ISCR Case 05-08089.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-08089.h1

deniedMay 16, 2006· Hon. Philip S. Howe· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old defense contractor and unmarried father was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to 11 years of marijuana use, sales, purchases, and cultivation, spanning from 1992 to 2003. Specifically, he used marijuana from at least 1992 to 1999, purchased it from 1996 to December 1999, sold it from December 1999 to June 2003, and cultivated plants at his home between 1993 and June 2003.

Additionally, the applicant falsified answers on two security clearance applications (2003 and 2004) by failing to disclose his drug involvement, including sales, purchases, and cultivation. This deliberate falsification was a significant factor in the denial.

The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns related to his extensive drug involvement, criminal conduct, and the deliberate falsification of his applications. No mitigating conditions were found applicable to alleviate these concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to extensive illegal drug use and involvement in drug sales and cultivation over an 11-year period.
The applicant falsified information on his security clearance applications, which is a serious concern under personal conduct guidelines.
No mitigating conditions were applicable to alleviate the security concerns raised by the applicant's conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Abuse
H2raisedIllegal Drug Possession
E2raisedDeliberate Falsification
E4raisedPersonal Conduct Increasing Vulnerability
E5raisedPattern of Dishonesty
J1raisedAdmission of Criminal Conduct
J2raisedMultiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

E5rejectedPositive Steps to Reduce VulnerabilityThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or separation from drug-related activities.
E7rejectedCeased Association with Criminal ActivitiesWhile the applicant ceased drug-related activities, this alone did not mitigate the severity of his past conduct.

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 issuedJan 17, 2006
Answer filedFeb 2, 2006Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateMay 16, 2006

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Extensive Drug Involvement Under Guideline H
Falsification of Security Clearance Applications as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Related to Drug Offenses Impacting 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.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—
2.c	The alleged deliberate falsification of answers on his two SCAs and the illegal course of conduct he engaged in by using marijuana from 1992 to 2003.	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 (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
2.d	He did not disclose his sale, purchase, and cultivation of marijuana in answering Question 29.	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 (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—
2.e	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a–2.b

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

2.c

The alleged deliberate falsification of answers on his two SCAs and the illegal course of conduct he engaged in by using marijuana from 1992 to 2003.

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

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

2.d

He did not disclose his sale, purchase, and cultivation of marijuana in answering Question 29.

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

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation

—

2.e

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from at least 1992 until at least 1999.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.b	The applicant purchased marijuana from some time in 1996 until December 1999.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Not Applicable	Admitted	(b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.c	The applicant sold marijuana from December 1999 to at least June 2003.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Admitted	(b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.d	The applicant cultivated marijuana plants at his home, in different quantities, at various times between 1993 and June 2003.	Against Applicant	Drug Possession with Intent	Not Applicable	Admitted	(b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.e	The applicant falsified answers on his 2003 and 2004 security clearance applications regarding his drug use.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	(b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.f	The applicant's drug involvement has not been mitigated.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	(b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from at least 1992 until at least 1999.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Regular

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

1.b

The applicant purchased marijuana from some time in 1996 until December 1999.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Not Applicable

Admitted

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

1.c

The applicant sold marijuana from December 1999 to at least June 2003.

Against Applicant

Drug Distribution or Dealing

Not Applicable

Admitted

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

1.d

The applicant cultivated marijuana plants at his home, in different quantities, at various times between 1993 and June 2003.

Against Applicant

Drug Possession with Intent

Not Applicable

Admitted

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

1.e

The applicant falsified answers on his 2003 and 2004 security clearance applications regarding his drug use.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

1.f

The applicant's drug involvement has not been mitigated.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a–3.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		Conduct No Charge		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a–3.c

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Against Applicant

Conduct No Charge

—

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

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES