ISCR Case 96-0411.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 96-0411.h1

deniedDec 30, 1996· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old defense contractor employee sought to retain a secret security clearance, which was ultimately denied. The denial was based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The case centered on allegations of the applicant falsifying security clearance applications and a history of drug use, specifically marijuana and cocaine.

The applicant was found to have falsified a National Agency Questionnaire (NAQ) on March 24, 1992, by denying a drug purchase history and misrepresenting the extent and type of his drug use, including cocaine use in 1987 or 1988 and more frequent marijuana use than disclosed. On March 27, 1996, he falsified a Security Clearance Application (SF 86) by omitting an arrest and conviction for shoplifting in May 1992, and by failing to fully disclose his marijuana purchases and use. The applicant admitted to these falsifications, stating he feared losing his clearance.

While the applicant had a history of drug involvement, he had not used drugs since September 1994, expressed an intent to abstain, and acknowledged the incompatibility of drug use with classified information access. However, the judge denied the application, emphasizing the applicant's lack of honesty and reliability due to multiple falsifications, which raised serious doubts about his judgment and ability to safeguard classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant falsified a National Agency Questionnaire by omitting drug use history and a criminal conviction.
The applicant's multiple falsifications indicated a lack of trustworthiness and reliability.
The applicant's conduct raised serious doubts about his judgment and ability to safeguard classified information.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A2.2.raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A2.3.raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
H1.A1.raisedAny Drug Abuse
J1.A1.raisedAny Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged

Mitigating

H1.A1.appliedThe Drug Involvement Was Not Recent
H1.A3.appliedA Demonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Any Drugs in the Future

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 issuedAug 13, 1996
Answer filedSep 1, 1996undated letter received by DOHA
Hearing heldNov 13, 1996
Decision dateDec 30, 1996

Cite For

Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Drug Involvement and Its Implications Under Guideline H
Criminal Conduct and Its Impact on Security Clearance 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
1.a	On 24 March 1992, Applicant falsified a National Agency Questionnaire (NAQ)(DD Form 398-2) when he answered "no" to a question designed to elicit his drug purchase history; further, while he admitted using drugs, he falsely asserted that he had used only marijuana, and only during high school from approximately 1979 to 1982; in fact, Applicant had used cocaine in 1987 or 1988, and had used and purchased marijuana more frequently and recently (into March 1992) than he had claimed.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.b	On 27 March 1996, Applicant falsified a Security Clearance Application (SF 86) by failing to disclose his arrest and conviction for shoplifting in May 1992, failing to disclose his purchases of marijuana over the years, and understating his marijuana use.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.c	Applicant admitted falsifying his NAQ for fear he would not get his security clearance; he later also admitted falsifying his drug purchases.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.d	Applicant's failure to fully disclose his drug abuse history until he was confronted by the DIS suggests that he cannot be relied upon to speak the truth if the truth presents possible adverse consequences for his own interests.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
1.e	Each time, Applicant disclosed only so much of his drug history as he thought would get by the DIS.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

On 24 March 1992, Applicant falsified a National Agency Questionnaire (NAQ)(DD Form 398-2) when he answered "no" to a question designed to elicit his drug purchase history; further, while he admitted using drugs, he falsely asserted that he had used only marijuana, and only during high school from approximately 1979 to 1982; in fact, Applicant had used cocaine in 1987 or 1988, and had used and purchased marijuana more frequently and recently (into March 1992) than he had claimed.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.b

On 27 March 1996, Applicant falsified a Security Clearance Application (SF 86) by failing to disclose his arrest and conviction for shoplifting in May 1992, failing to disclose his purchases of marijuana over the years, and understating his marijuana use.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.c

Applicant admitted falsifying his NAQ for fear he would not get his security clearance; he later also admitted falsifying his drug purchases.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Admitted

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.d

Applicant's failure to fully disclose his drug abuse history until he was confronted by the DIS suggests that he cannot be relied upon to speak the truth if the truth presents possible adverse consequences for his own interests.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

1.e

Each time, Applicant disclosed only so much of his drug history as he thought would get by the DIS.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE

—

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant has a history of drug involvement, including marijuana and cocaine use.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Denied	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—
2.b	The applicant has not used drugs since September 1994 and has expressed an intent not to use drugs in the future.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Denied	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—
2.c	The applicant's drug abuse was not extensive and has been mitigated by the time elapsed since the last use.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Denied	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—
2.d	The applicant has demonstrated an intent not to abuse drugs in the future.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Denied	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—
2.e	The applicant has acknowledged the incompatibility of drug use with access to classified information.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Denied	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—
2.f	The applicant has not engaged in drug use for over two years.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Denied	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant has a history of drug involvement, including marijuana and cocaine use.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Denied

—

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

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

—

2.b

The applicant has not used drugs since September 1994 and has expressed an intent not to use drugs in the future.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Denied

—

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

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

—

2.c

The applicant's drug abuse was not extensive and has been mitigated by the time elapsed since the last use.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Denied

—

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

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

—

2.d

The applicant has demonstrated an intent not to abuse drugs in the future.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Denied

—

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

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

—

2.e

The applicant has acknowledged the incompatibility of drug use with access to classified information.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Denied

—

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

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

—

2.f

The applicant has not engaged in drug use for over two years.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Denied

—

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

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	The Applicant knowingly, multiple falsifications to an agency of the federal government on matters within that agency's jurisdiction clearly violate 18 U.S.C. §1001.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

The Applicant knowingly, multiple falsifications to an agency of the federal government on matters within that agency's jurisdiction clearly violate 18 U.S.C. §1001.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

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