ISCR Case 03-10302.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-10302.h1

deniedJun 3, 2005· Hon. Kathryn Moen Braeman· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old senior engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The primary issue was a 2002 conviction for distributing marijuana for profit while he already held a security clearance. This act raised significant questions about his judgment and reliability. Additionally, the applicant failed to disclose this drug-related arrest and conviction to his employer, which further undermined his trustworthiness.

The applicant's criminal history also included multiple alcohol-related arrests, a 1999 domestic violence arrest (which was dismissed after counseling), and a 1997 arrest for a terroristic threat (also dismissed). While there had been no alcohol-related incidents in over ten years, and no further criminal behavior since 1999, these past events contributed to ongoing security concerns.

Despite these issues, the applicant presented several mitigating factors. He had a strong employment record, positive performance evaluations, and had received achievement awards. He also complied with all terms of probation and paid fines related to his conviction. However, the judge ultimately found that the severity of selling marijuana for profit while cleared, combined with the non-disclosure and other criminal history, warranted a denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant sold marijuana for profit while holding a security clearance, demonstrating poor judgment.
He failed to disclose his drug-related arrest and conviction to his employer, undermining trustworthiness.
The applicant's criminal history included multiple alcohol-related offenses and domestic violence incidents, raising ongoing security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.1raisedCriminal Conduct
E2.A8.1.1.2raisedDrug Involvement

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1rejectedCriminal Behavior Was Not RecentThe applicant's drug involvement was not isolated and occurred while he held a security clearance.
E2.A8.1.1.3.1rejectedDrug Involvement Was Not RecentThe applicant's drug sales were ongoing and not an isolated incident.

Key Rule Quoted

“The responsibility for producing evidence initially falls on the Government to demonstrate that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 20, 2004
Answer filedAug 6, 2004Applicant admitted allegations with explanations.
Hearing heldFeb 22, 2005Hearing was rescheduled due to counsel's illness.
Decision dateJun 3, 2005

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Failure to Disclose Criminal History as a Factor in Security Clearance Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant sold marijuana for profit while holding a security clearance.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant sold marijuana for profit while holding a security clearance.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant was convicted of illegally distributing marijuana in 2002, which raises security concerns regarding his judgment and reliability.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.b	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related arrests, but there have been no incidents in over ten years, which mitigates concerns regarding his judgment.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Credited No Subsequent Offenses
1.c	The applicant was arrested for domestic violence in 1999, but the case was dismissed and he attended counseling, which mitigates concerns about his conduct.	For Applicant	Domestic Violence	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	Credited No Subsequent Offenses
1.d	The applicant was arrested for a terroristic threat in 1997, but the case was dismissed, which mitigates concerns about his conduct.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	The applicant has shown no recent incidents of criminal behavior since 1999, which mitigates concerns about his judgment.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Credited No Subsequent Offenses
1.f	The applicant has complied with all terms of probation and paid fines related to his conviction, which is a positive factor.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Credited Completed Sentence
1.g	The applicant has a stable employment history and has received positive performance evaluations, which supports his case.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Credited Prior Clearance History
1.h	The applicant has demonstrated a commitment to his job and has received several achievement awards, which is a positive factor.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Credited Prior Clearance History
1.i	The applicant has shown no further incidents of criminal behavior since his last arrest in 1999, which mitigates concerns about his judgment.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	Credited No Subsequent Offenses

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant was convicted of illegally distributing marijuana in 2002, which raises security concerns regarding his judgment and reliability.

Against Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Admitted

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

—

1.b

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related arrests, but there have been no incidents in over ten years, which mitigates concerns regarding his judgment.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Credited

No Subsequent Offenses

1.c

The applicant was arrested for domestic violence in 1999, but the case was dismissed and he attended counseling, which mitigates concerns about his conduct.

For Applicant

Domestic Violence

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

Credited

No Subsequent Offenses

1.d

The applicant was arrested for a terroristic threat in 1997, but the case was dismissed, which mitigates concerns about his conduct.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

—

1.e

The applicant has shown no recent incidents of criminal behavior since 1999, which mitigates concerns about his judgment.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Credited

No Subsequent Offenses

1.f

The applicant has complied with all terms of probation and paid fines related to his conviction, which is a positive factor.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Credited

Completed Sentence

1.g

The applicant has a stable employment history and has received positive performance evaluations, which supports his case.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Credited

Prior Clearance History

1.h

The applicant has demonstrated a commitment to his job and has received several achievement awards, which is a positive factor.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Credited

Prior Clearance History

1.i

The applicant has shown no further incidents of criminal behavior since his last arrest in 1999, which mitigates concerns about his judgment.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

Credited

No Subsequent Offenses

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