ISCR Case 01-01213.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-01213.h1

deniedMar 28, 2002· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old avionics technician with a high school diploma was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, criminal conduct, and intentionally falsified information on his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant used marijuana from the 1970s until Spring 2000, admitting to use for several months after a December 1999 interview with a Defense Security Service agent. He was arrested for marijuana possession in 1974 and received non-judicial punishment for it in 1976 while in the U.S. Armed Forces. The applicant also consumed alcohol to excess from 1977 to December 1999, admitting to being a problem drinker and an alcoholic during that period. Additionally, in 1994, he was arrested on two consecutive days due to manic episodes after stopping medication for Bipolar disorder, receiving a suspended sentence and a small fine.

Despite reducing his drinking and having no further arrests, the judge found that the applicant did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns. The denial was based on his long history of illegal drug use ending less than two years prior, his admitted alcoholism with no evidence of complete sobriety, and his intentional falsification of information on his security clearance application regarding drug and alcohol-related arrests.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long history of illegal drug use, including marijuana, which ended less than two years before the decision.
The applicant admitted to being an alcoholic and had a serious alcohol problem up to December 1999, with no evidence of complete sobriety.
The applicant intentionally provided false information on his security clearance application regarding his drug and alcohol-related arrests.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Abuse
G1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents
E2raisedFalsification of Information

Mitigating

G3rejectedPositive Changes in BehaviorThe applicant's reduced alcohol consumption did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns.
J1appliedCriminal Behavior Not Recent
E2rejectedFalsification of InformationThe applicant's false statements were willful despite his claims of computer literacy issues.

Key Rule Quoted

“Each adjudication is to be an overall common sense determination based upon consideration and assessment of all available information, both favorable and unfavorable.”
— Executive Order 10865

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 16, 2001
Answer filedSep 15, 2001Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Hearing heldJan 31, 2002
Decision dateMar 28, 2002

Cite For

Denial Based on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Under Guidelines G and H
Intentional Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
Consideration of Past Criminal Conduct 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	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The Applicant consumed alcohol to excess during the period from 1977 to December 1999.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	He admits that during that period he was a problem drinker and an alcoholic.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(b) alcohol-related incident at work	—	—
2.c	The Applicant has reduced his drinking considerably. When the Applicant drinks, he does not drink to excess.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The Applicant consumed alcohol to excess during the period from 1977 to December 1999.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

—

2.b

He admits that during that period he was a problem drinker and an alcoholic.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

—

2.c

The Applicant has reduced his drinking considerably. When the Applicant drinks, he does not drink to excess.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant first began using marijuana in the 1970s. He used it at varying frequencies until Spring 2000. The Applicant testified that his use had no set pattern and would range from daily to twice a week. He would smoke marijuana to calm down. The Applicant admitted that he used marijuana for several months after being interviewed by a Defense Security Service (DSS) agent in December 1999.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The Applicant admitted that he was arrested for possession of marijuana in 1974. The record also shows that the Applicant received non-judicial punishment for possession of marijuana in 1976, while on active duty with the United States Armed Forces.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	The Applicant also admitted purchasing marijuana on an occasional basis during the entire period that he was using it.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d–4.b	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (5 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

The Applicant first began using marijuana in the 1970s. He used it at varying frequencies until Spring 2000. The Applicant testified that his use had no set pattern and would range from daily to twice a week. He would smoke marijuana to calm down. The Applicant admitted that he used marijuana for several months after being interviewed by a Defense Security Service (DSS) agent in December 1999.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Frequent

Admitted

—

1.b

The Applicant admitted that he was arrested for possession of marijuana in 1974. The record also shows that the Applicant received non-judicial punishment for possession of marijuana in 1976, while on active duty with the United States Armed Forces.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.c

The Applicant also admitted purchasing marijuana on an occasional basis during the entire period that he was using it.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Occasional

Admitted

—

1.d–4.b

7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (5 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	In 1994 the Applicant was on medication for his Bipolar disorder. In early August he stopped taking his medication for several days. As a result, the Applicant began suffering from manic episodes. The end result were arrests on August 13 and 14. (Government Exhibits 3 and 4.) The police thought that the Applicant was intoxicated at the time. The Applicant maintains that he was not and, after the second episode, he was hospitalized. He eventually received a suspended sentence and was given a small fine. He has not been arrested since.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
1.a–4.b	9 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (8 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

In 1994 the Applicant was on medication for his Bipolar disorder. In early August he stopped taking his medication for several days. As a result, the Applicant began suffering from manic episodes. The end result were arrests on August 13 and 14. (Government Exhibits 3 and 4.) The police thought that the Applicant was intoxicated at the time. The Applicant maintains that he was not and, after the second episode, he was hospitalized. He eventually received a suspended sentence and was given a small fine. He has not been arrested since.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

1.a–4.b

9 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (8 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

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