ISCR Case 05-15652.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-15652.h1

grantedNov 30, 2006· Hon. Christopher Graham· hearing

Summary

A 47-year-old systems integration engineer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant falsified material facts on a March 24, 2004, security clearance application. Specifically, he reported a June 2001 DUI arrest when he had multiple prior arrests in June 2002, June 1991, August 1987, and a drug-related offense in August 1985. He also answered "No" to a question about felony offenses, despite being charged with three felonies in 1985. Additionally, the applicant had a history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUI convictions.

The judge found that the applicant's omissions on his application were not deliberate, attributing them to unintentional errors based on verbal instructions he received. The applicant successfully mitigated the security concerns by demonstrating a significant period of sobriety, with only one DUI in the last 15 years.

His maturity and responsibility as a husband and father further supported his case for sobriety and positive behavioral changes. Based on these mitigating factors, the applicant's security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a significant period of sobriety with only one DUI in the last 15 years.
He showed maturity and responsibility in his role as a husband and father, which supported his case for sobriety.
The omissions on his security clearance application were found to be unintentional, based on verbal instructions he received.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.2.1raisedCriminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition
E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol Consumption Disqualifying Condition
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedPersonal Conduct Disqualifying Condition

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.1appliedCriminal Conduct Mitigating Condition
E2.A7.1.3.2appliedAlcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition
E2.A7.1.3.3appliedAlcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition
E2.A5.1.2.2rejectedPersonal Conduct Mitigating ConditionThe judge did not find a deliberate omission on the application.

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 6, 2006
Answer filedJul 31, 2006Response dated July 28, 2006.
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Decision dateNov 30, 2006

Cite For

Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J Due to Significant Time Elapsed Since Last Offense
Demonstrating Positive Changes in Behavior Supportive of Sobriety Under Guideline G
Non-deliberate Omissions on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E.

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 falsified material facts on a security clearance application, dated March 24, 2004, on which he was required to respond to the following: 24. Your Police Record - Alcohol/Drug Offenses Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offenses related to alcohol or drugs? For this item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed or otherwise stricken from the record. The single exception to this requirement is for certain convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Applicant answered "Yes" and indicated an arrest for DUI in June 2001, whereas in fact he had been arrested for DUI in June 2002, June 1991, August 1987, and for a drug-related offense in August 1985. He wrote 2001 by mistake.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant falsified material facts on a security clearance application, dated March 24, 2004, on which he was required to respond to the following: Question 21. Your police record - felony offenses Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any felony offense? (Include those under the uniform code of military Justice.) For this item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed or otherwise stricken from the record. The single exception to this requirement is for certain convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. He answered "No," whereas in fact, he was charged with three felonies in 1985.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant falsified material facts on a security clearance application, dated March 24, 2004, on which he was required to respond to the following: 24. Your Police Record - Alcohol/Drug Offenses Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offenses related to alcohol or drugs? For this item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed or otherwise stricken from the record. The single exception to this requirement is for certain convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Applicant answered "Yes" and indicated an arrest for DUI in June 2001, whereas in fact he had been arrested for DUI in June 2002, June 1991, August 1987, and for a drug-related offense in August 1985. He wrote 2001 by mistake.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant falsified material facts on a security clearance application, dated March 24, 2004, on which he was required to respond to the following: Question 21. Your police record - felony offenses Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any felony offense? (Include those under the uniform code of military Justice.) For this item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed or otherwise stricken from the record. The single exception to this requirement is for certain convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. He answered "No," whereas in fact, he was charged with three felonies in 1985.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUI convictions.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence (c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUI convictions.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a–1.e	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a–1.e

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

For Applicant

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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