CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-12361.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-12361.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-12361.h1

deniedMay 12, 2005· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old technical employee of a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The applicant had a long history of marijuana and alcohol use, which she deliberately omitted from her SF 86 security clearance application. This omission was a primary factor in the denial, as the applicant knew it would negatively impact her employment prospects.

Specific allegations included the applicant's many years of marijuana and alcohol consumption, excessive alcohol use, and alcohol-related incidents such as driving under the influence. While the applicant demonstrated some positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety, these were not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns.

The judge found no applicable mitigating conditions for the applicant's conduct, particularly regarding the deliberate omission of information. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately omitted relevant information about her drug and alcohol use on her SF 86.
The applicant's drug involvement and alcohol consumption raised significant security concerns.
No mitigating conditions were found applicable to her conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.1raisedPersonal ConductThe applicant's questionable judgment and untrustworthiness were evident in her omissions.
E2.A7.1.1raisedAlcohol ConsumptionExcessive alcohol consumption and related incidents were cited as disqualifying.
E2.A8.1.1.3raisedDrug InvolvementThe applicant's drug involvement was considered a security concern.

Mitigating

E2.A7.1.3.2rejectedAlcohol ConsumptionWhile the applicant claimed positive changes, the judge found the past conduct too recent.
E2.A8.1.3.1rejectedDrug InvolvementThe applicant's drug involvement was not isolated and occurred after obtaining an interim clearance.

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 10, 2004
Answer filedAug 24, 2004
Hearing heldMar 1, 2005
Decision dateMay 12, 2005

Cite For

Deliberate Omission of Drug and Alcohol Use on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Drug Involvement and Alcohol Consumption Under Guidelines H and G
The Importance of Recent Conduct in Evaluating Security Clearance Eligibility.

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E, specifically regarding the deliberate omission of drug and alcohol use on her security clearance application. The applicant's actions were deemed to raise questions about her trustworthiness and reliability, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant deliberately omitted information about her marijuana use and alcohol consumption on her SF 86, knowing it would adversely affect her employment prospects.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on two allegations related to alcohol consumption, while ruling in favor of the applicant on one allegation. The applicant's history of alcohol use and related incidents raised security concerns, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	Excessive alcohol consumption	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant, a 43-year-old technical employee, has a history of marijuana and alcohol use, which she deliberately omitted from her security clearance application. The judge found the allegations against her under Guideline H to be substantiated, leading to a denial of her security clearance. No mitigating conditions were deemed applicable.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has used marijuana for many years.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The applicant has consumed alcohol for many years.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Drugs, Alcohol; Personal Conduct

DIGEST: Applicant is a 43-year-old technical employee of a defense contractor who has used marijuana and alcohol for many years. She filed an application for a security clearance (SF 86) in December 2000 and deliberately omitted information about her marijuana use and alcohol consumption since she knew it would adversely affect her employment prospects. No mitigating conditions are applicable. Clearance is denied.

CASENO: 03-12361.h1

DATE: 05/12/2005

DATE: May 12, 2005

In Re:

-------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 03-12361

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant is a 43-year-old technical employee of a defense contractor who has used marijuana and alcohol for many years. She filed an application for a security clearance (SF 86) in December 2000 and deliberately omitted information about her marijuana use and alcohol consumption since she knew it would adversely affect her employment prospects. No mitigating conditions are applicable. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On August 10, 2004, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA recommended the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

On August 24, 2004, Applicant responded to the allegations, and requested a hearing. The matter was assigned another judge December 16, 2004 and re-assigned to me on February 2, 2005. A notice of hearing was issued on February 8, 2005, and a hearing was held on March 1, 2005. Six government exhibits and ten Applicant exhibits were admitted into evidence. The Applicant testified and called five witnesses who testified on her behalf. The transcript was received on March 10, 2005.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted all of the allegations relating to drug involvement, alcohol consumption, and personal conduct but cited mitigating factors as to each of the allegations. After a complete review of the evidence in the record and upon due consideration of the record the following findings of fact are made:

Applicant is a 43-year-old technical employee of a defense contractor who has used marijuana and alcohol for many years. She filed an application for a security clearance (SF 86) in December 2000 and omitted information about her marijuana use and alcohol consumption on the advice of a friend in the military who told her that it would preclude her employment prospects. She did acknowledge one alcohol related traffic offense in 1981 on the SF 86.

Applicant suffered from depression and attention deficit disorder. She stopped drinking in May 2004 on the advice of her doctor to do so while taking a certain medicine for the disorder. She used marijuana as "self-medication" for depression sporadically since 1978 but stopped using it in March, 2003.

Applicant was arrested for marijuana and alcohol possession in her automobile in May 2001 and sentenced to six months probation and fines totaling $l,000.00. The marijuana possession charge was dropped but she was convicted of possession of paraphernalia.

Applicant is well regarded in her work (Exhs A-D) and has a stable group of friends and work colleagues who support her and testified on her behalf. Her physical illness has improved and she is motivated to improve her healthcare (Exh. H). Applicant has a college degree and is working on a graduate degree in behavioral science to become a counselor.

POLICIES

"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance." Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has "the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position that will give that person access to such information." Id. at 527.

An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when "it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so." Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).

Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance. "Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved

in favor of the national security." Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. "[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate adjudicative factors, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR:

The government has cited Disqualifying Condition (DC) 1 under Guideline H concerning drug involvement as relevant to the proposed denial of a security clearance for the Applicant. Drug involvement is always a security concern because it raises questions about a person's willingness or ability to protect classified information. Any drug abuse is a condition that may be disqualifying. The following definition is provided: "Drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug . . . ." (E2.A8.1.1.3) Possible Mitigating Conditions that might be applicable are that the drug involvement was not recent. (E2.A8.1.3.1.), the drug involvement was an isolated or aberrational event (E2.A8.1.3.2), and there is a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future. (E2.A8.1.3.3.) The 2001 drug charge and conviction occurred after the SF 86 was filed and after she was employed by a defense contractor. Thus, she had admitted continued drug use after obtaining an interim security clearance. No mitigating conditions are applicable.

The government has cited a Disqualifying Condition (DC) pursuant to the Directive concerning alcohol consumption under Guideline G. This relates to excessive alcohol consumption (E2.A7.1.1) and alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence. (E2.A7.1.2.2.) Applicant established mitigating factors including the fact that the one event occurred a number of years ago and there is no current problem (E2.A7.1.3.2.), and that there have been positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety. (E2.A7.1.3.3.) While Applicant stopped drinking in May 2004, that a sufficient period of time has elapsed to conclude that the conduct has changed and the mitigating condition is applicable. This is especially so since she testified at the hearing that she had consumed occasional beers at social events during the one year period prior to the hearing date.

The government has also alleged personal conduct under Guideline E of the Directive, relating to questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations that could indicate the person may not properly safeguard classified information. (E2.A5.1.1.) The Government has offered evidence that Applicant has deliberately omitted and concealed relevant and material facts about her drug and alcohol use on her SF 86. (E2.A5.1.2.2.) Applicant admitted that she withheld this information on her SF 86 in an effort to obtain the employment she has now held for over four years. No mitigating conditions are applicable.

In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.

The "whole person" concept recognizes we should view a person by the totality of their acts and omissions. Each case must be judged on its own merits taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. Applicant is a person who has had physical and emotional difficulties in the maturation process. She has made considerable progress and shows ambition and future promise. However, in view of her past conduct some of which is fairly recent, I conclude that it is premature to grant her a security clearance.

After considering all the evidence in its totality, and as an integrated whole to focus on the whole person of Applicant, I conclude it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant a security clearance to her.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows: Paragraph 1. Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2. Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 2.b.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 2.c.: For Applicant

Paragraph 3 Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 3.a: Against Applicant

DECISION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or renew a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.

Charles D. Ablard Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Jennifer I. Campbell, Esq., Department Counsel file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-12361.h1.htm[6/24/2021 3:21:24 PM] FOR APPLICANT Pro Se