ISCR Case 96-0456.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 96-0456.h1

deniedJan 14, 1997· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old male defense contractor was denied a Top Secret security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had an extensive history of drug use, including marijuana, hashish, cocaine, ecstasy, and LSD, spanning from 1982 to July 1995. This included daily marijuana use, multiple instances of mescaline, crack cocaine, and heroin use in the 1980s, and a resumption of regular cannabis use from January 1993 to July 1995, alongside other illicit substances.

A significant factor in the denial was the applicant's repeated falsification of his drug history on Personnel Security Questionnaires (PSQs) and during interviews. He intentionally concealed prior involvement with cocaine, mescaline, heroin, and the sale of marijuana, as well as his ongoing cannabis usage since January 1993, fearing loss of employment and clearance. His drug abuse continued while he possessed a Top Secret security clearance, in contravention of Department of Defense policy.

Although the applicant had abstained from illegal drugs since July 1995 and attended a drug abuse prevention course after a drunk driving incident in May 1996, the Administrative Judge found that 15 months of abstention provided inadequate assurance against relapse given the extent of his past abuse. His belief that marijuana should be legalized also raised further concerns about his judgment and reliability. The combination of extensive drug abuse, particularly while cleared, and repeated dishonesty regarding his history led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of heavy illicit substance abuse during two distinct periods, including while holding a Top Secret clearance.
The applicant engaged in repeated falsification of his drug history on multiple security questionnaires and during interviews.
The applicant's recent drug use and lack of credible assurances against future use raised significant security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Abuse
E2raisedFalsification of Information
E5raisedPattern of Dishonesty
J1raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

H1rejectedDrug Involvement Not RecentThe applicant's drug involvement was not isolated and included recent use.
E1notedNo Mitigating Conditions Applicable
J1notedNo Mitigating Conditions Applicable

Key Rule Quoted

“"A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence."”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 21, 1996
Answer filedJul 10, 1996
Hearing heldOct 17, 1996
Decision dateJan 14, 1997

Cite For

Denial Based on Extensive Drug Abuse History Under Guideline H
Repeated Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
Pattern of Dishonesty Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility 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
2.a.(1)	The applicant knowingly concealed from the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) his prior involvement with cocaine, mescaline and heroin.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
2.a.(2)	Applicant intentionally did not report his prior involvement in high school with cocaine, mescaline or heroin or his sale of marijuana.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
2.a.(3)	Applicant executed a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) on which he responded affirmatively to the questions on the form regarding illegal drug use, purchase and sale, and reported use of marijuana and hashish between 1982 and May 1985, but did not list his ongoing cannabis usage since January 1993 or his past involvement with cocaine, heroin, and mescaline because he feared loss of his employment and security clearance.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Denied	—	—	—
2.a.(4)	Applicant was apprehended for drunk driving.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b.(1)	Applicant's extensive abuse of cannabis (both marijuana and hashish) is regarded as much more serious.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b.(2)	Applicant's recent drug abuse is particularly troubling for it continued while he was in possession of a Top Secret security clearance and in known contravention of Department of Defense policy.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b.(3)	Applicant's stated intent on that occasion is viewed as credible, given his abstention until 1992.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.c.(1)	Applicant's abstention from any illegal drug involvement since July 1995 augurs favorably as does the fact that he has not had any contact with his drug supplier since May 1995.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c.(2)	Fifteen months abstention provides inadequate assurance against relapse in this case in light of the extent of Applicant's abuse over the 1993 to July 1995 time frame.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c.(3)	Applicant's belief that marijuana should be legalized raises further concerns about his judgment and reliability.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c.(4)	Applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.d.(1)	Applicant's history of heavy illicit substance abuse during two distinct periods raises questions regarding his willingness or ability to protect classified information.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.d.(2)	The applicant has a heavy burden of persuasion to demonstrate that he is nonetheless security worthy.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.e.(1)	The applicant's drug abuse may impair social or occupational functioning, increasing the risk of an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.e.(2)	The applicant's conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that he may not properly safeguard classified information.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.e.(3)	The applicant's pattern of dishonesty or rule violations raises significant security concerns.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.e.(4)	The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.f.(1)	The applicant's drug involvement was not recent, but the extent of his abuse raises concerns.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.f.(2)	The applicant's drug involvement was an isolated or infrequent event, but the pattern of abuse is concerning.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.g.(1)	The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.g.(2)	The applicant's history of drug abuse and falsification of information on security forms raises significant security concerns.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.g.(3)	The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.g.(4)	The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.g.(5)	The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.h.(1)	The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a.(1)

The applicant knowingly concealed from the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) his prior involvement with cocaine, mescaline and heroin.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

2.a.(2)

Applicant intentionally did not report his prior involvement in high school with cocaine, mescaline or heroin or his sale of marijuana.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

2.a.(3)

Applicant executed a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ) on which he responded affirmatively to the questions on the form regarding illegal drug use, purchase and sale, and reported use of marijuana and hashish between 1982 and May 1985, but did not list his ongoing cannabis usage since January 1993 or his past involvement with cocaine, heroin, and mescaline because he feared loss of his employment and security clearance.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Denied

—

2.a.(4)

Applicant was apprehended for drunk driving.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

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

—

2.b.(1)

Applicant's extensive abuse of cannabis (both marijuana and hashish) is regarded as much more serious.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

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

—

2.b.(2)

Applicant's recent drug abuse is particularly troubling for it continued while he was in possession of a Top Secret security clearance and in known contravention of Department of Defense policy.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

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

—

2.b.(3)

Applicant's stated intent on that occasion is viewed as credible, given his abstention until 1992.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

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

—

2.c.(1)

Applicant's abstention from any illegal drug involvement since July 1995 augurs favorably as does the fact that he has not had any contact with his drug supplier since May 1995.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.c.(2)

Fifteen months abstention provides inadequate assurance against relapse in this case in light of the extent of Applicant's abuse over the 1993 to July 1995 time frame.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.c.(3)

Applicant's belief that marijuana should be legalized raises further concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.c.(4)

Applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.d.(1)

Applicant's history of heavy illicit substance abuse during two distinct periods raises questions regarding his willingness or ability to protect classified information.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.d.(2)

The applicant has a heavy burden of persuasion to demonstrate that he is nonetheless security worthy.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.e.(1)

The applicant's drug abuse may impair social or occupational functioning, increasing the risk of an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.e.(2)

The applicant's conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that he may not properly safeguard classified information.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.e.(3)

The applicant's pattern of dishonesty or rule violations raises significant security concerns.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

—

2.e.(4)

The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.f.(1)

The applicant's drug involvement was not recent, but the extent of his abuse raises concerns.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.f.(2)

The applicant's drug involvement was an isolated or infrequent event, but the pattern of abuse is concerning.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

—

2.g.(1)

The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.g.(2)

The applicant's history of drug abuse and falsification of information on security forms raises significant security concerns.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

—

2.g.(3)

The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.g.(4)

The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.g.(5)

The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.h.(1)

The applicant's conduct raises significant security concerns, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline E.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has a history of drug involvement, including daily use of marijuana from 1982 to May 1985, and resumed regular cannabis use in January 1993 until July 1995.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.b	The applicant used mescaline on eight occasions while in high school.	For Applicant	Psilocybin	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	—
1.c	The applicant used hashish twice in 1984 and purchased it both times.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—
1.d	The applicant used crack cocaine on two occasions and heroin once in 1985.	For Applicant	Cocaine	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—
1.e	The applicant resumed regular cannabis use in January 1993, using hashish primarily, to the point of psychological addiction, until July 1995.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Regular	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	—
1.f	The applicant used cocaine twice in the summer of 1994, and ecstasy and LSD twice each during the period 1994 to spring 1995.	For Applicant	Cocaine	Not Applicable	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse	—	—
1.g	The applicant has not used illegal drugs since July 1995 and has expressed intent not to use drugs in the future.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other
1.h	The applicant attended a drug abuse prevention course and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings after a drunk driving incident in May 1996.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	Documented Substance Treatment Completed
1.i	The applicant has not had contact with his drug supplier since May 1995.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	The applicant's supervisors recommend him for a position of trust, noting no negative impact on his work performance.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	Documented Employer Endorsement
1.k	The applicant has expressed a belief that marijuana should be legalized.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.l	The applicant's history of drug involvement raises questions about his judgment and reliability.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Unknown	(a) any substance misuse	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant has a history of drug involvement, including daily use of marijuana from 1982 to May 1985, and resumed regular cannabis use in January 1993 until July 1995.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Regular

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

1.b

The applicant used mescaline on eight occasions while in high school.

For Applicant

Psilocybin

Not Applicable

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

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

—

1.c

The applicant used hashish twice in 1984 and purchased it both times.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Not Applicable

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

—

1.d

The applicant used crack cocaine on two occasions and heroin once in 1985.

For Applicant

Cocaine

Not Applicable

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

—

1.e

The applicant resumed regular cannabis use in January 1993, using hashish primarily, to the point of psychological addiction, until July 1995.

Against Applicant

MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED

Regular

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

(b) testing positive for an illegal drug

—

1.f

The applicant used cocaine twice in the summer of 1994, and ecstasy and LSD twice each during the period 1994 to spring 1995.

For Applicant

Cocaine

Not Applicable

Admitted

(a) any substance misuse

—

1.g

The applicant has not used illegal drugs since July 1995 and has expressed intent not to use drugs in the future.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Denied

—

Claimed

Other

1.h

The applicant attended a drug abuse prevention course and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings after a drunk driving incident in May 1996.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

Documented

Substance Treatment Completed

1.i

The applicant has not had contact with his drug supplier since May 1995.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.j

The applicant's supervisors recommend him for a position of trust, noting no negative impact on his work performance.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

Documented

Employer Endorsement

1.k

The applicant has expressed a belief that marijuana should be legalized.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

1.l

The applicant's history of drug involvement raises questions about his judgment and reliability.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Not Applicable

Unknown

(a) any substance misuse

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	The applicant was apprehended for drunk driving in May 1996.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

The applicant was apprehended for drunk driving in May 1996.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

—

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