ISCR Case 03-08475.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-08475.h1

deniedMar 2, 2005· Hon. Michael J. Breslin· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old defense contractor employee, with a 20-year security clearance history, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol-related offenses and a false statement made on his security clearance application.

Specifically, the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence in October 1998, with charges later dismissed, and had an alcohol-related driving offense in July 2001, resulting in a criminal conviction. While he completed an alcohol rehabilitation program and has had no alcohol-related incidents since that time, mitigating concerns related to his alcohol consumption, the judge found that he failed to mitigate concerns regarding his personal conduct.

The denial was based on the applicant's intentional falsification of material facts on his security clearance application, where he failed to disclose an alcohol-related arrest. This omission, combined with a pattern of rule violations, indicated a disregard for the law, raising concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally falsified material facts on his security clearance application by failing to disclose an alcohol-related arrest.
The applicant exhibited a pattern of rule violations indicating a disregard for the law, which raised concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.1appliedReliable, Unfavorable Information
E2.A5.1.2.5appliedPattern of Rule Violations
E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission or Falsification
E2.A7.1.2.1appliedAlcohol-related Incidents
E2.A7.1.2.4appliedDiagnosis of Alcohol Abuse

Mitigating

E2.A7.1.3.1rejectedNo Pattern of Alcohol-related Incidents
E2.A7.1.3.2appliedProblem Occurred Years Ago
E2.A7.1.3.3rejectedPositive Changes in Behavior
E2.A7.1.3.4rejectedSuccessful Completion of Rehabilitation
E2.A5.1.3.1rejectedUnsubstantiated Information
E2.A5.1.3.2rejectedIsolated Incident of Falsification

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”
— Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 6, 2004
Answer filedJun 2, 2004
Hearing heldNov 17, 2004
Decision dateMar 2, 2005

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G
The Significance of Falsifying Information on 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
2.a	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	A pattern of rule violations may be disqualifying.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c–2.h	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.b

A pattern of rule violations may be disqualifying.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

—

2.c–2.h

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	In October 1998, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, but the charges were later dismissed.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	In July 2001, Applicant had an alcohol-related driving offense, resulting in a criminal conviction.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(b) alcohol-related incident at work	—	—
1.c	Applicant completed an alcohol-rehabilitation program and has had no alcohol-related incidents since that time.	For Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	—	(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	Documented Substance Treatment Completed
1.d	Applicant has mitigated the concerns arising from his alcohol consumption.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	—	(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—
1.e	Applicant has not had any alcohol-related incidents since the completion of the rehabilitation program.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

In October 1998, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, but the charges were later dismissed.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

1.b

In July 2001, Applicant had an alcohol-related driving offense, resulting in a criminal conviction.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

—

1.c

Applicant completed an alcohol-rehabilitation program and has had no alcohol-related incidents since that time.

For Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

—

(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse

Documented

Substance Treatment Completed

1.d

Applicant has mitigated the concerns arising from his alcohol consumption.

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Admitted

—

(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse

—

1.e

Applicant has not had any alcohol-related incidents since the completion of the rehabilitation program.

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Admitted

—

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