1998 Industrial Security Clearance Decisions
These 157 decisions pertain to the adjudication of security clearance cases for contractor personnel under DoD Directive 5220.6, which implements Executive Order 10865.
Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Administrative Judge's findings about Applicant's history of alcohol abuse over a period of approximately 18-19 years supported by record evidence. Clearly consistent with national interest standard applies whether Applicant needs security clearance for access to classified information or for access to a secure building. Adverse decision affirmed.
The Applicant has initiated a good-faith effort to settle with the IRS, and to pay his past due indebtedness. Clearance Granted.
Administrative Judge's finding that Applicant may have been under duress or intimidated when he gave a written statement has no basis in law or record evidence. Reasonable person standard is proper one to apply in evaluating an applicant's conduct. Judge's credibility determinations are entitled to deference, but are not immune from review. Judge erred by ignoring Applicant's admissions of wrongdoing. Favorable decision reversed.
Applicant who chooses to represent himself cannot complain about the quality of his representation. Department Counsel has burden of proving controverted facts. Insufficient record evidence to support the Administrative Judge's finding of falsification. Applicant's extramarital affair and his concealment of that affair from his spouse provides a rational basis for Judge to infer Applicant could be vulnerable to coercion or influence. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant's right to cross-examination is not violated by admission of documents that fall within exceptions to hearsay rule. Department Counsel failed to show Administrative Judge erred by sustaining Applicant's objection to medical information questionnaire. Judge's findings about Applicant's marijuana use are sustainable. Harmless errors do not warrant remand or reversal. Favorable decision affirmed.
An applicant's honesty about his conduct does not immunize it from consideration for its security significance. Error is not demonstrated by fact appealing party can argue for an alternative weighing of record evidence. Neither Criterion B nor Criterion C requires showing that foreign country in question has interests that are inimical to interests of United States. Totality of facts and circumstances of Applicant's situation provides rational basis for Judge's decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
Appeal Board does not review completeness or accuracy of Statement of Reasons. Administrative Judge did not err by finding Applicant's March 1997 written statement was voluntarily given. There is substantial record evidence to support Judge's findings about Applicant's multiple acts of falsification and his history of criminal conduct. Adverse decision affirmed.
Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Applicant's overall history of drug abuse, covering a period of approximately 17 years, provides a rational basis for Administrative Judge's conclusions. Adverse decision affirmed.
Removal of debts from credit report does not preclude Administrative Judge from considering record evidence showing Applicant was responsible for debts and did not satisfy them. Judge had rational basis for finding Applicant had delinquent debts which originated several years ago and which he still had not resolved. Favorable evidence cited by Applicant did not compel a favorable clearance decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
Discharge of debts in bankruptcy does not immunize Applicant's history of financial problems from review for its security significance. Applicant's history of financial problems, which resulted in two bankruptcies, provides rational basis for Administrative Judge's concerns about Applicant's security suitability. Adverse decision affirmed.
Administrative Judge properly considered evidence that Applicant had been subject of earlier security clearance adjudication with respect to misconduct similar to his current misconduct. Applicant's history of failing to file income tax returns provided rational basis for Judge's decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
Administrative Judge did not misapply Adjudicative Guidelines to Appicant's history of drug abuse. Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's history of drug abuse are supported by record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant waived objection to admissibility of certain documents. Administrative Judge's weighing of evidence will not be disturbed unless there is a showing Judge acted in manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Judge's findings about Applicant's financial problems are sustainable. It is irrelevant that an applicant did not personally occur debts if record evidence shows the applicant is legally responsible for those debts. Adverse decision affirmed.
Rebuttable presumption Administrative Judge considered all record evidence unless there is a clear indication to the contrary. Board will not conclude a Judge erred based on factual assertions made on appeal that do not have any support in record evidence. Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's history of financial problems and falsifications are supported by record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.
Record evidence did not support Administrative Judge's application of Personal Conduct Mitigating Guideline #3. Mere presence or absence of Adjudicative Guidelines for or against clearance not solely dispositive of case. Record evidence did not support Judge's finding of "clear evidence of rehabilitation." Favorable decision reversed.
Board has authority to reconsider its decisions. Absence of right to security is irrelevant to applicant's procedural rights under Executive Order 10865 and the Directive. Evidence is not excludable merely because it is cumulative. Case law does not support Department Counsel's claim that Supreme Court decision earlier this year changed law on admissibility of polygraph evidence. Department Counsel's claims of harm to industrial security program not persuasive. Motion for reconsideration denied. Board's September 3, 1998 decision stands.
Misappropriation of $600 in small amounts over a 3-4 week period is not an "isolated incident." Evidence that character references did not know about Applicant's 1994 misappropriation of $600 detracts from weight that reasonably can be given to favorable statements made by character references. Honesty and candor with government do not immunize admitted misconduct from being considered for its security significance. Favorable decision remanded with instructions.
Applicant's history of excessive indebtedness, which includes two outstanding court judgments in 1994, totaling approximately $36,000 has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.
Applicant's history of criminal conduct, including auto theft, public intoxication, assault with a dangerous weapon, and domestic violence have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.
As matter of judicial economy, Board can affirm an evidentiary ruling on any proper basis supported by the record, even if the basis was not relied on by the Administrative Judge. Judge erred by excluding proffered polygraph evidence on basis that it went to ultimate issue to be decided by the Judge. Although Applicant is not precluded from offering polygraph evidence, Applicant does not have absolute right to have such evidence admitted. When an applicant offers polygraph evidence, there are various issues that Judge must take into consideration. Applicant has burden of establishing admissibility of polygraph evidence she proffers and meeting any valid objection raised by Department Counsel. Case remand with instructions.
Administrative Judge's credibility determinations are entitled to deference on appeal. Harmless error does not warrant remand. Judge's sustainable findings about Applicant's falsifications and theft of United States Government property provide rational basis for his decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
Administrative Judge cannot rely on Section F.3. to impose on Applicant a standard the Judge prefers over the provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Applicant's failure to present best possible evidence did not relieve Judge of his obligation to consider whether the Applicant presented evidence of reform and rehabilitation sufficient to warrant favorable decision. Judge's findings and conclusions must be based on record evidence. Adverse decision remanded.
Credibility determinations made by Administrative Judge based solely on documentary evidence are not entitled to same deference as credibility determinations based on personal observation of witness testimony. Collateral estoppel effect of conviction based on Alford plea does not extend to issue that is not an element of the crime for which Applicant was convicted. Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's indecent exposure incidents in August 1993 are not supported by record evidence and are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Judge's favorable decision lacks a rational basis. Favorable decision reversed.
There is rebuttable presumption Administrative Judge is impartial and unbiased. Board does not review decisions against a standard of perfection. Adjudicative Guidelines should not be interpreted in manner that would be to detriment of industrial security program or national security. Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's financial conduct are supported by record evidence and are not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
Credibility determination is not a substitute for record evidence. Seriousness of Applicant's criminal conduct not reduced or lessened by fact he served his sentence. Totality of record evidence did not support several key findings made by Administrative Judge. The clearly consistent with national interest standard and nexus concept must be construed and applied in manner that includes consideration of need to protect integrity of industrial security program and maintain public confidence in it. Clear weight of evidence does not support Judge's finding of reform and rehabilitation sufficient to warrant favorable clearance decision. Favorable decision reversed.
Administrative Judge's analysis of Applicant's overall history of drug abuse is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Mere presence or absence of a Disqualifying or Mitigating Guideline is not solely determinative of the outcome of a case. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant failed to demonstrate Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions are erroneous. Adverse decision affirmed.
Security violations provide one of strongest possible reasons for denying or revoking access to classified information. Applicant's ten-year history of deliberate security violations was serious. Recent evidence does not support Judge's finding of reform and rehabilitation sufficient to warrant favorable decision. Favorable decision reversed.
Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Administrative Judge cannot fairly be faulted for not considering events that might occur after close of record evidence. Despite a harmless factual error, Judge's conclusions about Applicant's history of marijuana use are sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.
Standing alone, sexual orientation cannot form basis of an adverse security clearance decision. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy associated with engaging in a sex act in a public place. Acts of criminal sexual misconduct provide rational basis for questioning Applicant's judgment and security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.
Under doctrine of administrative finality, the parties are entitled to expect an Administrative Judge's decision will not be changed except through the normal appeal process. Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's history of unsatisfied delinquent debts are supported by record evidence and provide rational basis for her decision. Adverse decision affirmed
Administrative Judge did not err when she did not apply Drug Involvement Disqualifying Guideline 3. On appeal, Board must consider not only whether there is record evidence supporting Judge's findings, but also whether there is record evidence that fairly detracts from weight of evidence supporting those findings. Given the totality of the record evidence, Judge could find Applicant had successfully mitigated government's case against him. Favorable decision affirmed.
Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's history of financial problems are supported by record evidence and provide rational basis for his decision. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed.
Exclusionary rule not applicable in DOHA proceedings. A finding that a statement was product of coercion or duress goes to weight to which it is entitled. Administrative Judge's finding that Applicant's statement was made under duress not sustainable. Judge's favorable credibility determination not sustainable. No record evidence supports Judge's suggestion that case against Applicant was based on improper motivation. Regardless of sexual orientation, falsification and criminal sexual misconduct raise serious quesions about an Applicant's suitability for access to classified information. Remanded with instructions.
Applicant's sexual misconduct with minor females in 1975 and 1993-1994 provides rational basis for Administrative Judge's decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
Administrative Judge's findings about Applicant's history of alcohol abuse are sustainable. Favorable evidence about job performance did not preclude adverse decision based on Applicant's alcohol abuse. Adverse decision affirmed.
Administrative Judge's findings about Applicant's history of episodic alcohol abuse are sustainable. Favorable evidence of Applicant's job performance and successful execution of his security responsibilities did not preclude adverse decision based on his history of episodic alcohol abuse. Adverse decision affirmed.
When Administrative Judge has doubts about an applicant's security eligibility, which have a rational basis in record evidence, the Judge properly resolves doubts in favor of the national security. Absent amendment to Statement of Reasons, the Judge cannot base adverse decision on uncharged conduct. Uncharged conduct may be considered only for limited purposes. Judge should not apply Adjudicative Guideline in manner that renders it meaningless. Adverse decision remanded with instructions.
Alcohol abuse provides rational basis for Administrative Judge's doubts about Applicant's suitability for access to classified information. Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Industrial security clearance decisions are not loyalty determinations. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant with 10-year history of polysubstance abuse and recurrent post-counseling abuse fails to absolve foreseeable risks of relapse. Clearance is denied.
Administrative Judge's findings reflect a plausible interpretation of record evidence. Administrative Judge was not required, as a matter of law, to accept Applicant's explanation or retraction of an earlier written statement. Harmless error does not warrant remand or reversal. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant with 12-year history of multiple alcohol-related incidents (5 in all) and treatment regimens has too little time in sobriety in face of dependence and abuse diagnoses to make safe predictions of non-recurrent drinking in foreseeable future. Clearance is denied.
Applicant received alcohol and drug abuse rehabilitation treatment in 1994. He relapsed into marijuana abuse on the order of every two to four days and binge alcohol drinking of a six-pack per occasion which continued to April 1997. Following four sessions with an EAP counselor in summer 1997, he consumed alcohol on at least two occasions after he had been advised to abstain because of diagnosed alcohol dependency. Clearance is denied.
Applicant got behind on his financial obligations over the 1992/93 time frame largely due to unemployment. He has made minimal efforts to satisfy his creditors despite steady work with the same defense contractor since February 1994 and repeat promises he would satisfy his old debts. He has not filed his federal income tax returns for tax years 1993 through 1996 in disregard of a known obligation. Clearance is denied.
Applicant has had a pattern of DUIs, two recent in 1996 & 1997, but initially he denied any alcohol abuse problem. His substance abuse counselor now applauds his positive attitude in a group and assesses him as "highly motivated," but it was not until March 1998 he declared his resolve to abstain from alcohol. Thus, his committment to sobriety is too recent to mitigate his past pattern of lack of responsibility with respect to drinking and driving. Clearance is denied.
Given the pattern of intentional falsifications from 1993 to her polygraph examination in December 1996, when Applicant finally disclosed all her drug use, Applicant's excellent job performance and outstanding educational background, is not enough to overcome the pattern of falsifications and criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.
Applicant's immediate efforts to resolve outstanding financial obligations upon being informed of their existence; his payments to most of his creditors even before the SOR was issued; and his vow to pay off the one remaining debt as soon as possible, reflect good-faith efforts to resolve debts, and provide an indication that the financial situation is under control. Clearance granted.
Fair and impartial adjudication is important right that touches upon basic integrity of DOHA proceedings. Absent showing of harm to applicant's rights, mere passage of time in handling of case does not warrant remand or reversal. Alcohol abuse raises questions about applicant's security eligibility. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant's lengthy period of poly-substance abuse (marijuana for 27 years and cocaine for 23 years), which ceased only 11 months prior to the hearing; his repeated falsifications about such substance abuse, the most recent of which occurred in August 1997; and his failure to make any effort to resolve his outstanding financial obligations, including a defaulted student loan and child support arrearage, raise grave questions and doubts as to his security eligibility. Clearance denied.
Mere fact aplicant has not been criminally charged or convicted does not preclude finding applicant engaged in criminal conduct. Res judicata does not bar adverse security clearance decision when applicant has engaged in misconduct after receiving a favorable clearance decision. Administrative Judge does not err by not engaging in mechanical adjudication of cases. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant admitted that he had used marijuana frequently between 1983 and 1996; he also admitted that he had occasionally used cocaine, LSD, and amphetamines. When he was first interviewed by the DSS, he indicated that he may use illegal drugs in the future depending on his mood and the circumstances under which the drugs were offered. Although he later recanted his statement about future use, the credibility of the subsequent statement was undermined because in the meantime, he had also substantially revised his earlier statement concerning the frequency with which he had used marijuana and the date when he had last used it. Clearance is denied.
The record contains no evidence Applicant has or is receiving financial counseling for his indebtedness and there is no indication the problem is under control. Without counseling or any independent and good-faith effort to resolve his financial problem and the way he handles his finances, Applicant has failed to persuade me that his thought process has changed so that the past and present indebtedness will not be repeated in the future. Clearance is denied.
Applicant's breach of fiduciary duty by embezzling funds from his employer suggested he lacked the judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness required of those with access to classified information. Clearance denied.
Applicant's twenty year history of alcohol abuse--culminating in two DWIs and a diagnosis as alcohol dependent--was mitigated where he had actively pursued family therapy and AA, had successfully completed an inpatient treatment program, and remained abstinent for over a year. Applicant demonstrated he had acquired the tools and support system necessary to maintain sobriety. Clearance granted
Frequent use of marijuana for 3 years in college was not mitigated by abstinence for the last 9 months after graduation where last use occurred shortly after signing the security clearance application (SF-86). Clearance is denied.
Applicant is a 40 year old male who has been cross dressing since age 8 or 9. His friends, family, co-workers, pastor, and supervisor are fully aware of his behavior. Applicant is not vulnerable to undue influence or coercion. Both the Applicant and his wife are comfortable with the Applicant's transvestitism. Adverse inference is overcome. Clearance granted.
Credibility determination not a substitute for record evidence. Adverse decision cannot be based on unchanged conduct. Oath Applicant took to become naturalized U. S. citizenship is evidence of intent to renounce citizenship of his native country. Conduct must be evaluated in light of meaning and intent of pertinent Criterion and applicable Adjudicative Guidelines. Adverse decision reversed.
Applicant's nearly twenty year history of marijuana abuse was mitigated where use over the last ten years was isolated and infrequent, had stopped one year before the close of the record in the case, and Applicant had stated a clear--and credible--intent to abstain from drug use in the future. There was no evidence to suggest physical or psychological dependence on marijuana. Clearance granted.
Born abroad, Applicant left his native land at age 17. Since 1974, he has maintained his home and career in the United States and was naturalized in 1982. In 1997, he reclaimed his foreign citizenship to obtain possible future educational benefits for his children. He is willing to renounce his foreign citizenship to obtain a security clearance. While his mother and siblings are resident citizens of his native land, his contacts with them are limited and their positions abroad do not raise foreign influence concerns. Clearance is granted.
Single DWI in May 1997 was mitigated where Applicant had made positive changes in lifestyle supportive of sobriety, had successfully completed outpatient treatment, and had a prognosis reflecting no significant likelihood of alcohol abuse or dependence. Clearance granted.
Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Rebuttable presumption Administrative Judge considered all record evidence unless Judge specifically states otherwise. Even in absence of conviction, Judge can find Applicant engaged in criminal conduct. Adverse decision affirmed.
Regardless of local law enforcement customs concerning prosecution of marijuana cases, possession and use of marijuana has security significance under Directive. Administrative Judge's findings about Applicant's overall history of drug use provides rational basis for decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant with spaced two incidents of misdemeanor sexual offenses over 8-year period (the last highly contentious), but none within last 4 years and beneficiary of successful two-year treatment program mitigates conduct and is safe risk against recurrence. Clearance is granted.
Applicant is a security police officer. On one occasion in May 1995 the Applicant fondled the buttocks of a fellow officer. The Applicant failed to admit the allegation, or show any mitigation. Adverse inference is not overcome. Clearance is denied.
The Applicant's past alcohol abuse is evidenced by four alcohol related arrests and two periods of alcohol treatment. He was last intoxicated one month following his most recent treatment. He has abstained from alcohol for four months and been sober for seven months. His positive changes of behavior did not mitigate the security concerns. Clearance denied.
Applicant's cavalier attitude towards the payment of his mortgage, resulting in a 1992 foreclosure and a deficit balance of over $36,000; his indifference to that debt for over 5 years, despite an annual salary of about $60,000, stocks worth over $5,600, and a $10,000 motorcycle; and his last minute effort to walk away from the debt by filing for bankruptcy after receipt of his SOR, citing only one liability -- the debt, leaves grave questions and doubt as to his continued security suitability. Clearance denied.
Applicant abused alcohol over the 1996/97 time frame while experiencing marital discord, culminating in a May 1997 incident where he, in an intoxicated state, physically struck his minor son in the face. Applicant has since completed a court-mandated alcohol program. He has continued in a men's aftercare group beyond the recommended twelve sessions and has maintained abstinence since late July 1997. Clearance is granted.
Applicant's single documented incident of alcohol abuse was mitigated by passage of time and absence of other indications of an alcohol problem; other alleged instances of alcohol abuse not established in record. Sexual behavior/criminal conduct mitigated by passage of time, absence of repeat incidents, and no diagnosis of psycho-sexual problems. Clearance granted.
Notwithstanding the magnitude of the time card falsification, the record reflects that Applicant is remorseful and will not let the facts and circumstances repeat themselves in the future. The motivation for the conduct has been removed with Applicant's new job which he has held for approximately two years. Clearance is granted.
Applicant's positive efforts to satisfy creditors after being shown a credit report by DIS; his payments to a majority of the creditors even before the SOR was issued; and his vow to pay off all valid remaining debts as soon as possible, reflect good-faith efforts to resolve debts, and provide an indication that the financial problem is, or shortly will be, under control. Clearance granted.
The 37-year-old Applicant used marijuana from 1976 to early 1996, and other drugs on a few occasions during that period. She stopped in an effort to save her marriage. However, she lied about her drug use in her security clearance application and in her first statement to the Defense Investigative Service. She told the truth only when facing a polygraph exam. Her drug use was mitigated by the passage of time, but no mitigation was shown as to her falsifications. Clearance denied.
Concealment on QNSP of prior arrests, prior security investigation, and prior drug history was not mitigated; reporting on the QNSP of the expungement of prior drug possession arrest when Applicant was 21 years old was not excused by 18 USC 3607(c); prior arrests and drug experimentation were mitigated as minor and not recent. Clearance is denied.
Applicant's regular marijuana abuse for nearly 3 years and her regular cocaine abuse for eight months, and the absence of any drug treatment or rehabilitation, despite her abstinence for 16 months (marijuana) and 14 months (cocaine), raise doubts as to her security suitability and eligibility. Clearance denied.
Applicant who has worked successfully for a contractor for two years has now successfully mitigated his troubled employment history that he disclosed on his security questionnaire -- fired for withholding money in 1994 and accused of theft in 1996. Initially, the government alleged these two actions under criminal conduct (although he had never been criminally charged for either action). Later it amended and alleged the same actions under personal conduct. He admitted he stole $600 from his 1994 employer, but denied he kept $30 from his 1996 employer or that his intent was theft. While criminal conduct can be asserted even when someone has not been charged, Applicant has now mitigated his 1994 conduct as it was isolated, unlikely to recur, and he is successfully rehabilitated. He repaid the money he took. No criminal conduct occurred in 1996. The personal conduct concerns are now also mitigated as he fully disclosed both incidents and has taken positive steps to make sure this conduct would not recur. Clearance is granted.
Applicant's history of excessive indebtedness partially caused by circumstances beyond her control have not been mitigated by a good faith effort to resolve her past due debts. Clearance is denied.
This 32-year-old Applicant was involved with a variety of drugs in 1985 and from 1990 to 1994. He was arrested on drug related charges in 1990, 1993 (three times), and 1994 and on domestic violence charges in 1993 and 1996. During two of the 1993 drug-related arrests, he gave the police false names, and did not correct the matter until three days before the hearing. His drug use was mitigated by the passage of time without further incident but his criminal conduct continued until early 1998. No mitigation was demonstrated. Clearance denied
Board does not measure Administrative Judge's decision against standard of perfection. Judge acted properly by weighing mitigating evidence in light of record evidence as a whole. Applicant's overall history of financial difficulties provides rational basis for Judge's decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant with several years of regular marijuana use and single use of non-prescribed Ritalin completed counseling, turned her life around in school and her job, exhibits maturity and responsibility, and is a safe risk not to return to abusive drug use. Clearance is granted.
Government not equitably estopped from denying or revoking security clearance. Drinking against medical advice after being diagnosed as alcohol dependent provides rational basis for Administrative Judge's doubts about Applicant's ability to maintain sobriety. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant's systematic falsification of his employment and security clearance applications, and his multiple falsifications to the DSS suggested Applicant would not be truthful if the truth presented adverse consequences to his personal interests. Clearance denied.
Applicant with serial history of sexual misbehavior with minors that resulted in cited military misconduct, and more recent criminal conviction with counseling and probation continuing, fails to absolve doubts of recurrence. Clearance is denied.
Applicant was arrested in 1982 for driving under the influence, and in 1995, for driving while intoxicated. There was no evidence in the record of his alcohol use history except his admission that he currently drinks 3 or 4 beers, 3 or 4 times a week while working on hobbies. Since his 1995 arrest, he no longer consumes alcohol under circumstances where he would be required to operate a motor vehicle. Clearance is granted.
The Applicant's past alcohol abuse is evidenced by two alcohol related arrests. He has not consumed the intoxicant for a year, attends AA on a regular basis, and plans no future consumption. Clearance Granted.
Occasional abuse of marijuana, hashish, and cocaine over a lengthy time period, including some time when he held a security clearance, is mitigated by complete drug abstinence for three years and an intent not to use illegal drugs in the future. Clearance is granted.
Applicant's inability or unwillingness to take any meaningful action to satisfy thirteen long-standing debts precludes a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance denied.
A 6-year history of financial difficulties commencing with his divorce, compounded later by deliberately increasing household expenses with a live-in girlfriend and her 2 daughters, and an admitted inability to control credit card debt, were unmitigated by half-hearted attempt to consolidate debts after issuance of the SOR. Clearance denied.
Applicant's history of episodic alcohol abuse over period 1979-1996 provides rational basis for Administrative Judge's decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant's falsification of his alcohol and drug arrest record on his security clearance application and sworn statement suggested he could not be expected to tell the truth if it conflicted with his personal interest. Clearance denied.
Applicant's denial that he used methamphetamine in May 1997, notwithstanding the results of two drug tests that indicated he used it, precludes a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance denied.
Industrial security clearance decisions are not loyalty determinations. Applicant's history of financial difficulties provides rational basis for Administrative Judge's decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
A citizen of a foreign nation since birth in 1959 and of the United States since his naturalization in June 1994, Applicant continues to maintain dual citizenship for ease in resolving matters pertaining to land in the foreign nation which he inherited in 1989. Since January 1986, he has sought to establish his life in the United States. His U.S. interests substantially outweigh his foreign interests and he has expressed a willingness to renounce his foreign citizenship once his grandfather's estate is settled. Clearance is granted.
Applicant's 1992 unprovoked, brutal beating of a female, who offered no resistance, and his eventual 1993 conviction for aggravated assault, while isolated and not recent, were such that, in the absence of clear evidence of rehabilitation, there remain grave doubts as to his security suitability and eligibility. Clearance denied.
Applicant with long history of polysubstance abuse and only two years of sustained discontinuance needs more time to season his abstinence to absolve him of recurrence risks. Clearance is denied.
A user of cannabis (primarily marijuana) since 1973, Applicant continued to use marijuana even after he was granted a secret clearance in May 1989. His use of marijuana declined significantly in the 1990s to where he used it only once in 1997 over the Memorial Day weekend. He no longer intends to use any illegal drug in the future. Clearance is granted.
Applicant's pattern of dishonesty and rule violations, and his criminal conduct, including providing false information in a sworn statement to the Defense Security Service, and stealing money from his employer have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.
The Applicant's fairly recent drug abuse spans a period of 20 years and ended with dependency. Clearance Denied.
The Applicant's criminal conduct occurred ten years ago. Since his release from incarceration, nearly five years ago, he has clearly demonstrated his rehabilitation. Clearance Granted.
Applicant had been arrested seven times for alcohol-related misconduct between January 1983 and December 1996. He claimed that he had consumed alcohol in only moderate amounts, and stated his intention to continue consuming alcohol in moderate amounts. He admitted that he had been arrested, but did not admit that alcohol consumption or his behavior was the reason for the arrest on any of the seven occasions. Clearance is denied.
The criminal act was recent because it occurred on February 18, 1997. Although the criminal act was isolated, there is no evidence of rehabilitation as Applicant continues to deny the act ever occurred. Clearance is denied.
The recency and extent of applicant's methamphetamine use precludes a finding at the present time that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance denied.
The Applicant's past drug involvement was isolated, infrequent and not recent. He was less than candid about this involvement, however, when he executed his Security Clearance Application. This falsification is a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Clearance Denied.
The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Administrative Judge's credibility determinations entitled to deference on appeal. Judge's findings about Applicant's criminal conduct in 1993 and 1995 sustainable. Adverse decision affirmed.
The Applicant last used marijuana a year ago, and can not aver that he will not use it in the future. Clearance Denied.
Applicant's regular use of marijuana, estimated at 500 occasions, during a nearly 3 year period, ending in August 1997; his continued abuse, even after being charged as a "minor in possession" in 1994; and the absence of any drug treatment or rehabilitation, raise doubts as to his security suitability and eligibility. Clearance denied.
The Applicant improperly handled two sets of classified documents from 1986 to January of 1996. He has since undergone an extensive reeducation program, and has demonstrated credibly his heightened security awareness over the last two years. Clearance granted.
Given Applicant's long history of alcohol abuse, characterized by six alcohol-related offenses, the ongoing denial and minimization Applicant is still struggling with, and the absence of any evidence showing positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety, there is a disqualifying chance that Applicant's alcohol abuse will continue or recur in the future. Clearance is denied.
Applicant used marijuana no more than twelve times from 1988 to June 1994. Demonstrated intent not to use in the future. Adverse inference overcome. Clearance is granted.
Co-workers had observed Applicant under the influence of alcohol several times between April 1994 and April 1996. His employer counseled him and gave him the telephone number for the employee assistance program. In January 1997, he was arrested for DWI with a blood alcohol level of .26. Although Applicant claimed that he had stopped drinking alcohol in September 1997--after receiving the SOR--insufficient time has passed to establish that he has been rehabilitated. Clearance is denied.
The Applicant has used alcohol to excess from approximately 1988 until November 1997, three weeks before the hearing. Applicant has four alcohol related arrests, the last in September 1997. Applicant continues to drink. Insufficient mitigation is shown. Clearance is denied.
Applicant's compliance with all conditions of her sentence, including timely restitution, plus the favorable judgment and initiative demonstrated in completing training and landing a good trucking job, establishes complete justification for my conclusion that there will be no recurrence of criminal conduct in the future. Clearance is granted.
Applicant's regular use of marijuana for 5 years, until at least June 1997, oftentimes on a twice-weekly basis; and the absence of any drug treatment or rehabilitation, raise doubts as to his security suitability and eligibility. Clearance denied.
This 40-year-old Applicant consumed alcohol from 1970 to the present, and was arrested for DUI in 1993 and 1994; he use marijuana from 1970 to 1995, cocaine from 1975 to 1994, and methamphetamine from 1992 to 1994. He received inpatient treatment for alcohol dependence and drug abuse in early 1995. He continues to consume alcohol. He lied about his drug use in each security questionnaire he has completed and lied to DIS about the drug use until confronted with information from his treatment records. There was insufficient evidence of rehabilitation. Clearance denied.
The Applicant has two convictions for the same type of criminal conduct within the last three years, and is still on probation for the last one. Clearance Denied.
The Applicant used alcohol to excess from approximately 1980 until July 1997, three months before the hearing. Applicant had three alcohol related arrests, the last in August 1996. Insufficient mitigation is shown. Clearance is denied.
Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's marijuana use are sustainable Adverse decision affirmed.
The Applicant used illegal substances only seven months ago, and avers that she may use them in the future. Clearance Denied.
Applicant was alleged to have been involved in two incidents of homosexual conduct in 1986 and 1996. He plead nolo contendere to the first and was acquitted of the second. In fact he did not engage in the alleged conduct at all. Applicant was also alleged to have falsified a questionnaire and statement concerning the same incidents. This was not proven. Adverse inference is overcome. Clearance is granted.
Applicant's twenty year history of alcohol addiction and drug problems, from 1975 until December 1995, and his deliberate attempts to conceal his past drug involvement on two security clearance applications has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.
Applicant's drug abuse and falsifications were mitigated where Applicant had been drug free for eighteen months, had demonstrated commitment to a recovery program, and that recovery program had engendered a new commitment to honesty in all aspects of his life. Clearance granted.
The Applicant used marijuana over a period covering three decades, and last used it only nine months ago. His intention as to its future use is also suspect. Clearance Denied.
Given the inaction by Applicant in addressing the debts, the absence of evidence of counseling, Applicant has failed to persuade me how or whether his financial problems will improve in the future. Clearance is denied.
Applicant is indebted in the aggregate $44,375.37 to twenty creditors. While he got behind on his financial obligations due to unforeseen circumstances (job relocation, illness] he made no effort to repay them once he went back to work at an annual salary of more than $50,000 supplemented by almost $18,000 in military retirement benefits. Although he filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 in January 1998, he has not yet been awarded a discharge and his current monthly expenses exceed his income by more than $500. Clearance is denied.
The Applicant has two alcohol related convictions in the 1990's, and last consumed the intoxicant less than eight months ago. Clearance Denied.
Applicant's twenty five year history of drug and alcohol addiction, with two inpatient treatment programs, followed by relapses; and, his intentional material falsification in a sworn statement to DIS, and repeatedly on his PSQ concerning his past illegal drug involvement, have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.
In view of the regular marijuana use until March 1997, the use of any kind of drug while holding a security clearance for more than 10 years, and the falsifications relating to his marijuana use, Applicant has failed to meet his ultimate burden of demonstrating he warrants a security clearance at this time. Clearance is denied.
Applicant's regular use of marijuana for 5 years, until at least mid-1997, oftentimes on a daily basis; use of LSD 20 times during a 4 month period in 1995-96; the absence of any drug treatment or rehabilitation; and his initial unwillingness to abstain without conditions, raise grave doubts as to his security suitability and eligibility. Clearance denied.
This 30-year-old Applicant used hashish and cocaine and purchased marijuana in 1980/1981 but has not done so since. He used marijuana a total of 50 times from 1980/1981 to December 1996, six to ten times from 1993 to 1996. He had not used marijuana for more than one year prior to the hearing and expressed an intent not to use it in the future. His use of cocaine and hashish and his purchase of marijuana are mitigated by the passage of time, limited use, and no recurrence and his use of marijuana is mitigated by the passage of time and demonstrated intent not to use it again. Mitigating factors outweigh the adverse evidence. Clearance granted.
Applicant's false denial, under oath, during a personnel security investigation, of certain sexual conduct; and his efforts to suborn perjury by coercing his former spouse to lie in his behalf, raise grave questions and doubts as to his security eligibility. Clearance denied.
Applicant has a history of financial problems including a 1989 discharge in bankruptcy. As of the date of his hearing he was delinquent on financial obligations totaling more $50,000.00, and had been unemployed for more than three months. His employment history had been somewhat erratic for at least 10 years. He had not filed federal income tax returns for several years--until shortly before the hearing--and owed the IRS more than $30,000.00 in back taxes. Clearance is denied.
Applicant's falsification of his criminal record provides rational basis for Administrative Judge's decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant's pattern of criminal conduct, including his wilful failure to file his 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 Federal and State Income Tax Returns; two Robbery convictions in 1996, a Spousal Abuse conviction in 1994, and an Unlicensed Driver conviction in 1995, have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.
The Applicant's alcohol abuse is evidenced by two recent convictions. As he has abstained from its use for only eight months, it is too soon to say that his abuse is not of present security significance. Clearance Denied.
The Applicant has done little, if anything, to pay his $15,000 of past due indebtedness. Clearance Denied.
Applicant's long history of alcohol abuse, as evidenced by his seven DUI convictions over a twenty-three year period, preclude a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance denied.
Applicant's extensive history of failing to file required state and federal income tax returns suggests he lacks the judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness required of those with access to classified information. Clearance denied.
Applicant's fourteen months of abstinence, together with his credible testimony that he will not use illegal drugs in the future, lead me to conclude that he has reformed. Clearance granted.
Applicant's Alford plea of guilty to felony charges arising out of an isolated incident in September 1995 involving a 5-year-old child was not mitigated fully by sexual abuse treatment for the past year. Clearance denied.
The Applicant used marijuana only four months ago. Clearance Denied.
Absent error below, Applicant not entitled to remand for a second hearing. Industrial security decisions are not loyalty determinations. Applicant's overall history of alcohol abuse provides rational basis for Judge's decision. Adverse decision affirmed.
Applicant's charge and conviction in 1995, for Grand Theft embezzlement by employee, a felony, which was later reduced to a misdemeanor, has not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of rehabilitation and reform. Clearance is denied.
Applicant's excessive indebtedness, and repeated intentional falsifications on his security clearance application concerning his arrest history and financial affairs have not been mitigated by sufficient evidence of rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.
The Applicant abused alcohol for 15 years, as evidenced by her being treated on five separate occasions for her dependency. Although she has now abstained from its consumption for 11 months, it is too soon to say her past extensive abuse is not of present security significance. Clearance Denied.
This 54-year-old Applicant failed to file federal income tax returns for five years, 1988-1992. He was under financial stress because of the breakup of his marriage. At all times during his 29 year career with the same company, he had federal taxes withheld, including during the five years in which he did not file returns. Applicant reached an agreement with the IRS in March 1994, and he has been making monthly payments ever since, as well as filing returns each year since 1993. Applicant has adequately demonstrated rehabilitation. Clearance granted.
In 1992, the Applicant did not file his state or Federal tax returns. In addition, he became indebted to the IRS and the state Employment Development Department. Tax returns have been filed, payment has been made to state, a payment agreement has been made with IRS. Current financial situation is stable. Adverse inference is mitigated. Clearance is granted.
The Applicant has divulged his past inappropriate sexual behavior to those with a need to know; and as such, is no longer subject to black mail. His past criminal conduct occurred more than two years ago, and is no longer of present security significance. Clearance Granted.
The Applicant last used marijuana two years ago. He has since left the situs of his past drug abuse. He also offers credible evidence in support of his abstinence, and that he needs no further treatment. Clearance Granted.
Adjudicative Guidelines cannot be considered or construed in isolation or in a manner that renders any Adjudicative Guidelines meaningless or superfluous. Absence of security violations does not preclude adverse decision based on other misconduct. Administrative Judge's weighing of the evidence will not be disturbed unless appealing party demonstrates Judge acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner when weighing evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.
Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions about Applicant's repeated failure to file income tax returns are not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed.
This 35-year-old Applicant was arrested on seven occasions between the ages of 21 and 34. Most were alcohol-related and several involved anger and violence. Applicant received treatment for his alcoholism in 1993, but resumed drinking later that year. Applicant began a new period of treatment in 1996 and is still receiving outpatient care. Applicant is still on probation from a 1996 assault conviction. Despite his present good behavior, not enough time has elapsed to be confident of Applicant's rehabilitation. Clearance denied.
Federal Rules of Evidence serve only as a guide. Rebuttable presumption Administrative Judge is capable of ignoring or disregarding incompetent or irrelevant evidence. Judge not required to accept evidence at face value merely because it is admitted without objection or is unrebutted. Favorable decision affirmed.
In completing security clearance questionnaires in 1990 and 1995, Applicant falsified information about prior alcohol-related arrests. In each case, Applicant provider full information when thereafter interviewed by DIS. Applicant established he did not act with intent to deceive. Applicant is 65 and has had a security clearance for 37 years, with no other problems. Applicant's mitigating evidence shows it is unlikely he will repeat his past errors. Clearance granted.
Applicant in 1995 completed a NAQ, but omitted relevant and material information about his past arrests and drug use and purchases. He later did reveal arrests promptly to the initial investigator, but drug use was not admitted until January 1997 to second investigator. Defense of being "uncomfortable" not a basis for mitigation under Criterion E, but conduct in promptly admitting arrests is mitigated. Criminal conduct of felony falsification and 1995 arrest for belt discipline of son not mitigated as no evidence of rehabilitation provided. Clearance is denied.
This 34-year-old Applicant performed lewd and lascivious acts upon 12-16 year-old females on two occasions, in 1990 and 1992. He was convicted of a sexual offense in 1993 and is on probation until mid-1998. He twice lied about his misconduct to DIS in 1996 and continues to minimize the seriousness of his conduct and shift blame to the victims. Clearance denied
The Applicant purchased and used cocaine from about January 1989 to 1993, and then again in March 1997. She last used cocaine after being granted an interim security clearance in October 1996 and after she made a sworn statement to DIS in February 1997 that she would not use drugs in the future. She also lied about her drug use in completing her October 1996 Security Clearance Application. No mitigation or extenuation was demonstrated. Clearance denied.
Although Applicant's initial indebtedness was caused by his business failure and subsequent unemployment, financial irresponsibility was not mitigated where Applicant had not taken steps to address indebtedness for nearly two years after becoming reemployed, took steps to address indebtedness only in response to issuance of SOR, and actions taken to address indebtedness were insufficient to demonstrate that Applicant had reasserted control over his finances. Clearance denied.
Administrative Judge's findings about Applicant's history of alcohol and drug abuse are supported by record evidence and provide rational basis for her decision. Adverse decision affirmed.