ISCR Case 01-05695.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-05695.h1

deniedDec 19, 2002· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old mechanical technician employed by a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The denial stemmed from a history of illegal drug use, alcohol abuse, financial issues, and intentional falsification of information during the clearance process. The judge found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and determined that he failed to mitigate the government's security concerns.

The applicant made multiple false statements on official DoD questionnaires and during interviews with a Special Agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS). He initially denied using marijuana or cocaine in the previous seven years and denied any alcohol or drug-related arrests, despite admitting to an arrest for marijuana possession in 1978. He also initially denied illegal drug use after 1992, later admitting to additional marijuana use after being confronted with information from his therapist. His statements regarding the extent of his marijuana, hashish, LSD, cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogenic mushroom use were often contradictory, with initial denials later being partially or fully recanted. He also denied selling marijuana, despite a prior admission in a government exhibit.

The applicant's history included extensive hashish use from 1972 to 1974, multiple periods of cocaine use between 1972 and 1995, and a one-time use of heroin. He received treatment for cocaine abuse in 1995 after a positive drug test, but was discharged from his employer for dropping out of the program. The denial was ultimately based on his history of illegal drug use, attempts to conceal it, severely undermined credibility due to contradictory statements, unresolved financial issues, and intentional falsification of material information on his application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of illegal drug use, including marijuana and cocaine, which he attempted to conceal.
The applicant's credibility was severely undermined by contradictory statements regarding his drug use.
The applicant has unresolved financial issues, including significant child support arrears and other debts.
The applicant intentionally falsified material information on his security clearance application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

HraisedDrug Involvement
GraisedAlcohol Consumption
FraisedFinancial Considerations
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government is therefore appropriately concerned where available information indicates that an Applicant for clearance may be involved in acts of drug abuse, alcohol abuse falsification and past due indebtedness that demonstrate poor judgement, untrustworthiness or unreliability on the Applicant's part.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 24, 2002
Answer filedApr 2, 2002
Hearing heldJun 14, 2002
Decision dateDec 19, 2002

Cite For

Credibility Issues in Drug Use Cases
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance
Importance of Truthful Disclosures 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
4.a	On September 15, 1999, the Applicant completed an official DoD questionnaire in which he stated that he had not used marijuana or cocaine in the previous seven years. This statement was a false answer to a material question pertaining to the Applicant's former involvement with illegal substances.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
4.b	On the same questionnaire the Applicant also stated that he had never been charged or arrested of any offense related to alcohol or drugs. This statement was also a false statement to a material question pertaining to the Applicant's arrest record.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
4.c	The Applicant was subsequently interviewed by a Special Agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS) on June 21, 2000. In that first interview the Applicant denied any illegal drug use after 1992. He also stated that his use of cocaine in 1994 was accidental. As set forth above, this information was false.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
4.d	The DSS agent subsequently received information from the Applicant's therapist that the Applicant had admitted using marijuana after 1992. The Applicant was reinterviewed on June 29, 2000, and after being confronted with this knowledge, admitted his additional marijuana use. He continued to deny cocaine use. As set forth above, this information also was false.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

On September 15, 1999, the Applicant completed an official DoD questionnaire in which he stated that he had not used marijuana or cocaine in the previous seven years. This statement was a false answer to a material question pertaining to the Applicant's former involvement with illegal substances.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

4.b

On the same questionnaire the Applicant also stated that he had never been charged or arrested of any offense related to alcohol or drugs. This statement was also a false statement to a material question pertaining to the Applicant's arrest record.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

4.c

The Applicant was subsequently interviewed by a Special Agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS) on June 21, 2000. In that first interview the Applicant denied any illegal drug use after 1992. He also stated that his use of cocaine in 1994 was accidental. As set forth above, this information was false.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

4.d

The DSS agent subsequently received information from the Applicant's therapist that the Applicant had admitted using marijuana after 1992. The Applicant was reinterviewed on June 29, 2000, and after being confronted with this knowledge, admitted his additional marijuana use. He continued to deny cocaine use. As set forth above, this information also was false.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The evidence concerning the extent of the Applicant's marijuana use is contradictory. In his answer and during the hearing, the Applicant denied using marijuana after 1978. After extensive cross-examination, the Applicant eventually admitted that he had taken a puff or two of marijuana on various occasions through 1995.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Concerning his use of hashish, the Applicant said, "I first used hashish in 1972 while I was in the US Army. I estimate that I smoked hashish almost daily from 1972 to Sep 74, except for periods when I was on a fire mission."	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	The Applicant admits to using LSD on one occasion in 1970 on page 4 of Government Exhibit 2. In his testimony, the Applicant says that he was told the item was LSD, but he does not believe it was.	Against Applicant	LSD	Experimental	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	The Applicant admits using diet pills for eight weeks in 1970. In Government Exhibit 2 at page 5 the Applicant admits taking some pills called "White Crosses." There is insufficient evidence to determine that the Applicant knowingly used amphetamines as alleged.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	The evidence is contradictory regarding the Applicant's use of cocaine. In his extensive statement of September 19, 2000, the Applicant describes three periods of cocaine use. During the first period, between 1972 and 1974, the Applicant used cocaine about six times. Later, between 1985 and 1987-88, the Applicant used cocaine approximately 24 times. The final period was from November-December 1994 to January 1995. During this last period he used cocaine twice weekly until, because of a work-related accident, he received a drug test and came up positive for cocaine.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Frequent	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	The Applicant admitted that he used heroin on a one time basis in the 1970s as a "trial deal."	Against Applicant	Heroin	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	The Applicant denied using crystal methamphetamine (crank). His testimony on this allegation that he did not use crystal methamphetamine is rejected as not being credible or worthy of belief.	Against Applicant	Methamphetamine	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	The Applicant admitted eating some mushrooms but denied that he knew they were hallucinogenic. In his sworn statement the Applicant admits eating hallucinogenic mushrooms.	For Applicant	Psilocybin	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	The Applicant admitted being arrested for Possession of Marijuana in 1978. He testified that he was in a car belonging to others, who actually owned the marijuana, and that he was just there.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	The Applicant denied purchasing marijuana in his testimony, which is directly contradicted by Government Exhibit 2.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—
1.k	In the mid-1980s, the Applicant admits that his wife "planted" some marijuana seeds. In Government Exhibit 2 at 5 he states that he pulled up the plants and smoked the marijuana.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
1.l	In Government Exhibit 2 at 3, the Applicant admits to selling marijuana. In his testimony, the Applicant completely denies selling marijuana.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—
1.m	The Applicant admits purchasing cocaine on one occasion in 1994-95. There is some dispute as to whether he purchased one or two pills for $5 or $10.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.n	The Applicant did receive treatment for cocaine abuse in 1995. He was evaluated by the clinical director of the treatment program, a Ph.D. who is a LMSW. This treatment was the result of the positive drug test for cocaine described above.	Against Applicant	Treatment Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.o	As a result of being a treatment dropout from the above program, the Applicant was discharged from his employer.	Against Applicant	Treatment Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

The evidence concerning the extent of the Applicant's marijuana use is contradictory. In his answer and during the hearing, the Applicant denied using marijuana after 1978. After extensive cross-examination, the Applicant eventually admitted that he had taken a puff or two of marijuana on various occasions through 1995.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Occasional

Denied

—

1.b

Concerning his use of hashish, the Applicant said, "I first used hashish in 1972 while I was in the US Army. I estimate that I smoked hashish almost daily from 1972 to Sep 74, except for periods when I was on a fire mission."

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Regular

Denied

—

1.c

The Applicant admits to using LSD on one occasion in 1970 on page 4 of Government Exhibit 2. In his testimony, the Applicant says that he was told the item was LSD, but he does not believe it was.

Against Applicant

LSD

Experimental

Denied

—

1.d

The Applicant admits using diet pills for eight weeks in 1970. In Government Exhibit 2 at page 5 the Applicant admits taking some pills called "White Crosses." There is insufficient evidence to determine that the Applicant knowingly used amphetamines as alleged.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.e

The evidence is contradictory regarding the Applicant's use of cocaine. In his extensive statement of September 19, 2000, the Applicant describes three periods of cocaine use. During the first period, between 1972 and 1974, the Applicant used cocaine about six times. Later, between 1985 and 1987-88, the Applicant used cocaine approximately 24 times. The final period was from November-December 1994 to January 1995. During this last period he used cocaine twice weekly until, because of a work-related accident, he received a drug test and came up positive for cocaine.

Against Applicant

Cocaine

Frequent

Denied

—

1.f

The Applicant admitted that he used heroin on a one time basis in the 1970s as a "trial deal."

Against Applicant

Heroin

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.g

The Applicant denied using crystal methamphetamine (crank). His testimony on this allegation that he did not use crystal methamphetamine is rejected as not being credible or worthy of belief.

Against Applicant

Methamphetamine

Not Applicable

Denied

—

1.h

The Applicant admitted eating some mushrooms but denied that he knew they were hallucinogenic. In his sworn statement the Applicant admits eating hallucinogenic mushrooms.

For Applicant

Psilocybin

Occasional

Admitted

—

1.i

The Applicant admitted being arrested for Possession of Marijuana in 1978. He testified that he was in a car belonging to others, who actually owned the marijuana, and that he was just there.

Against Applicant

Drug Distribution or Dealing

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.j

The Applicant denied purchasing marijuana in his testimony, which is directly contradicted by Government Exhibit 2.

Against Applicant

Drug Distribution or Dealing

Not Applicable

Denied

—

1.k

In the mid-1980s, the Applicant admits that his wife "planted" some marijuana seeds. In Government Exhibit 2 at 5 he states that he pulled up the plants and smoked the marijuana.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Occasional

Admitted

—

1.l

In Government Exhibit 2 at 3, the Applicant admits to selling marijuana. In his testimony, the Applicant completely denies selling marijuana.

Against Applicant

Drug Distribution or Dealing

Not Applicable

Denied

—

1.m

The Applicant admits purchasing cocaine on one occasion in 1994-95. There is some dispute as to whether he purchased one or two pills for $5 or $10.

Against Applicant

Cocaine

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.n

The Applicant did receive treatment for cocaine abuse in 1995. He was evaluated by the clinical director of the treatment program, a Ph.D. who is a LMSW. This treatment was the result of the positive drug test for cocaine described above.

Against Applicant

Treatment Failure

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.o

As a result of being a treatment dropout from the above program, the Applicant was discharged from his employer.

Against Applicant

Treatment Failure

Not Applicable

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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES