ISCR Case 96-0460.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 96-0460.h1

deniedJul 29, 1997· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 47-year-old single male defense contractor employee was denied a DoD security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant began using marijuana weekly in 1973, purchasing it until 1988, and credibly stated an intent to stop. However, he was arrested for felony Conspiracy to Possess a Controlled Substance Base (Cocaine) and Possession of a Controlled Substance for Sale (Cocaine), and was found guilty of the latter. His involvement in a drug operation run from his owned house was also a factor.

During the clearance process, the applicant completed a DoD questionnaire on November 21, 1995, denying any marijuana or cocaine use or purchase. In interviews with a Special Agent of the Defense Investigative Service on April 4, 1996, and November 8, 1996, he again denied cocaine use and stated he had never been involved in illegal drug activities. He later admitted to falsifying information out of fear of not being granted a security clearance, which was a requirement for his employment.

The judge found that the applicant's involvement in illegal drug activity, including a felony conviction for possession of cocaine base for sale, and his knowing and willful provision of false material information during the clearance screening process, demonstrated poor judgment and untrustworthiness. These factors, along with his continued probation status, led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was involved in illegal drug activity and had a felony conviction for drug possession.
The applicant provided false information during the security clearance process, undermining trustworthiness.
The applicant's continued probation status indicated ongoing concerns about his reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1raisedPersonal Conduct
E2.A5.2raisedPersonal Conduct
E2.A5.3raisedPersonal Conduct
E2.A5.4raisedPersonal Conduct
E2.A5.5raisedPersonal Conduct
H1raisedDrug Involvement
J1raisedCriminal Conduct
J2raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

H1.3appliedDrug InvolvementThe applicant expressed a credible intent not to use marijuana in the future.
E2.A5.2rejectedPersonal ConductThe government failed to prove that the applicant falsified certain statements.
H1.2appliedDrug InvolvementThe applicant's drug involvement was not recent.

Key Rule Quoted

“The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question of whether it is "clearly consistent with the national interest" to grant an Applicant's request for access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 12, 1996
Answer filedSep 3, 1996Requested determination on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateJul 29, 1997

Cite For

Denial Based on Drug Involvement and Criminal Conduct
Impact of False Statements on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of Past Drug Use and Current Probation Status in Clearance 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
2.a	The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he intentionally falsified material aspects of his personal background during the clearance screening process.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	The Applicant was subsequently interviewed by a Special Agent of the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) April 4, 1996. In that first interview the Applicant discussed his drug related arrest and also stated, "I have never been involved in any use, sales, trafficking, manufacturing or distribution of any type of illegal drug or controlled substances."	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	In a subsequent interview on November 8, 1996, the Applicant once again categorically denied any cocaine use. He further stated that he had no idea how the statements regarding cocaine use came to be in Government Exhibit 6.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Other	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he intentionally falsified material aspects of his personal background during the clearance screening process.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

2.b

The Applicant was subsequently interviewed by a Special Agent of the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) April 4, 1996. In that first interview the Applicant discussed his drug related arrest and also stated, "I have never been involved in any use, sales, trafficking, manufacturing or distribution of any type of illegal drug or controlled substances."

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

2.c

In a subsequent interview on November 8, 1996, the Applicant once again categorically denied any cocaine use. He further stated that he had no idea how the statements regarding cocaine use came to be in Government Exhibit 6.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to Disclose

Other

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant began using marijuana in approximately 1973. He used it primarily on a weekly basis. The Applicant also purchased marijuana during the period he was using it. The Applicant stopped using marijuana in 1988 and expresses a credible intent not to use marijuana in the future.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Abstinence Period Documented
1.b	The Applicant was arrested, along with other people, for (1) Conspiracy to Possess a Controlled Substance Base (Cocaine) and (2) Possession of a Controlled Substance for Sale (Cocaine), both state felonies.	Against Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	The Applicant consistently denies, in his Answer and two sworn statements, that he used cocaine in the period 1991 through 1992. The only evidence that he used cocaine is found on page 5 of Government Exhibit 6, the Probation Officer's Report. As stated above, that report is incomplete and unsigned. Under the particular circumstances of this case, I find that the Government has not met its burden in proving that the Applicant has used cocaine as alleged in the Statement of Reasons.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	The Applicant's involvement in the drug operation out of a house he owns cannot, however, be mitigated at the present time. Looked at in the best light for the Applicant, he was incredibly naive and allowed his roommate to run a drug operation out of his house. At its worst, there is evidence in the record that the Applicant knew about the drug operation and may have been a part of it.	For Applicant	Drug Possession with Intent	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	—
2.a	The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he intentionally falsified material aspects of his personal background during the clearance screening process.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	On November 21, 1995, the Applicant completed an official DoD questionnaire in which he stated that he had never used or purchased marijuana or cocaine.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	The Applicant stated that he had falsified his drug information, '(B)ecause I was afraid of not being granted a security clearance which is a requirement for being recalled back to work.'	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	—	—	—
3.a	As found above, the Applicant plead nolo contendere to, and was found guilty of, a state felony, Possession of Cocaine Base for Sale.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	As found above, the Applicant knowingly and willfully provided false material information to DoD during the clearance screening process.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

The Applicant began using marijuana in approximately 1973. He used it primarily on a weekly basis. The Applicant also purchased marijuana during the period he was using it. The Applicant stopped using marijuana in 1988 and expresses a credible intent not to use marijuana in the future.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Regular

Admitted

—

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

Documented

Abstinence Period Documented

1.b

The Applicant was arrested, along with other people, for (1) Conspiracy to Possess a Controlled Substance Base (Cocaine) and (2) Possession of a Controlled Substance for Sale (Cocaine), both state felonies.

Against Applicant

Drug Distribution or Dealing

Not Applicable

Denied

—

1.c

The Applicant consistently denies, in his Answer and two sworn statements, that he used cocaine in the period 1991 through 1992. The only evidence that he used cocaine is found on page 5 of Government Exhibit 6, the Probation Officer's Report. As stated above, that report is incomplete and unsigned. Under the particular circumstances of this case, I find that the Government has not met its burden in proving that the Applicant has used cocaine as alleged in the Statement of Reasons.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Denied

—

1.d

The Applicant's involvement in the drug operation out of a house he owns cannot, however, be mitigated at the present time. Looked at in the best light for the Applicant, he was incredibly naive and allowed his roommate to run a drug operation out of his house. At its worst, there is evidence in the record that the Applicant knew about the drug operation and may have been a part of it.

For Applicant

Drug Possession with Intent

Not Applicable

Denied

—

2.a

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Denied

—

2.b

On November 21, 1995, the Applicant completed an official DoD questionnaire in which he stated that he had never used or purchased marijuana or cocaine.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Denied

—

2.c

The Applicant stated that he had falsified his drug information, '(B)ecause I was afraid of not being granted a security clearance which is a requirement for being recalled back to work.'

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Denied

—

3.a

As found above, the Applicant plead nolo contendere to, and was found guilty of, a state felony, Possession of Cocaine Base for Sale.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Denied

—

3.b

As found above, the Applicant knowingly and willfully provided false material information to DoD during the clearance screening process.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant was arrested, along with other people, for (1) Conspiracy to Possess a Controlled Substance Base (Cocaine) and (2) Possession of a Controlled Substance for Sale (Cocaine), both state felonies.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	The Applicant was in possession of cocaine base in the period of September 1992.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.c	The Applicant stopped using marijuana in 1988 and expresses a credible intent not to use marijuana in the future.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	The Applicant's involvement in the drug operation out of a house he owns cannot, however, be mitigated at the present time.	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.a	The Applicant completed an official DoD questionnaire in which he stated that he had never used or purchased marijuana or cocaine.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b	The Applicant was subsequently interviewed by a Special Agent of the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) April 4, 1996.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.c	The Applicant stated that he had falsified his drug information because he was afraid of not being granted a security clearance.	For Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
3.a	The Applicant plead nolo contendere to, and was found guilty of, a state felony, Possession of Cocaine Base for Sale.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
3.b	The Applicant knowingly and willfully provided false material information to DoD during the clearance screening process.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Denied

—

1.b

The Applicant was in possession of cocaine base in the period of September 1992.

Against Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Denied

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

—

1.c

The Applicant stopped using marijuana in 1988 and expresses a credible intent not to use marijuana in the future.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

1.d

The Applicant's involvement in the drug operation out of a house he owns cannot, however, be mitigated at the present time.

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Denied

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

—

2.a

The Applicant completed an official DoD questionnaire in which he stated that he had never used or purchased marijuana or cocaine.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

—

2.b

The Applicant was subsequently interviewed by a Special Agent of the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) April 4, 1996.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

—

2.c

The Applicant stated that he had falsified his drug information because he was afraid of not being granted a security clearance.

For Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

3.a

The Applicant plead nolo contendere to, and was found guilty of, a state felony, Possession of Cocaine Base for Sale.

Against Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Convicted

Denied

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

—

3.b

The Applicant knowingly and willfully provided false material information to DoD during the clearance screening process.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(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