ISCR Case 03-21546.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-21546.h1

deniedAug 31, 2005· Hon. Claude R. Heiny II· hearing

Summary

A 47-year-old network specialist was denied a security clearance due to extensive illegal drug use and repeated falsifications on security questionnaires. The denial was based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

Between 1970 and February 2001, the applicant frequently used various illegal drugs, including marijuana, hashish, LSD, PCP, heroin, and crack cocaine, even while holding security clearances and SCI access. She failed to disclose this drug use on six security clearance questionnaires, during three interviews, and in one sworn statement. These falsifications occurred over a 14-year period, from November 1988 to June 2003, and were not isolated incidents.

The judge found that the applicant lacked credibility due to her history of providing false information and that there was no evidence of a prompt, good-faith effort to correct the falsifications. The applicant's actions were not the result of pressure or coercion, and there was no clear evidence of successful rehabilitation or intent to avoid future drug use. The extensive drug involvement and numerous falsifications were deemed to pose a significant risk to national security, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant frequently used marijuana and other illegal drugs from 1970 to February 2001 while holding security clearances.
Applicant failed to disclose her drug use on multiple security clearance questionnaires and during interviews over a span of 14 years.
The judge found the applicant lacked credibility due to numerous falsifications, which posed a serious risk to national security.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A8.1.2.1raisedAny Drug Abuse
E2.A8.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Key Rule Quoted

“The presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant.”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 20, 2004
Answer filedFeb 4, 2005Applicant elected to have her case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateAug 31, 2005

Cite For

Extensive Drug Involvement Leading to Security Clearance Denial
Impact of Falsifications on Security Clearance Eligibility
Credibility Issues Affecting 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	Applicant failed to disclose her purchase and use of illegal drugs when she completed six security clearance questionnaires, during three interviews, and in one sworn statement.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant provided false information to multiple questions on her November 1988 PSQ, February 1989 interview, September 1989 PSQ, May 1993 NAQ, November 1993 NAQ, March 1994 interview, August 2000 SF 86, September 2001 SF 86, and in her June 2003 sworn statement.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant's numerous falsifications pose a serious potential risk to the nation's security precautions.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant lacked credibility due to her history of providing false answers over a long period of time.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant's false answers were not an isolated incident as they occurred over a 14-year period.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	There is no showing Applicant made a prompt, good-faith effort to correct the falsification before being confronted with the facts.	Against Applicant	Failure to Cooperate with Security Processing	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.g	Applicant's omissions were not caused by improper or inadequate advice from authorized personnel or based on advice from legal counsel.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.h	Applicant's actions create doubt about her judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.i	Complete honesty and candor on the part of applicants for access to classified information is essential to make an accurate and meaningful security clearance determination.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.j	The nature of Applicant's actions raises serious concerns about her judgment and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.k	Applicant's conduct was not the result of pressure, coercion, or an involuntary act.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.l	There is no clear evidence of successful rehabilitation.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.m	The applicant's history of drug use and falsifications creates a significant risk to national security.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.n	specific text not stated in this decision	Unknown	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant failed to disclose her purchase and use of illegal drugs when she completed six security clearance questionnaires, during three interviews, and in one sworn statement.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

—

2.b

Applicant provided false information to multiple questions on her November 1988 PSQ, February 1989 interview, September 1989 PSQ, May 1993 NAQ, November 1993 NAQ, March 1994 interview, August 2000 SF 86, September 2001 SF 86, and in her June 2003 sworn statement.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

—

2.c

Applicant's numerous falsifications pose a serious potential risk to the nation's security precautions.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

—

2.d

Applicant lacked credibility due to her history of providing false answers over a long period of time.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

—

2.e

Applicant's false answers were not an isolated incident as they occurred over a 14-year period.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

—

2.f

There is no showing Applicant made a prompt, good-faith effort to correct the falsification before being confronted with the facts.

Against Applicant

Failure to Cooperate with Security Processing

—

Admitted

—

2.g

Applicant's omissions were not caused by improper or inadequate advice from authorized personnel or based on advice from legal counsel.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to Disclose

—

Admitted

—

2.h

Applicant's actions create doubt about her judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.i

Complete honesty and candor on the part of applicants for access to classified information is essential to make an accurate and meaningful security clearance determination.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.j

The nature of Applicant's actions raises serious concerns about her judgment and trustworthiness.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.k

Applicant's conduct was not the result of pressure, coercion, or an involuntary act.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.l

There is no clear evidence of successful rehabilitation.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

—

2.m

The applicant's history of drug use and falsifications creates a significant risk to national security.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

—

2.n

specific text not stated in this decision

Unknown

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Between 1970 and February 2001, Applicant frequently used marijuana, while holding various security clearances.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—
1.b	Applicant failed to disclose her purchase and use of illegal drugs when she completed six security clearance questionnaires, during three interviews, and in one sworn statement.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—
1.c	Applicant used hashish; and purchased and used LSD.	For Applicant	DMT or Other Hallucinogen	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant used PCP two or three times in early 1979.	For Applicant	Inhalant Use	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	In 1988, she used heroin, but was unaware she was using it when she did so.	For Applicant	Heroin	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant has no intention of using illegal drugs in the future.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant used crack cocaine about once or twice a month from 1985 to 1987.	For Applicant	Cocaine	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant used cocaine about twice a year in 1976 and 1977.	For Applicant	Cocaine	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant used crack cocaine with a man she dated after 1987 once or twice a month.	For Applicant	Cocaine	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	Applicant used illegal drugs even after obtaining clearances and SCI access.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—
1.k	Applicant's admissions regarding drug use were insufficient to mitigate the security concerns.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Unknown	—	—	—
1.l	Applicant has a history of illegal drug use that raises questions regarding her judgment and reliability.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Unknown	—	—	—
1.m	The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from her illegal drug use.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

Between 1970 and February 2001, Applicant frequently used marijuana, while holding various security clearances.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Regular

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

—

1.b

Applicant failed to disclose her purchase and use of illegal drugs when she completed six security clearance questionnaires, during three interviews, and in one sworn statement.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

—

1.c

Applicant used hashish; and purchased and used LSD.

For Applicant

DMT or Other Hallucinogen

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant used PCP two or three times in early 1979.

For Applicant

Inhalant Use

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.e

In 1988, she used heroin, but was unaware she was using it when she did so.

For Applicant

Heroin

Experimental

Admitted

—

1.f

Applicant has no intention of using illegal drugs in the future.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Denied

—

1.g

Applicant used crack cocaine about once or twice a month from 1985 to 1987.

For Applicant

Cocaine

Frequent

Admitted

—

1.h

Applicant used cocaine about twice a year in 1976 and 1977.

For Applicant

Cocaine

Occasional

Admitted

—

1.i

Applicant used crack cocaine with a man she dated after 1987 once or twice a month.

For Applicant

Cocaine

Frequent

Admitted

—

1.j

Applicant used illegal drugs even after obtaining clearances and SCI access.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED

Not Applicable

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

—

1.k

Applicant's admissions regarding drug use were insufficient to mitigate the security concerns.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Unknown

—

1.l

Applicant has a history of illegal drug use that raises questions regarding her judgment and reliability.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Unknown

—

1.m

The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate or extenuate the negative security implications stemming from her illegal drug use.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	The applicant provided false information on six security questionnaires, in three interviews, and in one sworn statement.	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	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

The applicant provided false information on six security questionnaires, in three interviews, and in one sworn statement.

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

—

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