ISCR Case 03-21183.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-21183.h1

deniedMay 23, 2005· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol dependence and misrepresentation of his past illegal drug use.

Specifically, the applicant was found to have deliberately falsified his August 2002 security clearance application by omitting marijuana use from August 1995 through at least 1996. He further misrepresented facts in a June 2003 sworn statement, claiming he had not used marijuana since 1981 and had never used heroin. These actions raised concerns about his candor and reliability.

Regarding alcohol consumption, the applicant has a documented history of alcohol dependence and was diagnosed as such. Despite undergoing treatment, he continued to consume alcohol and failed to follow through with recommended aftercare, indicating a lack of sustained abstinence and understanding of his problem. The decision concluded that his continued alcohol consumption after treatment, combined with his lack of candor regarding drug use, raised significant doubts about his recovery, reliability, and judgment.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant continues to consume alcohol after treatment for alcohol dependence, raising doubts about his recovery.
The applicant was not candid about his illegal drug use on his security clearance application and in sworn statements.
The applicant's misrepresentations about his drug use history indicate a lack of candor and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A7.1.2.3raisedDiagnosis by a Credentialed Medical Professional of Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Dependence
E2.A7.1.2.5raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol to the Point of Impaired Judgment
E2.A7.1.2.6raisedConsumption of Alcohol, Subsequent to a Diagnosis of Alcoholism by a Credentialed Medical Professional and Following Completion of an Alcohol Rehabilitation Program
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A5.1.2.3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant and Material Matters

Mitigating

E2.A7.1.3.3rejectedPositive Changes in Behavior in Support of SobrietyThe applicant's limited alcohol consumption does not meet the stringent requirements for mitigating alcohol dependence.
E2.A5.1.3.3rejectedPrompt Good-faith Effort to Correct the FalsificationThe applicant did not voluntarily disclose his drug use prior to being confronted with evidence.

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 issuedMay 19, 2004
Answer filed06/2004Undated Answer submitted.
Hearing heldNov 12, 2004Applicant waived the 15-day notice requirement.
Decision dateMay 23, 2005

Cite For

Ongoing Concerns Regarding Alcohol Dependence and Personal Conduct Under Guidelines E and G
Issues of Candor and Reliability in Security Clearance Applications
The Significance of Post-treatment Alcohol Consumption in Security Clearance Determinations

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 applicant deliberately falsified his August 2002 security clearance application by failing to report his use of marijuana from August 1995 through at least 1996.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.b	The applicant misrepresented material facts in a June 2003 sworn statement by indicating he had not used marijuana since 1981 and had never used heroin.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant deliberately falsified his August 2002 security clearance application by failing to report his use of marijuana from August 1995 through at least 1996.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.b

The applicant misrepresented material facts in a June 2003 sworn statement by indicating he had not used marijuana since 1981 and had never used heroin.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

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

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol consumption that raises security concerns.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.b	The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and has not demonstrated a sustained period of abstinence from alcohol.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.c	The applicant's alcohol consumption has continued despite treatment, indicating a lack of understanding of the seriousness of his alcohol problem.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant has a history of alcohol consumption that raises security concerns.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Denied

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

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional

—

1.b

The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and has not demonstrated a sustained period of abstinence from alcohol.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Denied

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

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional

—

1.c

The applicant's alcohol consumption has continued despite treatment, indicating a lack of understanding of the seriousness of his alcohol problem.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Denied

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

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional

—

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

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES