ISCR Case 06-01686.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-01686.h1

grantedDec 29, 2006· Hon. Erin C. Hogan· hearing

Summary

A 63-year-old truck driver for a defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons cited the applicant's alleged omission of facts from his security questionnaire, unfavorable information from associates, and a history of illegal drug use between 1979 and late 1993, including marijuana and cocaine use up to twice a week.

Specific incidents included an apprehension for marijuana possession in 1979, an arrest in November 1990 for marijuana and drug paraphernalia possession (resulting in a guilty plea and a $98 fine), and an April 1993 arrest for possession of cocaine and marijuana (resulting in a guilty plea and a $1,000 fine). The applicant was also terminated from a previous job for refusing a drug test.

The judge determined that the applicant's failure to list past drug charges was due to a misunderstanding, not deliberate falsification. The applicant provided credible evidence of rehabilitation, having abstained from illegal drugs for over 13 years since 1993, and maintained a stable work history. His explanation for the termination related to a family emergency was also deemed reasonable, mitigating personal conduct concerns. Consequently, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's failure to list past drug-related charges was due to a misunderstanding of the reporting requirements, not deliberate intent to falsify.
The applicant provided credible evidence of rehabilitation, having not used illegal drugs since 1993 and maintaining a stable work history.
The applicant's explanation for his termination due to a family emergency was deemed reasonable and mitigated the concerns under personal conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
E2.A8.1.2.1raisedAny Drug Abuse

Mitigating

E2.A5.1.3.1appliedThe Information Was Unsubstantiated or Not Pertinent to a Determination of Judgment, Trustworthiness, or Reliability
E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Conduct Was Not Recent
E2.A8.1.3.1appliedThe Drug Involvement Was Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.6appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
E2.A8.1.3.3appliedA Demonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Any Drugs in the Future

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.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 22, 2006
Answer filedJun 8, 2006Applicant initially requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldDec 1, 2006
Decision dateDec 29, 2006

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Due to Misunderstanding of Application Requirements
Successful Rehabilitation After a History of Drug Involvement
Consideration of Family Emergencies in Employment-related Decisions

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	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	—
1.b	Reliable, unfavorable information provided by associates, employers, coworkers, neighbors, and other acquaintances.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

—

1.b

Reliable, unfavorable information provided by associates, employers, coworkers, neighbors, and other acquaintances.

For Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Admitted

—

(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
3.a	Between 1979 to late 1993, Applicant illegally used marijuana and cocaine on various occasions. His heaviest level of usage was approximately twice a week.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	Documented Abstinence Period Documented Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse Documented Rehabilitation Evidence

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

3.a

Between 1979 to late 1993, Applicant illegally used marijuana and cocaine on various occasions. His heaviest level of usage was approximately twice a week.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

(c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended

Documented

Abstinence Period Documented

Claimed

Acknowledgment and Remorse

Documented

Rehabilitation Evidence

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was apprehended by military police for possession of marijuana in 1979.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
2.b	On November 18, 1990, Applicant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. He pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to a $98 fine.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
2.c	On April 18, 1993, Applicant was arrested and charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine and marijuana. He pled guilty and was sentenced to a $1,000 fine.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was apprehended by military police for possession of marijuana in 1979.

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

2.b

On November 18, 1990, Applicant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. He pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to a $98 fine.

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

2.c

On April 18, 1993, Applicant was arrested and charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine and marijuana. He pled guilty and was sentenced to a $1,000 fine.

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

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

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES