ISCR Case 96-0797.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 96-0797.h1

deniedMay 2, 1997· Hon. John R. Erck· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old defense contractor was denied retention of his security clearance due to a history of alcohol and marijuana abuse, personal conduct issues, and criminal conduct. The decision was based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

The applicant's history included multiple arrests for driving under the influence and other alcohol-related offenses. He also had a documented history of marijuana abuse, including a positive urinalysis in February 1995 and three occasions of treatment for abuse. Furthermore, the applicant deliberately omitted, concealed, or falsified relevant facts on security questionnaires and provided false or misleading information to officials regarding his drug use.

Despite demonstrating 24 months of continuous abstinence from both alcohol and marijuana, corroborated by negative urinalysis, the judge found that the applicant's past behavior, including the multiple arrests and falsifications, raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. These issues ultimately led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a long history of alcohol and marijuana abuse, including multiple arrests for driving under the influence.
He provided false and misleading information on security questionnaires over several years regarding his drug use.
The applicant's past behavior indicated a lack of reliability and trustworthiness, which is critical for security clearance eligibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G.3raisedDiagnosis by a Credentialed Medical Professional of Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Dependence
H.1raisedAny Drug Abuse
E.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
J.1raisedAny Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged

Mitigating

G.4appliedFollowing Diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Dependence, the Individual Has Successfully Completed Rehabilitation
H.4appliedSatisfactory Completion of a Drug Treatment Program Prescribed by a Credentialed Medical Professional

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 issuedDec 10, 1996
Answer filedJan 7, 1997
Hearing heldFeb 25, 1997Applicant waived his right to a hearing.
Decision dateMay 2, 1997

Cite For

Denial Based on History of Substance Abuse and Criminal Conduct
Falsification of Security Questionnaires as a Disqualifying Factor
Importance of Demonstrating Reliability and Trustworthiness for Security Clearance Eligibility

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	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personal security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Unknown	—	—	—
3.b	Deliberate 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 personal security trustworthiness determination.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Unknown	—	—	—
3.c–3.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personal security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Unknown

—

3.b

Deliberate 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 personal security trustworthiness determination.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Drug Involvement

Unknown

—

3.c–3.d

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, or other criminal incidents related to alcohol use.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Diagnosis by a credentialed medical professional of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Consumption of alcohol, subsequent to a diagnosis of alcoholism by a credentialed medical professional and following completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d–1.i	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, or other criminal incidents related to alcohol use.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

1.b

Diagnosis by a credentialed medical professional of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

—

1.c

Consumption of alcohol, subsequent to a diagnosis of alcoholism by a credentialed medical professional and following completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

—

1.d–1.i

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant abused marijuana regularly until January 31, 1995.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant tested positive for marijuana in a urinalysis administered on February 3, 1995.	Against Applicant	Drug Test Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant has a history of marijuana abuse and has lied about past use.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug InvolvementRelated Misconduct	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant received treatment for marijuana abuse on three occasions.	For Applicant	Treatment Failure	Not Applicable	Admitted	—	(c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	Credited Substance Treatment Completed
2.e	Applicant has maintained 24 months of continuous abstinence from marijuana, corroborated by negative urinalysis.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	(c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	Credited Abstinence Period Documented
2.f	Applicant was receptive to treatment and actively participated in counseling sessions.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	(c) prescription abuse followed a prolonged illness and has since ended	Credited Substance Treatment Completed
2.g	Applicant's history of marijuana abuse and failure to remain steadfast to earlier stated intentions raise concerns.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
2.h	Applicant's behavior evidences a near compulsion to use marijuana, necessitating a longer period of abstinence.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—
2.i	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant abused marijuana regularly until January 31, 1995.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Regular

Admitted

—

2.b

Applicant tested positive for marijuana in a urinalysis administered on February 3, 1995.

Against Applicant

Drug Test Failure

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

2.c

Applicant has a history of marijuana abuse and has lied about past use.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug InvolvementRelated Misconduct

Unspecified

Admitted

—

2.d

Applicant received treatment for marijuana abuse on three occasions.

For Applicant

Treatment Failure

Not Applicable

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Substance Treatment Completed

2.e

Applicant has maintained 24 months of continuous abstinence from marijuana, corroborated by negative urinalysis.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Abstinence Period Documented

2.f

Applicant was receptive to treatment and actively participated in counseling sessions.

For Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Substance Treatment Completed

2.g

Applicant's history of marijuana abuse and failure to remain steadfast to earlier stated intentions raise concerns.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

2.h

Applicant's behavior evidences a near compulsion to use marijuana, necessitating a longer period of abstinence.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Admitted

—

2.i

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Drug Involvement

Unspecified

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
4.a	The applicant has a history of criminal conduct, including multiple arrests for driving under the influence and other alcohol-related offenses.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

4.a

The applicant has a history of criminal conduct, including multiple arrests for driving under the influence and other alcohol-related offenses.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(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