ISCR Case 96-0591.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 96-0591.h1

deniedJan 15, 1997· Hon. John R. Erck· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of substance abuse, including a positive marijuana test on October 30, 1995, and admitted use of marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, psilocybin mushrooms, and LSD during college. The applicant also admitted to using marijuana on three or four occasions after 1985.

Key concerns included the applicant's deliberate provision of false or misleading information to investigators regarding drug use, which violated 18 U.S.C. §1001. Although the applicant had two subsequent negative urinalyses and expressed a resolve to abstain from marijuana, his wife is a regular user, and he received calls offering marijuana for sale.

The denial was ultimately based on the applicant's history of alcohol-related arrests and substance abuse, the provision of false information to investigators, and minimal participation in aftercare. Continued exposure to marijuana in the home environment also raised concerns about reliability, leading to the conclusion that granting a security clearance was not consistent with national security interests.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of alcohol-related arrests and substance abuse, including a positive drug test for marijuana shortly before the hearing.
The applicant provided false and misleading information to investigators regarding his drug use, undermining his credibility.
The applicant's minimal participation in aftercare and continued exposure to marijuana in his home environment raised concerns about his reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
H.1raisedAny Drug Abuse
E.3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
J.1raisedAny Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

G.3appliedPositive Changes in Behavior Supportive of Sobriety
H.2rejectedThe Drug Involvement Was an Isolated or Infrequent EventThe applicant's recent drug use and environment indicated a pattern rather than isolation.
H.3rejectedA Demonstrated Intent Not to Abuse Any Drugs in the FutureThe applicant's dishonesty and continued exposure to drugs undermined this claim.

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 issuedAug 21, 1996
Answer filedUndated
Hearing heldNov 6, 1996
Decision dateJan 15, 1997

Cite For

Denial Based on History of Substance Abuse and Dishonesty
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Credibility Issues Arising From False Statements to Investigators

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
3.a	Deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official representative in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official representative in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a–1.h	8 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a–1.h

8 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant tested positive for marijuana on October 30, 1995.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	The applicant admitted to using marijuana regularly while in college.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	The applicant admitted to using cocaine, amphetamines, psilocybin mushrooms, and LSD while in college.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	The applicant stated that he used marijuana on three or four occasions after 1985.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	The applicant has been subject to two urinalyses since testing positive, both of which were negative for marijuana.	For Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	The applicant has expressed a resolve not to use marijuana in the future.	For Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.g	The applicant's wife is a long-time, regular marijuana user.	For Applicant	MarijuanaRelated Misconduct	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
2.h	The applicant has received telephone calls asking if he wanted to buy marijuana.	For Applicant	Drug Distribution or Dealing	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant tested positive for marijuana on October 30, 1995.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.b

The applicant admitted to using marijuana regularly while in college.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Frequent

Admitted

—

2.c

The applicant admitted to using cocaine, amphetamines, psilocybin mushrooms, and LSD while in college.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Frequent

Admitted

—

2.d

The applicant stated that he used marijuana on three or four occasions after 1985.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Occasional

Admitted

—

2.e

The applicant has been subject to two urinalyses since testing positive, both of which were negative for marijuana.

For Applicant

Drug Test Failure

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.f

The applicant has expressed a resolve not to use marijuana in the future.

For Applicant

Stated Intent to Use Again

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.g

The applicant's wife is a long-time, regular marijuana user.

For Applicant

MarijuanaRelated Misconduct

Frequent

Admitted

—

2.h

The applicant has received telephone calls asking if he wanted to buy marijuana.

For Applicant

Drug Distribution or Dealing

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
4.a	Applicant's willfully withholding information from the DoD on matters that are clearly relevant to his security clearance eligibility violated 18 U.S.C. §1001.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	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

4.a

Applicant's willfully withholding information from the DoD on matters that are clearly relevant to his security clearance eligibility violated 18 U.S.C. §1001.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

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