CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 96-0603.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 96-0603.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date2/9/1998
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Lokey Anderson
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, determining that the applicant intentionally falsified material aspects of his personal background during the clearance screening process. The applicant's repeated false statements and omissions were deemed to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 96-0603.h1

deniedFeb 9, 1998· Hon. Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old electronic technician employed by a defense contractor was denied a Secret-level security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of illegal drug and alcohol abuse, multiple arrests, and the falsification of information during the clearance process.

The applicant admitted to marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol addiction, with marijuana use spanning 25 years (1970-1995) and cocaine use from 1981 to 1995, including after being granted a prior security clearance in 1983. Despite two inpatient treatment programs, the applicant relapsed, testing positive for drugs after one program and continuing to drink. The judge noted a lack of significant evidence of reform or a sustained period of being drug-free.

Furthermore, the applicant intentionally falsified material aspects of his background. In a 1982 sworn statement, he claimed only marijuana use from 1972 to 1981. However, on a 1995 security clearance application, he stated he used marijuana once in 1974 and purchased it once in 1975 for $20. These statements contradicted his admitted long-term, extensive drug use and purchases. The judge concluded that the applicant's conduct demonstrated poor judgment and unreliability, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long history of illegal drug and alcohol abuse, including multiple treatment programs and relapses.
The applicant provided false information on his security clearance application and in a sworn statement, violating federal law.
The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or a change in behavior to mitigate security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

H1raisedDrug Involvement
G1raisedAlcohol Consumption
E2raisedPersonal Conduct
J1raisedCriminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government must be able to place a high degree of confidence in a security clearance holder to abide by all security rules and regulations at all times and in all places.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 23, 1996
Answer filedFeb 4, 1997
Hearing heldMay 20, 1997
Decision dateFeb 9, 1998

Cite For

Denial Based on a History of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Under Guideline H and G
Falsification of Material Facts Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Related to False Statements 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.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, determining that the applicant intentionally falsified material aspects of his personal background during the clearance screening process. The applicant's repeated false statements and omissions were deemed to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	The Government alleges 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	—	—	—
3.b	In a sworn statement dated December 17, 1982, before a Special Agent from the Defense Investigative Service, the Applicant stated that he used marijuana from 1972 until December 1981, and that he has never used any other illegal drug.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
3.c	The Applicant completed an application for security clearance dated September 29, 1995, which asked him if he had ever used any illegal drug. The Applicant answered "yes", and listed that he had used marijuana once in 1974.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
3.d	The same application asked the Applicant whether he has ever purchased any illegal drug. The Applicant answered "yes", and listed that he had purchased marijuana once in 1975, for $20.00.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had a long history of illegal drug use, including marijuana and cocaine, and failed to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation. The applicant's admissions of drug use and past criminal conduct, including false statements made during the clearance process, led to a ruling against the applicant on all allegations related to drug involvement. The decision to deny the security clearance was based on concerns about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant has admitted to being addicted to marijuana, cocaine and alcohol.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The Applicant used marijuana at varying frequencies, from every other day to once a week, over a period of twenty five years, from 1970 to at least July 1995.	Against Applicant	MarijuanaWHILE CLEARED	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	The Applicant also used and purchased cocaine, including crack cocaine, from 1981 until July 1995.	Against Applicant	CocaineWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	The Applicant continued to use marijuana and cocaine after being granted a security clearance on April 14, 1983.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementWHILE CLEARED	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	The Applicant was diagnosed with cocaine dependence, continuous.	Against Applicant	Drug Diagnosed Disorder	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	The Applicant was dismissed before completing the 90 day program for violating the rules by using cocaine and alcohol.	Against Applicant	Treatment Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Following this treatment program, the Applicant was tested by his employer for drugs. The Applicant tested positive.	Against Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	The Applicant has never sold marijuana, and has no intention of ever using it again.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	The Applicant has tried to stop drinking at various times. On each occasion, the Applicant returned to his abusive drinking after a short period of abstinence.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	The Applicant states that, "I'm still drinking; I want to stop drinking."	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.k	The Applicant's twenty five year history of illegal drug and alcohol abuse, from 1970 to at least July 1995, which includes two inpatient treatment programs followed by relapses, show no significant evidence of reform.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.l	The Applicant has not been drug free for any significant period, and thus he has not sufficiently demonstrated that he has completely reformed, or that he will not return to his pattern of drug abuse in the future.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
1.m	The Applicant lied to the Government in his sworn statement to DIS, and repeatedly lied on his security clearance application concerning his illegal drug involvement.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to criminal conduct, determining that the applicant's history of illegal drug use and falsification of information during the security clearance process demonstrated poor judgment and unreliability. The applicant's conduct was deemed incompatible with the responsibilities of holding a security clearance, leading to a denial of the application.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
4.a	The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he knowingly and willfully violated the felony provisions of 18 USC 1001, a federal criminal statute.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
4.b–4.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.