ISCR Case 96-0105.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 96-0105.h1

deniedNov 20, 1996· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to significant concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from an extensive history of drug and alcohol abuse, including illegal drug sales, and the falsification of information on security questionnaires.

The applicant's drug involvement included daily cocaine use from January 1988 to June 1990, and again from May to August 1991, often accompanied by daily marijuana use. During his initial period of cocaine use, he purchased and sold cocaine to support his habit, including fronting $600.00 weekly to a friend for cocaine, receiving $500.00 and half an ounce for personal use. His alcohol abuse included a diagnosis of alcohol dependence, continued consumption after diagnosis, and failure to complete prescribed treatment programs.

Crucially, the applicant failed to fully disclose his drug purchases and sales on a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) executed on December 10, 1994, and misrepresented his drug abuse history by stating he was drug-free for periods when he was not. He further understated his cocaine use and purchases in a sworn statement on April 27, 1995. These actions constituted deliberate omissions and falsifications of material facts, raising serious doubts about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness, which are essential for access to classified information. The applicant's claims of being drug-free were uncorroborated and insufficient to mitigate these concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has an extensive history of drug and alcohol abuse, including illegal drug sales.
Applicant falsified information on security questionnaires regarding his drug use and sales.
The applicant's claims of being drug-free were uncorroborated and insufficient to mitigate concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

HraisedDrug Involvement
GraisedAlcohol Consumption
EraisedPersonal Conduct
JraisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“"the clearly consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 19, 1996
Answer filedMay 13, 1996
Hearing held—Applicant requested an administrative decision on the record.
Decision dateNov 20, 1996

Cite For

Extensive History of Drug and Alcohol Abuse as a Disqualifying Factor
Falsification of Information on Security Questionnaires Under Criterion E
Poor Judgment and Reliability Due to Criminal Conduct Under Criterion 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	The applicant has a history of drug abuse, including the purchase and sale of cocaine and marijuana, which raises questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	The applicant failed to disclose his drug purchases and sales on his security questionnaire, which constitutes a deliberate omission of relevant and material facts.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	The applicant provided false information regarding his drug use in a sworn statement, which constitutes a deliberate falsification of material facts.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	The applicant's history of alcohol abuse raises concerns about his judgment and reliability, particularly given his failure to complete treatment programs.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.e	The applicant's conduct involving drug and alcohol abuse demonstrates a lack of judgment and reliability, which is inconsistent with the standards required for security clearance.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant has a history of drug abuse, including the purchase and sale of cocaine and marijuana, which raises questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.b

The applicant failed to disclose his drug purchases and sales on his security questionnaire, which constitutes a deliberate omission of relevant and material facts.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.c

The applicant provided false information regarding his drug use in a sworn statement, which constitutes a deliberate falsification of material facts.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.d

The applicant's history of alcohol abuse raises concerns about his judgment and reliability, particularly given his failure to complete treatment programs.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

—

2.e

The applicant's conduct involving drug and alcohol abuse demonstrates a lack of judgment and reliability, which is inconsistent with the standards required for security clearance.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol abuse.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
2.b	The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence by a credentialed medical professional.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
2.c	The applicant consumed alcohol after being diagnosed with alcohol dependence.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	—	—
2.d	The applicant failed to complete an alcohol treatment program prescribed by a credentialed medical professional.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
2.e	The applicant's alcohol consumption raises questions about his judgment and reliability.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant has a history of alcohol abuse.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

2.b

The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence by a credentialed medical professional.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

2.c

The applicant consumed alcohol after being diagnosed with alcohol dependence.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed

—

2.d

The applicant failed to complete an alcohol treatment program prescribed by a credentialed medical professional.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

2.e

The applicant's alcohol consumption raises questions about his judgment and reliability.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant first tried cocaine in January 1988, and used it nearly daily until June 1990.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	During this time, he used marijuana almost daily as a means of coming down from the cocaine high.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	He purchased and sold cocaine to support his habit, in violation of state and federal law.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or DealingRelated Misconduct	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant fronted $600.00 a week to a friend to buy one ounce of cocaine; the friend would sell one-half ounce of cocaine for $500.00 and then give Applicant the $500.00 and one-half ounce of cocaine for Applicant's personal use.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or DealingRelated Misconduct	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant continued to abuse cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol until June 1990, when he claims to have stopped without outside assistance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant claims to have remained drug free from June 1990 to May 1991.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	From May 1991 to August 1991, Applicant used cocaine daily.	Against Applicant	Cocaine	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	On 10 December 1994, Applicant executed a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) and answered "yes" to two questions designed to elicit his drug abuse history.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	He failed to elaborate his "yes" answer to the question about drug purchases or sales, and thus failed to disclose his purchase and sale of cocaine or his purchases of marijuana.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	He also misrepresented his drug abuse by stating that he was drug free from 26 November 1988 to May 1991.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.k	In a signed, sworn statement executed on 27 April 1995, Applicant understated his cocaine use by suggesting he was drug free from November 1988 until his relapse in May 1991.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.l	He also understated his cocaine purchases, estimating them at $300.00 to $600.00 per week.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant first tried cocaine in January 1988, and used it nearly daily until June 1990.

Against Applicant

Cocaine

Regular

Admitted

—

1.b

During this time, he used marijuana almost daily as a means of coming down from the cocaine high.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Regular

Admitted

—

1.c

He purchased and sold cocaine to support his habit, in violation of state and federal law.

Against Applicant

Drug Distribution or DealingRelated Misconduct

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant fronted $600.00 a week to a friend to buy one ounce of cocaine; the friend would sell one-half ounce of cocaine for $500.00 and then give Applicant the $500.00 and one-half ounce of cocaine for Applicant's personal use.

Against Applicant

Drug Distribution or DealingRelated Misconduct

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.e

Applicant continued to abuse cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol until June 1990, when he claims to have stopped without outside assistance.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

1.f

Applicant claims to have remained drug free from June 1990 to May 1991.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

1.g

From May 1991 to August 1991, Applicant used cocaine daily.

Against Applicant

Cocaine

Regular

Admitted

—

1.h

On 10 December 1994, Applicant executed a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) and answered "yes" to two questions designed to elicit his drug abuse history.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.i

He failed to elaborate his "yes" answer to the question about drug purchases or sales, and thus failed to disclose his purchase and sale of cocaine or his purchases of marijuana.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.j

He also misrepresented his drug abuse by stating that he was drug free from 26 November 1988 to May 1991.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.k

In a signed, sworn statement executed on 27 April 1995, Applicant understated his cocaine use by suggesting he was drug free from November 1988 until his relapse in May 1991.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.l

He also understated his cocaine purchases, estimating them at $300.00 to $600.00 per week.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	The Applicant has a history or pattern of criminal activity that creates doubt about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
3.b	The Applicant knowingly falsified information to an agency of the federal government, which violates 18 U.S.C. §1001.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

The Applicant has a history or pattern of criminal activity that creates doubt about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.

Against Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

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

—

3.b

The Applicant knowingly falsified information to an agency of the federal government, which violates 18 U.S.C. §1001.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

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

—

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

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES