ISCR Case 03-00476.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-00476.h1

deniedJun 10, 2004· Hon. Roger E. Willmeth· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old executive secretary for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's credit record showed four delinquent debts, including $2370.00 and $605.00 to department stores, $415.00 to another creditor, and $46.00 to a town. Additionally, the applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in April 1998, convicted in September 1998, and had previously completed an alcohol rehabilitation program in 1985, followed by Antabuse treatment.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's deliberate omission of a non-judicial punishment for dereliction of duty from 1997 on her security clearance application, which demonstrated a lack of candor. She also failed to report two non-judicial punishments for marijuana use from 1979 and a delinquent debt.

While the applicant presented mitigating factors for past alcohol abuse and criminal conduct, her explanations for the omissions on the application were deemed insufficient. She also failed to provide adequate evidence to support her claim of identity theft regarding the delinquent debts. Consequently, the adjudicator determined that granting the clearance was not consistent with national security.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant mitigated past alcohol abuse and criminal conduct, including a DUI and marijuana offenses.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A5.1.2.4appliedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Untrustworthiness, Unreliability
E2.A6.1.2.1raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

E2.A7.1.3.2appliedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem
E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.6appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 18, 2003
Answer filedOct 8, 2003Requested a hearing.
Hearing heldJan 29, 2004
Decision dateJun 10, 2004

Cite For

Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Impact of Financial Delinquency on Security Clearance Under Guideline F
Mitigation of Past Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J and Alcohol Issues Under Guideline G

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	Applicant failed to report her two non-judicial punishments for marijuana use in 1979	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
4.b	Applicant deliberately failed to report her non-judicial punishment for dereliction of duty in 1997	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
4.c	Applicant failed to report a delinquent debt on her security clearance application	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

Applicant failed to report her two non-judicial punishments for marijuana use in 1979

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

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

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

—

4.b

Applicant deliberately failed to report her non-judicial punishment for dereliction of duty in 1997

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

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

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

—

4.c

Applicant failed to report a delinquent debt on her security clearance application

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to Disclose

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—
3.a	Applicant's credit record includes four delinquent debts: two with major department stores, in amounts of $2370.00 and $605.00; one to another creditor in the amount of $415.00; and one to a town in the amount of $46.00. $3,436	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Other
3.b–3.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a–1.d

4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

3.a

Applicant's credit record includes four delinquent debts: two with major department stores, in amounts of $2370.00 and $605.00; one to another creditor in the amount of $415.00; and one to a town in the amount of $46.00.

$3,436

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

Claimed

Other

3.b–3.d

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant consumes alcohol moderately, typically between two and four beers on weekends.	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	—	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.b	The applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on April 25, 1998, and was convicted on September 28, 1998.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.c	The applicant entered an alcohol rehabilitation program in July 1985 and completed it in September 1985.	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Following completion of the alcohol rehabilitation program, the applicant took Antabuse for the treatment of her alcoholism.	For Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant consumes alcohol moderately, typically between two and four beers on weekends.

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied

—

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

—

1.b

The applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on April 25, 1998, and was convicted on September 28, 1998.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

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

—

1.c

The applicant entered an alcohol rehabilitation program in July 1985 and completed it in September 1985.

For Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

—

1.d

Following completion of the alcohol rehabilitation program, the applicant took Antabuse for the treatment of her alcoholism.

For Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a–2.e	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a–2.e

5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

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

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES