CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 04-00226.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 04-00226.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-00226.h1

deniedAug 8, 2005· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old defense contractor was denied security clearance based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from the applicant's intentional falsification of information on security questionnaires and a sworn statement, coupled with an expressed intent to continue using marijuana.

Specifically, the applicant intentionally provided false information regarding illegal drug use on a 1987 Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) and repeated this falsification on a 1994 National Agency Questionnaire (NAQ). Furthermore, in an October 2003 sworn statement to the Defense Investigative Service (DIS), he intentionally omitted his December 2002 arrest for Possession of Less than an Ounce of Marijuana (POM).

The applicant admitted to daily marijuana use from 1972 to January 2003 and stated an intention to continue this use. The judge concluded that these actions, including the intentional falsifications and the expressed intent to continue drug use, precluded a determination that granting clearance was consistent with national interest, leading to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant intentionally falsified material facts on two security questionnaires and a sworn statement.
Applicant expressed an intention to continue using marijuana, reflecting adversely on his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire.
E2.A5.1.2.3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information Concerning Relevant and Material Matters to an Investigator.
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses.
E2.A8.1.2.1raisedAny Drug Abuse.
E2.A8.1.2.2raisedIllegal Drug Possession.

Key Rule Quoted

“When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, or in a signed, sworn statement, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 18, 2005
Answer filedMar 17, 2005Applicant elected to have case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateAug 8, 2005

Cite For

Intentional Falsification of Material Facts Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Related to Drug Use Under Guideline H
Impact of Ongoing Drug Use on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J

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 all allegations under Guideline E, citing intentional falsifications of material facts on multiple occasions. The applicant's conduct was deemed to reflect adversely on his judgment and reliability, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant intentionally provided false, material information to the Government in response to a question dealing with illegal drug use on a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) he executed in 1987.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.b	Applicant intentionally repeated the same false information on a 1994 National Agency Questionnaire (NAQ).	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
1.c	In a signed, sworn statement he gave to an agent of the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) in October 2003, he intentionally omitted material information when, while describing the December 2002 incident referenced above, he failed to disclose he was arrested for POM.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to drug involvement. The applicant's history of daily marijuana use, including use while holding a security clearance, and his stated intention to continue using marijuana were significant factors in the decision to deny the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana daily from 1972 to January 2003.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.b	Applicant intends to continue using marijuana.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use AgainWHILE CLEARED	Not Applicable	Denied	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.c	Applicant was arrested for Possession of Less than an Ounce of Marijuana in December 2002.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or DealingWHILE CLEAREDRelated Misconduct	Not Applicable	Denied	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to criminal conduct, including intentional falsifications of material facts and drug-related offenses. The applicant's criminal conduct, particularly his felonious actions under 18 U.S.C. 1001, precluded any mitigating factors and resulted in a denial of his security clearance request.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested for Possession of Less than an Ounce of Marijuana (POM) in December 2002.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	Applicant intentionally provided false, material information to the Government on a 1987 Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ).	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(c) currently on parole or probation (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
1.c	Applicant intentionally provided false, material information in a signed, sworn statement to the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) in October 2003.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(c) currently on parole or probation (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). 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: Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct; Drugs

DIGEST: Applicant's (1) intentional falsifications of material facts on two security questionnaires and in a signed, sworn statement he gave to the Defense Investigative Service (DIS), and (2) intention to continue using marijuana, preclude a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

CASENO: 04-00226.h1

DATE: 08/08/2005

DATE: August 8, 2005

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 04-00226

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

JOSEPH TESTAN

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant's (1) intentional falsifications of material facts on two security questionnaires and in a signed, sworn statement he gave to the Defense Investigative Service (DIS), and (2) intention to continue using marijuana, preclude a finding that it is now clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On February 18, 2005, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, 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 and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.

Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on March 17, 2005, and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about June 6, 2005. Applicant did not file a response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on August 3, 2005.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 46 year old employee of a defense contractor. He was granted a DoD security clearance in 1988.

Applicant used marijuana daily from 1972 to January 2003. He also purchased it. After abstaining from its use from February through August 2003, he resumed using it. Since September 2003 the frequency of his use has been less than daily. In his words, "I do not smoke every day, and I only smoke after I get off work to relax and unwind." (1) He intends to continue using it.

In December 2002, applicant was arrested for and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Possession of Less than an Ounce of Marijuana (POM).

Applicant intentionally provided false, material information to the Government in response to a question dealing with illegal drug use on a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) he executed in 1987 (Exhibit 10). In response to Question 18a, which asked if he had ever used an illegal drug, including marijuana, applicant stated "yes," and then explained that he had used marijuana "recreationally 3 or 4 times at parties when [he] was in college."This was a false statement because applicant had used marijuana after he left college (1979), and he used it daily. Applicant intentionally repeated the same false information on a 1994 National Agency Questionnaire (NAQ) (Exhibit 11). And, in a signed, sworn statement he gave to an agent of the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) in October 2003 (Exhibit 5), he intentionally omitted material information when, while describing the December 2002 incident referenced above, he failed to disclose he was arrested for POM.

CONCLUSION

With respect to Guideline H, the evidence establishes that applicant (1) was a daily user of marijuana for many years, (2) used it while holding a DoD security clearance, (3) was arrested for POM in December 2002, and (4) intends to continue using it. This conduct reflects adversely on his judgment and reliability, and requires application of Disqualifying Conditions E2.A.8.1.2.1 (any drug abuse) and E2.A8.1.2.2 (illegal drug possession). More importantly, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 986, applicant's stated intention to continue using marijuana precludes him from holding a DoD security clearance. With respect to Guideline E, applicant's intentional falsifications of material facts on three occasions is extremely troubling. The Government relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals seeking access to our nation's secrets. When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts on a security clearance application, or in a signed, sworn statement, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he or she nevertheless possesses the good judgment, reliability and trustworthiness required of clearance holders. Applicant's intentional falsifications require application of Disqualifying Condition E2.A5.1.2.2 (the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . .) and Disqualifying Condition E2.A5.1.2.3 (deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator . . . ). No Mitigating Conditions apply. Based on the foregoing, Guideline E is found against applicant.

With respect to Guideline J, the evidence establishes that applicant was arrested for POM in 2002. The evidence further establishes that applicant intentionally provided false, material information to the Government on a 1987 PSQ, a 1994 NAQ, and in a signed, sworn statement in 2003. (2) This conduct reflects adversely on applicant's judgment and reliability, and requires application of Disqualifying Condition E2.A10.1.2.2 (a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses).

The recency and extent of applicant's criminal conduct, particularly his felonious conduct under 18 U.S.C. 1001, precludes application of any mitigating factors under Guideline J, and requires a denial of his security clearance request.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

PARAGRAPH 2: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

PARAGRAPH 3: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

DECISION

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

____________________________

Joseph Testan

Administrative Judge

1. SOR Response.

2. Applicant's intentional falsifications of material facts constitute felonies under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Candace Le'i, Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/04-00226.h1.htm[7/2/2021 3:22:21 PM] file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/04-00226.h1.htm[7/2/2021 3:22:21 PM] file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/04-00226.h1.htm[7/2/2021 3:22:21 PM] file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/04-00226.h1.htm[7/2/2021 3:22:21 PM] file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/04-00226.h1.htm[7/2/2021 3:22:21 PM]