past. Applicant's answer to the SOR admits that during the period 1988 to 1996 he was arrested three times for violations of criminal law.

Against Applicant

Multiple Arrests Pattern

Arrested Not Charged

Admitted

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

—

3.2

In 1988 Applicant was arrested for knowingly participating in a fraud scheme in which he accepted $100 as payment for cashing a $1,000 forged check unlawfully taken from an insurance company.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Arrested Not Charged

Admitted

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

—

3.3

In 1995 Applicant was arrested on charges of domestic assault arising out his physical attack upon a female companion.

Against Applicant

Domestic Violence

Arrested Not Charged

Admitted

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

—

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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES