ISCR Case 04-05528.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-05528.h1

deniedDec 29, 2006· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed primarily from the applicant's deliberate falsification of his August 2003 security clearance application (SF 86). He failed to disclose multiple drug-related arrests from September 1979 to May 2000 and misrepresented the extent of his marijuana use, claiming only about ten instances in September 1998 despite a history of use from the 1970s to at least 2000.

The applicant also had a history of unresolved delinquent debts totaling $10,928. These included a $773 bank balance from March 1998, an $8,618 deficiency balance from a repossessed vehicle loan in December 1999, and a $725 credit card debt from February 2000, which resulted in an $812 judgment against him in January 2001. While the applicant had completed a drug and alcohol education program in 2000, maintained abstinence, and passed urine screens, these mitigating factors did not overcome the significant security concerns.

The judge ultimately found that the applicant's lack of candor regarding his drug-related arrests and the true extent of his drug use, coupled with his unresolved financial obligations, demonstrated a pattern of behavior inconsistent with the requirements for a security clearance. The clearance was therefore denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant deliberately falsified his security clearance application by omitting multiple drug-related arrests and misrepresenting the extent of his marijuana use.
The applicant has unresolved delinquent debts totaling $10,928, which were incurred partly due to his drug abuse.
The applicant's lack of candor regarding his drug history raised significant security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A5.1.1raisedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment, Untrustworthiness, Unreliability, Lack of Candor, Dishonesty
H2.A1.1raisedIllegal Drug Involvement
J1.A1.1raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

E2.A5.1.3.3appliedPrompt, Good Faith Efforts to Correct the Falsification

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 11, 2005
Answer filedMay 26, 2005Initial answer was incomplete.
Hearing heldJun 26, 2006Hearing convened with consent of parties.
Decision dateDec 29, 2006

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Impact of Unresolved Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline F
Lack of Candor Regarding Drug Involvement Affecting Security Clearance Decisions Under Guideline H

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
1.a	Applicant deliberately falsified his August 2003 security clearance application (SF 86) by failing to disclose drug-related arrests in September 1979, January 1981, August 1984, and May 2000, and by misrepresenting the extent of his marijuana use to about ten times in September 1998.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was not candid about his illegal drug arrests or the extent of his abuse when he completed his security clearance application.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant deliberately falsified his August 2003 security clearance application (SF 86) by failing to disclose drug-related arrests in September 1979, January 1981, August 1984, and May 2000, and by misrepresenting the extent of his marijuana use to about ten times in September 1998.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

1.b

Applicant was not candid about his illegal drug arrests or the extent of his abuse when he completed his security clearance application.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	In March 1998, a bank referred a $773 delinquent balance for collection. $773	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	In July 1997, Applicant financed the purchase of a 1995-model year vehicle, taking out a loan of $16,159, to be repaid at $269 per month for 60 months. Applicant fell behind a couple of months, and the car was involuntarily repossessed in December 1999. After a resale of the car, Applicant owed a deficiency balance of $8,618. $8,618	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant's credit card account with a nationwide retailer, opened in November 1997, was placed for collection in about February 2000 with a past due balance of $725. $725	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
3.d	In January 2001, the creditor obtained a judgment against him in the amount of $812. $812	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied with Explanation	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

In March 1998, a bank referred a $773 delinquent balance for collection.

$773

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

3.b

In July 1997, Applicant financed the purchase of a 1995-model year vehicle, taking out a loan of $16,159, to be repaid at $269 per month for 60 months. Applicant fell behind a couple of months, and the car was involuntarily repossessed in December 1999. After a resale of the car, Applicant owed a deficiency balance of $8,618.

$8,618

Against Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

—

3.c

Applicant's credit card account with a nationwide retailer, opened in November 1997, was placed for collection in about February 2000 with a past due balance of $725.

$725

Against Applicant

Credit Card Debt

Admitted

—

3.d

In January 2001, the creditor obtained a judgment against him in the amount of $812.

$812

Against Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Denied with Explanation

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Used marijuana with varying frequency, to include weekly, from approximately the 1970s to at least 2000.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Was treated in 2000 for diagnosed cannabis abuse and for cannabis dependence, in full remission.	For Applicant	Drug Diagnosed Disorder	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Is statutorily disqualified from having a clearance continued or renewed under 10 U.S.C. § 986 because of the diagnosis of cannabis dependence.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	Has not used marijuana since completing a drug and alcohol education program in 2000.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	Has passed all urine screens as required by the employee assistance program.	For Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	Has been cooperative during his sessions with the licensed marital and family therapist and has completed the required education sessions.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.g	Has not knowingly associated with any individuals who use illegal drugs since completing treatment.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.h	Has expressed intent to maintain abstinence from drug use.	For Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

Used marijuana with varying frequency, to include weekly, from approximately the 1970s to at least 2000.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Regular

Admitted

—

2.b

Was treated in 2000 for diagnosed cannabis abuse and for cannabis dependence, in full remission.

For Applicant

Drug Diagnosed Disorder

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.c

Is statutorily disqualified from having a clearance continued or renewed under 10 U.S.C. § 986 because of the diagnosis of cannabis dependence.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Denied

—

2.d

Has not used marijuana since completing a drug and alcohol education program in 2000.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.e

Has passed all urine screens as required by the employee assistance program.

For Applicant

Drug Test Failure

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.f

Has been cooperative during his sessions with the licensed marital and family therapist and has completed the required education sessions.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.g

Has not knowingly associated with any individuals who use illegal drugs since completing treatment.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.h

Has expressed intent to maintain abstinence from drug use.

For Applicant

Stated Intent to Use Again

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
4.a	Applicant was arrested several times for illegal possession, most recently in May 2000.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

4.a

Applicant was arrested several times for illegal possession, most recently in May 2000.

Against Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Denied

—

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

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES