CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 04-11549.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 04-11549.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date2/15/2006
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: David S. Bruce
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, citing deliberate omissions and falsifications on the Security Clearance Application (SF 86) regarding past drug use and criminal conduct. The applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his personal conduct, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 04-11549.h1

deniedFeb 15, 2006· Hon. David S. Bruce· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to a history of undisclosed personal and criminal conduct. Key issues included a positive marijuana test in 1985 while in the Air Force, which resulted in Article 15 proceedings, and a 1987 conviction for alcohol-related disorderly conduct. Additionally, the applicant faced a 1992 felony charge stemming from a domestic matter, though this charge was later dismissed.

The primary concern was the applicant's failure to disclose these incidents on his Security Clearance Application (SF 86). Specifically, he did not report his past marijuana use, the 1985 Article 15 sanction, the 1987 disorderly conduct conviction, or the 1992 felony charge for threatening property. He also failed to disclose additional marijuana use in 2000.

The denial was based on these omissions, which raised significant doubts about his candor and reliability. The adjudicator cited the applicant's past drug use while holding a clearance, his criminal convictions, and his lack of honesty on the SF 86 as the reasons for the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant tested positive for marijuana in 1985 while holding a security clearance and was sanctioned through Article 15 proceedings.
Applicant was convicted of alcohol-related disorderly conduct in 1987 and charged with a felony in 1992, which was later dismissed.
Applicant failed to disclose his past drug use and criminal history on his SF 86, raising significant concerns about his honesty and integrity.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedPersonal Conduct Disqualifying Condition
E2.A10.1.2.1appliedCriminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition

Key Rule Quoted

“The decision to deny a security clearance request to an individual is not necessarily a determination of the loyalty of the applicant.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 14, 2005
Answer filedJan 28, 2005
Hearing heldOct 27, 2005
Decision dateFeb 15, 2006

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Personal Conduct and Criminal Conduct
Failure to Disclose Relevant Information on Security Clearance Applications
Impact of Past Drug Use and Criminal History on 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 all allegations under Guideline E, citing deliberate omissions and falsifications on the Security Clearance Application (SF 86) regarding past drug use and criminal conduct. The applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his personal conduct, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant did not disclose his past use of marijuana on his Security Clearance Application (SF 86).	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.b	Applicant failed to disclose he was arrested and charged with threatening to bomb, burn, or destroy residential property in 1992.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.c	Applicant failed to disclose he was sanctioned through Article 15 proceedings in 1985 for wrongful use of marijuana while on active duty with the USAF.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.d	Applicant failed to disclose he was charged and convicted in 1987 for drunk and disorderly conduct and playing loud music in public for which he was ordered to pay a fine.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.e	Applicant failed to disclose he used marijuana at least twice in 2000.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

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 J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant was found to have a history of criminal conduct, including a conviction for alcohol-related disorderly conduct in 1987 and a felony charge related to a domestic matter in 1992, which was later dismissed. The judge ruled against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations, concluding that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his criminal history.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant was convicted of alcohol-related disorderly conduct in 1987 and charged with a felony offense resulting from a domestic matter in 1992. The felony charge was later dismissed.	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

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.