ISCR Case 97-0399.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 97-0399.h1

grantedJan 15, 1998· Hon. Barry M. Sax· hearing

Summary

A 65-year-old Senior Principal Engineer with 37 years of security clearance history was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant faced scrutiny for multiple alcohol-related offenses and for providing false information on security questionnaires.

Specifically, the applicant was arrested and convicted four times for alcohol-related offenses between 1975/1976 and 1995, incurring fines and probation. He also falsified material facts on a March 1990 Personnel Security Questionnaire and an August 1996 Security Clearance Application by failing to disclose all prior arrests and alcohol-related incidents. While these false answers were deemed deliberate, they were found not to have been made with an intent to deceive.

The judge ultimately granted the clearance, finding that the applicant's falsifications were not intended to deceive. Mitigating factors included the fact that his last DUI occurred over two years prior to the hearing, indicating no recent pattern of alcohol abuse, and his long history of responsible employment and achievements.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated that the falsifications were not made with intent to deceive.
The applicant's last DUI occurred over two years prior to the hearing, indicating no recent pattern of alcohol abuse.
The applicant's long history of responsible employment and achievements mitigated concerns about past conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
J1raisedAny Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
G1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work, Such as Driving Under the Influence

Mitigating

E2appliedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily
J1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
G2appliedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 1, 1997
Answer filedJul 16, 1997
Hearing heldOct 7, 1997
Decision dateJan 15, 1998

Cite For

Mitigation of Falsification Allegations Under Guideline E
Evaluation of Alcohol-related Conduct Over Time Under Guideline G
Consideration of Age and Professional History in Security Clearance Determinations 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
1.a.(1)	Applicant falsified material facts on a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ), dated March 9, 1990. Specifically, as to Questions 17.a ('Have you ever been arrested . . .'?); 17.b. ('Have you ever been convicted . . .'); 17.c. ('Have you ever been detained . . .?'); and 17.d. ('Have you ever been, or are you now, under suspended sentence . . .?'), Applicant answered 'No' to all three questions, when he knew that he had been arrested in 1975/1976, 1982, and 1984, as cited above in (1), (2), and (3).	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
1.a.(2)	Applicant falsified additional material facts on his March 9, 1990 PSQ. Specifically, as to Question 18.c. ('Has your use of alcoholic beverages ever resulted in your . . . arrest by police?'), Applicant answered 'No,' when he knew that he had been arrested on alcohol related charges, in 1975/1976, 1983, and 1984, as cited above in (1), (2), and (3).	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
1.a.(3)	Applicant falsified material facts on his August 26, 1996 Security Clearance Application (SCA). Specifically, as to Question 24 ('Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offenses related to alcohol or drugs?'), Applicant answered 'Yes,' but cited only the 1984 DUI arrest in state C for DUI. He knowingly did not mention the 1975/1976, 1982, and 1995 arrests.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
1.b	Applicant's false answers to Questions 17.a., 17.b., 17.c., 17.d., and 18.c., on the March 1990 PSQ and to Question 24 on his August 26, 1996 SCA were deliberate, and therefore violated the relevant provisions of the Directive, but were not made with the intent to deceive, and therefore did not violate the criminal provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001.	For Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
1.c	Applicant has consumed alcohol from approximately 1970 to the present. On occasion, he consumed alcohol to excess and to the point of intoxication.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a.(1)

Applicant falsified material facts on a Personnel Security Questionnaire (PSQ), dated March 9, 1990. Specifically, as to Questions 17.a ('Have you ever been arrested . . .'?); 17.b. ('Have you ever been convicted . . .'); 17.c. ('Have you ever been detained . . .?'); and 17.d. ('Have you ever been, or are you now, under suspended sentence . . .?'), Applicant answered 'No' to all three questions, when he knew that he had been arrested in 1975/1976, 1982, and 1984, as cited above in (1), (2), and (3).

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

1.a.(2)

Applicant falsified additional material facts on his March 9, 1990 PSQ. Specifically, as to Question 18.c. ('Has your use of alcoholic beverages ever resulted in your . . . arrest by police?'), Applicant answered 'No,' when he knew that he had been arrested on alcohol related charges, in 1975/1976, 1983, and 1984, as cited above in (1), (2), and (3).

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

1.a.(3)

Applicant falsified material facts on his August 26, 1996 Security Clearance Application (SCA). Specifically, as to Question 24 ('Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offenses related to alcohol or drugs?'), Applicant answered 'Yes,' but cited only the 1984 DUI arrest in state C for DUI. He knowingly did not mention the 1975/1976, 1982, and 1995 arrests.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

1.b

Applicant's false answers to Questions 17.a., 17.b., 17.c., 17.d., and 18.c., on the March 1990 PSQ and to Question 24 on his August 26, 1996 SCA were deliberate, and therefore violated the relevant provisions of the Directive, but were not made with the intent to deceive, and therefore did not violate the criminal provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

For Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Denied

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

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

1.c

Applicant has consumed alcohol from approximately 1970 to the present. On occasion, he consumed alcohol to excess and to the point of intoxication.

For Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving under the influence.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
3.b	Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	—	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving under the influence.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

3.b

Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied

—

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant has been arrested and convicted four times for alcohol-related offenses: (1) He was arrested in 1975 or 1976, in state A, and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). He was fined $125. (2) He was arrested in January 1983, in state A, and charged with DUI. He was found guilty, placed on three years probation, fined approximately $250, and referred to an alcohol clinic. (3) He was arrested in June 1984, in state B, and charged with DUI. He pleaded guilty, was fined $404.50, and placed on probation. (4) He was arrested on April 22, 1995, in state B, and charged with DUI. He forfeited bond of $505.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant has been arrested and convicted four times for alcohol-related offenses: (1) He was arrested in 1975 or 1976, in state A, and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). He was fined $125. (2) He was arrested in January 1983, in state A, and charged with DUI. He was found guilty, placed on three years probation, fined approximately $250, and referred to an alcohol clinic. (3) He was arrested in June 1984, in state B, and charged with DUI. He pleaded guilty, was fined $404.50, and placed on probation. (4) He was arrested on April 22, 1995, in state B, and charged with DUI. He forfeited bond of $505.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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