ISCR Case 03-04843.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-04843.h1

deniedJun 15, 2004· Hon. Barry M. Sax· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old service technician was denied a security clearance due to significant concerns across multiple guidelines, including Personal Conduct, Financial Considerations, Drug Involvement, and Criminal Conduct. The applicant had a history of 13 arrests between 1983 and 1998, resulting in two convictions that led to over one year of incarceration. His criminal record included offenses such as driving without a valid license, assault, domestic violence, burglary, and drug possession.

Further issues arose from the applicant's admitted marijuana use, which occurred with varying frequency from 1974 to approximately October 2003. He also failed to fully disclose his criminal and drug history on his security clearance application, omitting several alcohol/drug offenses and other criminal conduct. While he later informed a Defense Security Service agent of these omissions, it was two months after the application was submitted.

Although the applicant resolved some delinquent debts, including a student loan and a civil judgment, these actions did not sufficiently mitigate the broader pattern of criminal conduct, ongoing drug use, and personal conduct issues, particularly the falsification of his application. The adjudicator found his claims regarding a planted drug charge not credible and noted that his pattern of misconduct was too recent to ensure future reliability.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a long history of criminal conduct, including 13 arrests and two convictions resulting in over one year of incarceration.
The applicant admitted to ongoing drug use, which continued until at least October 2003, demonstrating a lack of rehabilitation.
The applicant falsified information on his security clearance application, which raised significant trustworthiness concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1raisedCriminal Conduct
DC 2raisedCriminal Conduct
DC 1raisedDrug Abuse
DC 2raisedIllegal Drug Possession
DC 2raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

MC 1rejectedCriminal ConductThe applicant's criminal behavior was not recent enough to mitigate concerns.
MC 1rejectedDrug AbuseThe applicant's drug involvement was considered recent.
MC 3rejectedDrug AbuseThe applicant failed to demonstrate an intent not to abuse drugs in the future.
MC 1appliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant paid off some delinquent debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“"any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with the interests of national security will be resolved in favor of the nation's security."”
— DoD Directive 5220.6, E2.2.2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 5, 2003
Answer filedSep 23, 2003
Hearing heldMay 10, 2004
Decision dateJun 15, 2004

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Disqualifying Conditions for Drug Abuse Under Guideline H
Issues of Personal Conduct and Falsification on Security Clearance Applications 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.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
4.a	As to Question 24 - Alcohol/Drug Offenses, Applicant admitted the offenses in 1.I. (1991), but omitted mention of not those in 1.a. (1998), 1.j. (October 1988), and 1.k. (August 1988).	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	—	Admitted	(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
4.b	Applicant answered "No" to Question 26 - Other Offenses, with no explanations or comments. He did inform the DSS agent of these offenses when he spoke to the agent in December 2002, but that was two months after he completed the security clearance application.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
4.c	Applicant's statement to DSS in 2002 reveals the more extensive drug use omitted from his security clearance application. His explanation for why he omitted this usage from the SCA does not mitigate the negative impact of the omission, regardless of the precise date of last use.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
4.d	Applicant's explanation for why he omitted any mention of the civil judgments cited in SOR 3.a and 3.b. is that he had no knowledge of such judgments when he completed the security clearance application, and that his bills have been paid off.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

As to Question 24 - Alcohol/Drug Offenses, Applicant admitted the offenses in 1.I. (1991), but omitted mention of not those in 1.a. (1998), 1.j. (October 1988), and 1.k. (August 1988).

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to Disclose

—

Admitted

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

4.b

Applicant answered "No" to Question 26 - Other Offenses, with no explanations or comments. He did inform the DSS agent of these offenses when he spoke to the agent in December 2002, but that was two months after he completed the security clearance application.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

4.c

Applicant's statement to DSS in 2002 reveals the more extensive drug use omitted from his security clearance application. His explanation for why he omitted this usage from the SCA does not mitigate the negative impact of the omission, regardless of the precise date of last use.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

4.d

Applicant's explanation for why he omitted any mention of the civil judgments cited in SOR 3.a and 3.b. is that he had no knowledge of such judgments when he completed the security clearance application, and that his bills have been paid off.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant has a delinquent student loan debt that has been paid off, with a last payment of $3,991.34 received on 12/11/2003 and a current balance of $0.00. $3,991	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Documented Debt Paid in Full
3.b	Applicant has a delinquent debt/civil judgment for $1,778.00. $1,778	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.c	Applicant has a related debt of $1,079.00. $1,079	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant has a delinquent student loan debt that has been paid off, with a last payment of $3,991.34 received on 12/11/2003 and a current balance of $0.00.

$3,991

For Applicant

Student Loan Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

Documented

Debt Paid in Full

3.b

Applicant has a delinquent debt/civil judgment for $1,778.00.

$1,778

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.c

Applicant has a related debt of $1,079.00.

$1,079

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant used marijuana, with varying frequency, to include two to three times a month, from 1974-1985 and again from 1990 to approximately October 2003.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant purchased marijuana approximately two to three times a year.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant informed an agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS) that he "may continue to use marijuana in the future," but he testified at the hearing that this is no longer accurate, i.e., that he intends not to use marijuana in the future.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant's conduct in using marijuana from 1974 to as recently as October 2003 brings him under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 986(2) as someone who "is" a user of marijuana.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	—	—	—
2.e	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant used marijuana, with varying frequency, to include two to three times a month, from 1974-1985 and again from 1990 to approximately October 2003.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Admitted

—

2.b

Applicant purchased marijuana approximately two to three times a year.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Occasional

Admitted

—

2.c

Applicant informed an agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS) that he "may continue to use marijuana in the future," but he testified at the hearing that this is no longer accurate, i.e., that he intends not to use marijuana in the future.

Against Applicant

Stated Intent to Use Again

Not Applicable

Denied

—

2.d

Applicant's conduct in using marijuana from 1974 to as recently as October 2003 brings him under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 986(2) as someone who "is" a user of marijuana.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Denied

—

2.e

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has been arrested, cited, and /or convicted of criminal violations on 12 occasions between 1983 and 1998, an average of almost once a year.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	In addition, he was the subject of an Emergency Domestic Violence Order in 1994.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	On two occasions (1983 and 1998), he was convicted and sentenced to more than one year incarceration.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.d	Applicant claims a law enforcement officer planted the drugs in Applicant's pocket during this 1998 arrest.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.e	Applicant's explanation as to allegation 1.b. does not refute or even minimize the negative impact of that allegation or of his collective criminal acts over a period spanning some 15 years, and ending in 1998.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.f	The record establishes that Applicant has committed one or more crimes on 12 different occasions between 1983 and 1998.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.g	Applicant's claim is not supported by any other evidence of record.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.h	Considering Applicant's drug use and criminal conduct history and his admission that he ran away after being stopped by the police in this matter, I find that Applicant's claim is not credible.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.i	Under the legal doctrine of res judicata, I am required to accept the trial court's decision and, in any case, I find no reason to question the findings of that court.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.j	Both allegations thereby come within the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 986, which prohibits the granting or retention of a security clearance by anyone convicted of a crime and sentenced to more than one year.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.k	Based on Applicant's criminal history and other misconduct as alleged in the rest of the SOR, an adverse decision finding would be required even in the absence of this statute.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.l	Applicant has a long history of 13 different incidents of criminal conduct, ranging from driving without a valid license, assault and domestic violence, burglary to drug possession.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.m	In this context, the pattern of criminal misconduct is still too recent to warrant a finding that Applicant is not likely to relapse into past behavior patterns and that he possesses the level of good judgment and reliability required of anyone seeking a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has been arrested, cited, and /or convicted of criminal violations on 12 occasions between 1983 and 1998, an average of almost once a year.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.b

In addition, he was the subject of an Emergency Domestic Violence Order in 1994.

Against Applicant

Domestic Violence

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.c

On two occasions (1983 and 1998), he was convicted and sentenced to more than one year incarceration.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.d

Applicant claims a law enforcement officer planted the drugs in Applicant's pocket during this 1998 arrest.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.e

Applicant's explanation as to allegation 1.b. does not refute or even minimize the negative impact of that allegation or of his collective criminal acts over a period spanning some 15 years, and ending in 1998.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.f

The record establishes that Applicant has committed one or more crimes on 12 different occasions between 1983 and 1998.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.g

Applicant's claim is not supported by any other evidence of record.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.h

Considering Applicant's drug use and criminal conduct history and his admission that he ran away after being stopped by the police in this matter, I find that Applicant's claim is not credible.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.i

Under the legal doctrine of res judicata, I am required to accept the trial court's decision and, in any case, I find no reason to question the findings of that court.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.j

Both allegations thereby come within the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 986, which prohibits the granting or retention of a security clearance by anyone convicted of a crime and sentenced to more than one year.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.k

Based on Applicant's criminal history and other misconduct as alleged in the rest of the SOR, an adverse decision finding would be required even in the absence of this statute.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.l

Applicant has a long history of 13 different incidents of criminal conduct, ranging from driving without a valid license, assault and domestic violence, burglary to drug possession.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.m

In this context, the pattern of criminal misconduct is still too recent to warrant a finding that Applicant is not likely to relapse into past behavior patterns and that he possesses the level of good judgment and reliability required of anyone seeking a security clearance.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

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