ISCR Case 02-16991.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-16991.h1

grantedNov 22, 2004· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old project quality engineer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and G (Alcohol Consumption). The Statement of Reasons cited two federal tax liens from 1997, a $150,000 civil judgment from a DUI incident, and a disputed $74 debt. Additionally, the applicant had a history of multiple DUI convictions and alleged falsification of his security clearance application regarding the financial issues.

The applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. He resolved the federal tax liens and the civil judgment through a payment agreement. Regarding alcohol consumption, he demonstrated significant lifestyle changes over nearly ten years, including adopting a "two-drink" rule, and had no alcohol-related problems during that period. Although he had a history of habitual or binge consumption, he had not been diagnosed as alcohol dependent.

Crucially, the judge found no intent to deceive regarding the disclosures on his security clearance application, noting that while he did not disclose the tax liens and civil judgment under specific questions, he did mention them in the general remarks section. These mitigating factors led to the granting of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant resolved his federal tax liens and civil judgment through a payment agreement.
He demonstrated positive changes in alcohol consumption and lifestyle since his last DUI incident.
The judge found no intent to falsify his security clearance application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
E2.A7.1.2.5raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol to the Point of Impaired Judgment

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3appliedEvidence of Good-faith Efforts to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
E2.A7.1.3.2appliedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem
E2.A7.1.3.3appliedPositive Changes in Behavior Supportive of Sobriety

Key Rule Quoted

“A "deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire" can raise a security concern and may be a disqualifying condition.”
— Directive ¶ E2.A5.1.2.2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 4, 2003
Answer filedDec 8, 2003
Hearing heldSep 15, 2004
Decision dateNov 22, 2004

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F Through Repayment Agreements
Mitigation of Alcohol Consumption Issues Through Lifestyle Changes
Rebuttal of Allegations of Deliberate Falsification 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
3.a	Applicant did not disclose the tax liens and civil judgment under the appropriate questions on his security clearance application, but he disclosed them under general remarks.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant answered questions 36 and 37 in the negative, but he denies that he intentionally falsified his application.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant did not disclose the tax liens and civil judgment under the appropriate questions on his security clearance application, but he disclosed them under general remarks.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Financial

Admitted

—

3.b

Applicant answered questions 36 and 37 in the negative, but he denies that he intentionally falsified his application.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewNOT DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has two federal tax liens filed against him in June 1997 and October 1997 for unpaid federal income taxes.	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	—
1.b	Applicant has a civil judgment for $150,000.00 entered against him for personal injuries resulting from a DUI incident. $120,272	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	—
1.c	Applicant has a disputed debt of $74.00 for flowers that were not delivered. $74	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant failed to disclose the tax liens and civil judgment on his security clearance application.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has two federal tax liens filed against him in June 1997 and October 1997 for unpaid federal income taxes.

For Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

—

1.b

Applicant has a civil judgment for $150,000.00 entered against him for personal injuries resulting from a DUI incident.

$120,272

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

—

1.c

Applicant has a disputed debt of $74.00 for flowers that were not delivered.

$74

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.d

Applicant failed to disclose the tax liens and civil judgment on his security clearance application.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUI convictions.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
2.b	The applicant's drinking habits before his 1989 traffic accident and his relapse in February 1995 establish habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
2.c	The applicant has not been diagnosed as alcohol dependent by a medical professional.	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	The applicant has made significant lifestyle changes and has not had any alcohol-related problems for almost ten years.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	—	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur	Credited Rehabilitation Evidence
2.e	The applicant has adopted a 'two-drink' rule to avoid further DUI incidents and limits his alcohol consumption.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	—	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	Credited Abstinence Period Documented

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUI convictions.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

2.b

The applicant's drinking habits before his 1989 traffic accident and his relapse in February 1995 establish habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

2.c

The applicant has not been diagnosed as alcohol dependent by a medical professional.

For Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Denied

—

2.d

The applicant has made significant lifestyle changes and has not had any alcohol-related problems for almost ten years.

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Denied

—

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

Credited

Rehabilitation Evidence

2.e

The applicant has adopted a 'two-drink' rule to avoid further DUI incidents and limits his alcohol consumption.

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Denied

—

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

Credited

Abstinence Period Documented

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES