CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-25466.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 01-25466.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-25466.h1

deniedApr 19, 2004· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The denial stemmed from the applicant's history of alcohol-related incidents and his intentional falsification of information on his Security Clearance Application (SCA) regarding these past offenses.

Specifically, the applicant failed to disclose multiple alcohol-related charges and convictions on his September 1999 SCA. These included a 1975 charge for having an open container in a vehicle, a 1989 DUI conviction resulting in a $1,000 fine and community service, and an August 2000 DUI arrest that led to a no-contest plea, seven days in jail, and a $1,540 fine. The judge found the applicant's explanations for these omissions not credible.

The decision to deny the clearance was based on the intentional falsification of material facts on the SCA and the applicant's history of alcohol-related incidents, which raised doubts about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally falsified material facts regarding his alcohol-related criminal conduct on his Security Clearance Application.
The applicant's explanations for not disclosing past alcohol-related incidents were deemed not credible.
The applicant's history of alcohol-related incidents raised concerns about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work, Such as Driving Under the Influence.

Key Rule Quoted

“When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 24, 2003
Answer filedJul 1, 2003Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateApr 19, 2004

Cite For

Falsification of Material Facts on a Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Impact of Alcohol-related Incidents on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline G
Credibility of Applicant's Explanations Regarding Past Conduct.

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on Guideline E due to intentional falsification of material facts regarding his alcohol-related criminal conduct on a Security Clearance Application. The applicant's explanations for the omissions were deemed not credible, leading to a denial of his clearance request.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant intentionally falsified material facts regarding his alcohol-related criminal conduct on a Security Clearance Application (SCA).	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	Applicant's July 2003 response to SOR Allegation 1a is essentially meaningless since he both admitted and denied this allegation without explanation.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUI charges. The judge found that the applicant's alcohol-related misconduct adversely affected his judgment and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	In August 2000, applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). He pleaded no contest to the charge, and was sentenced to seven days in jail and fined approximately $1,540.00.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.b	In 1989, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was found guilty, fined $1,000.00, and ordered to perform community service.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.c	In 1975, applicant was charged with Drunk Driving and Having An Open Container in Vehicle. The Drunk Driving charge was dismissed. Applicant was found guilty of the second charge and fined $130.00.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.d	Applicant executed an SCA in September 1999. In response to Question 24, which asked, 'Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?' applicant stated 'no.' This response was false because, as noted above, applicant had been charged with and convicted of alcohol-related offenses in 1975 and 1989.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	(b) alcohol-related incident at work	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DATE: April 19, 2004

In Re:

---------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 01-25466

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS

Applicant's intentional falsification of material facts regarding his alcohol-related criminal conduct on a Security Clearance Application (SCA) requires a denial of his clearance request. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On April 24, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.

Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on July 1, 2003, and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about September 15, 2003. Applicant filed a response to the FORM on or about October 3, 2003. The case was assigned to me on November 4, 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 51 year old employee of a defense contractor.

In August 2000, applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). He pleaded no contest to the charge, and was sentenced to seven days in jail and fined approximately $1,540.00.

In 1989, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He was found guilty, fined $1,000.00, and ordered to perform community service. In 1975, applicant was charged with Drunk Driving and Having An Open Container in Vehicle. The Drunk Driving charge was dismissed. Applicant was found guilty of the second charge and fined $130.00.

Applicant drinks about two beers a day after work. He intends to continue drinking at this level, but does "not plan to drink and drive" (Exhibit 9).

Applicant executed an SCA in September 1999. In response to Question 24, which asked, "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?" applicant stated "no." This response was false because, as noted above, applicant had been charged with and convicted of alcohol-related offenses in 1975 and 1989. In Exhibit 9, applicant stated that he did not disclose the 1975 incident because he "didn't deem it relevant because of the time." As to why he didn't disclose the 1989 incident, he stated that he "must have been confused because some of the questions were for the last 7 years and others were 'have you ever.'" Applicant's explanations are not credible.

A letter from the man who has supervised applicant at his place of employment during the past ten years was admitted into evidence. In it, the supervisor states that applicant performs well at his job and has not had a "single day of absence" in the last 10 years.

CONCLUSION

With respect to Guideline G, the evidence establishes that since 1975, applicant has been involved in three alcohol- related incidents that have resulted in criminal charges and convictions. This alcohol-related misconduct reflects adversely on his judgment, reliability and trustworthiness, and suggests he cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. This conduct also requires application of Disqualifying Condition E2.A7.1.2.1 (alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving under the influence . . .).

As of June 2001, which is the last time applicant commented on the subject, (1) his stated intention was to continue consuming alcohol at the rate of about two beers a day, but not to drink and drive. Given his (1) stated intention to consume two beers a day, which is, in essence, an intention not to drink to excess, (2) his stated intention not to drink and drive, and (3) the passage of time since he last consumed alcohol to excess (over three years), I conclude that applicant qualifies for Mitigating Conditions E2.A7.1.3.2 (the problem occurred a number of years ago and there is no indication of a recent problem) and E2.A7.1.3.3 (positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety). I further conclude that applicant has overcome the Government's case under Guideline G.

With respect to Guideline E, applicant's falsification of material facts on the SCA concerning his alcohol-related criminal record is extremely troubling. The Government relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals seeking access to our nation's secrets. When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders.

In this case, I have considered the letter from applicant's supervisor. This letter, however, falls far short of establishing that applicant is now reliable and trustworthy, and can now be relied upon to be truthful with the Government. Disqualifying Condition E2.A5.1.2.2 (the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . .) is applicable to this case. No Mitigating Conditions apply. (2) Based on the foregoing, Guideline E is found against applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: FOR THE APPLICANT

All subparagraphs found for the applicant

PARAGRAPH 2: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.

____________________________

Joseph Testan

Administrative Judge

1. Applicant's July 2003 response to SOR Allegation 1a is essentially meaningless since he both admitted and denied this allegation without explanation.

2. Mitigating Condition E2.A5.1.3.2 does not apply because, although the falsification was not recent and appears to be an isolated incident, there is no credible evidence that applicant subsequently provided the correct information voluntarily.

FOOTNOTES

01-25466.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/01-25466.h1.html[7/2/2021 2:28:53 PM] 01-25466.h1