CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-00240.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-00240.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-00240.h1

deniedNov 21, 2003· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old government contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant had a seven-year history of marijuana use, from 1993 to 2000, and also admitted to excessive use of other drugs and alcohol, including hallucinogens. He had a conviction for driving while intoxicated and expressed an intent to continue consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication.

Furthermore, the applicant falsified his Security Clearance Application (SF 86) by failing to disclose his drug use. He also stated an intention to resume drug use in the future, depending on his feelings and alcohol consumption.

The denial was based on the applicant's prolonged drug use, his admission of excessive alcohol use and a DWI conviction, which indicated impaired judgment, and his falsification of the SF 86, demonstrating a lack of trustworthiness. These factors collectively raised significant security concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant used marijuana for seven years and other drugs, raising security concerns.
Applicant admitted to excessive alcohol use and a DWI conviction, indicating impaired judgment.
Applicant falsified his SF 86 by failing to disclose his drug use, demonstrating a lack of trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A8.1.2.1raisedDrug Involvement
E2.A8.1.2.2raisedIllegal Possession of Drugs
E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
E2.A7.1.2.5raisedConsumption of Alcohol to the Point of Impaired Judgment
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedFalsification of SF 86

Key Rule Quoted

“"Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security."”
— Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 13, 2002
Answer filedFeb 10, 2003Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Hearing held—Written record decision.
Decision dateNov 21, 2003

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Alcohol Use Under Guideline G
Falsification of Information on the SF 86 Under Guideline E

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 that the applicant falsified material facts on his Security Clearance Application (SF 86) regarding drug activity. The applicant's conduct raised serious questions about his judgment and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	The applicant falsified material facts on his Security Clearance Application (SF 86) regarding drug activity.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	—	—	—

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 judge found against the applicant on all alcohol-related allegations under Guideline G. The applicant admitted to alcohol-related offenses, including consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication, and expressed an intent to continue such behavior, which raised concerns about his judgment and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including a conviction for driving while intoxicated.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	The applicant consumes alcohol to the point of intoxication and has expressed an intent to continue doing so.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	—	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant was found to have used marijuana for six years and expressed an intention to resume use. He also admitted to using other drugs and alcohol excessively, and he falsified information on his security clearance application. The judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline H, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Used marijuana for six years from 1993 until 2000.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Used hallucinogenic drugs and alcohol to the point of intoxication.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Stated an intention to resume using depending on how he feels and how much alcohol he may have consumed.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Failed to disclose his drug use on his SF 86.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). 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: November 21, 2003

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-00240

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

SYNOPSIS

Applicant, a 28-year-old employee of a government contractor used marijuana for seven years from 1993 until 2000. He has asserted an intention to resume using depending on how he feels and how much alcohol he may have consumed. He also used other drugs and alcohol to excess. He also falsified material facts on his Security Clearance Application (SF 86) regarding drug activity. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On December 13, 2002, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Information Within Industry, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, 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. DOHA recommended the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

In a sworn written statement, dated February 10, 2003, Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on August 6, 2003. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He did not do so. The case was assigned to, and received by, me on October 3, 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted to all of the specific allegations in the SOR and stated no qualifications or mitigating facts. The admitted facts are hereby incorporated as findings of fact. After a complete and thorough review of the information in the record, and upon due consideration of same, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Applicant, a 28-year-old employee of a government contractor, used marijuana for six years from 1993 until 2000. He also has used hallucinogenic drugs and alcohol to the point of intoxication. In 2000 he was charged, convicted and given a suspended sentence with a $300.00 fine for driving while intoxicated. He failed to disclose his drug use on his SF 86.

POLICIES

[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance." Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has "the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position that will give that person access to such information." Id. at 527.

An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when "it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so." Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).

Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the applicant's clearance. "Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security." Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. "[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b)

Under the Directive the Government has alleged a number of Disqualifying Conditions (DC) These concern drug involvement including drug abuse (E2.A8.1.2.1.) and illegal possession ((E2.A8.1.2.2.) under Guideline H, alcohol related incidents away from work (E2.A7.1.2.1.), and consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment (E2.A7.1.2.5.) under Guideline G. Also alleged is falsification of his SF 86 by failing to disclose drug use (E2.A5.1.2.2) under Guideline E.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal precepts, factors and conditions above, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR.

The government has cited Disqualifying Condition (DC) 1 under Guideline H in the SOR concerning drug involvement as relevant to the proposed denial of a security clearance for the Applicant. Drug involvement is always a security concern because it raises questions about a person's willingness or ability to protect classified information. Any drug abuse is a condition that may be disqualifying. E2.A8.1.1.3 provides the following definition: "Drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug . . . ."

Mitigating Condition (MC) 2 might apply if there is "[a] demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future."However, the Applicant has stated he would likely continue to use marijuana in the future depending on how he felt or how much alcohol he had consumed. Such intention raises serious questions concerning his judgment and trustworthiness to hold a security clearance.

With regard to Guideline G, Applicant has admitted alcohol related offenses, consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication and an intent to continue to do so. Thus, no mitigating Conditions are applicable. With regard to Guideline E Applicant has shown an unwillingness to comply with legal requirements for disclosure of past conduct on the SF 86. No Mitigating Conditions were advanced by Applicant and none are applicable.

After considering all the evidence in its totality and as an integrated whole to focus on the whole person of Applicant, I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant clearance to Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:

Paragraph 1. Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2 Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 2.b.: Against Applicant

Paragraph 3. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 3.a.: Against Applicant

DECISION

After full consideration of all the facts and documents 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. Clearance is denied.

Charles D. Ablard

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

02-00240.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Marc E. Curry, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-00240.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:45:22 AM] 02-00240.h1