ISCR Case 01-00684.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-00684.h1

deniedNov 2, 2001· Hon. Kathryn Moen Braeman· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's intentional omissions and falsifications on his security form (SF 86) regarding his history of illegal drug use, alcohol-related offenses, and past arrests, including an assault charge. He admitted to using marijuana since age 16 and misrepresented the cessation of his drug use to an investigator.

Further concerns arose from a history of serious alcohol and drug-related behavior. The applicant had multiple alcohol-related incidents, including driving under the influence and open container violations, and was diagnosed with alcohol and cannabis dependence. Despite undergoing treatment for substance dependence, he continued to consume alcohol and failed to demonstrate a sustained commitment to sobriety.

The decision to deny the clearance was based on the applicant's intentional omissions of material information, his continued alcohol consumption post-treatment, and the lack of evidence of positive behavioral changes. These factors collectively raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant intentionally omitted adverse information from his security form, including drug and alcohol use.
Despite treatment for substance dependence, the applicant continued to consume alcohol and did not provide evidence of positive behavioral changes.
The applicant's history of questionable conduct raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
G2.A1.raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
H2.A1.raisedAny Drug Abuse
J2.A2.raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Key Rule Quoted

“The responsibility for producing evidence initially falls on the Government to demonstrate that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 6, 2001
Answer filed—Applicant requested an administrative determination, not a hearing.
Hearing held—Decision made on the administrative record.
Decision dateNov 2, 2001

Cite For

Intentional Omissions of Material Information Under Guideline E
Ongoing Substance Abuse Issues Under Guidelines G and H
Criminal Conduct Related to Falsification of Security Forms 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
1.a	Applicant intentionally omitted adverse information from his SF 86 form where he answered "no" to a series of questions where he should have answered yes.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant intentionally falsified the question regarding illegal drug use, admitting to marijuana use since he was 16.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant intentionally falsified the question regarding alcohol/drug offenses, having been arrested for DUI and open container violations.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant intentionally falsified the question regarding illegal drug use in sensitive positions, having used marijuana while holding licenses.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant intentionally omitted past arrests, including an assault charge, from his security form, believing they were minor.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant intentionally omitted adverse information from his SF 86 form where he answered "no" to a series of questions where he should have answered yes.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

1.b

Applicant intentionally falsified the question regarding illegal drug use, admitting to marijuana use since he was 16.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

1.c

Applicant intentionally falsified the question regarding alcohol/drug offenses, having been arrested for DUI and open container violations.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

1.d

Applicant intentionally falsified the question regarding illegal drug use in sensitive positions, having used marijuana while holding licenses.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

1.e

Applicant intentionally omitted past arrests, including an assault charge, from his security form, believing they were minor.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, or other criminal incidents related to alcohol use;	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program;	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment;	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, or other criminal incidents related to alcohol use;

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Denied

—

2.b

Evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program;

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Denied

—

2.c

Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment;

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant has used marijuana since he was 16 two to four times per week. He also admitted other drug use. He also misrepresented his drug use to the investigator as he told him in July 2000 that he had stopped using marijuana in 1998 when medical records reveal he continued to use marijuana daily until the time he entered treatment in May 2000 and was diagnosed with Cannabis Dependence.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant's drug abuse raised security concerns as he used marijuana from 1971 to May 2000 on an intermittent to daily basis. His marijuana use included the period after he applied for a security clearance in July 1999 as he used marijuana on a daily basis until he sought treatment in May 2000 and was diagnosed as marijuana dependent by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized drug treatment program.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant has used marijuana since he was 16 two to four times per week. He also admitted other drug use. He also misrepresented his drug use to the investigator as he told him in July 2000 that he had stopped using marijuana in 1998 when medical records reveal he continued to use marijuana daily until the time he entered treatment in May 2000 and was diagnosed with Cannabis Dependence.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Regular

Admitted

—

3.b

Applicant's drug abuse raised security concerns as he used marijuana from 1971 to May 2000 on an intermittent to daily basis. His marijuana use included the period after he applied for a security clearance in July 1999 as he used marijuana on a daily basis until he sought treatment in May 2000 and was diagnosed as marijuana dependent by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized drug treatment program.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Regular

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
4.a–4.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 2 for the applicant).	Mixed		Conduct No Charge		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

4.a–4.c

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (1 against, 2 for the applicant).

Mixed

Conduct No Charge

—

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