CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00656 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-00656

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/22/2024
Statusunknown
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the hearing decision (Case 23-00656) →See the hearing decision (Case 23-00656) →
Participants
Judge: Gregg A. Cervi, James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski
Government Counsel: Julie R. Mendez
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 42-year-old individual employed by a defense contractor who sought a security clearance. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The allegations included multiple convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) and possession of controlled substances, as well as a claim of falsification regarding his alcohol consumption history in response to DOHA interrogatories.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the criminal conduct allegations but denied the falsification claim. He did not respond to the cross-allegation under Guideline E. The administrative judge found that the applicant's history of criminal behavior, including three DUI convictions and two drug possession charges, demonstrated a lack of good judgment and reliability. Although the applicant had made some efforts to improve his life, such as obtaining a high school diploma and participating in community activities, the judge concluded that his ongoing alcohol consumption and failure to fully disclose his drinking habits undermined his credibility.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, stating that his criminal history and current behavior did not meet the standards of good judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness required for access to classified information. The judge emphasized that the applicant's conduct raised significant doubts about his ability to comply with laws and regulations, leading to the denial of his security clearance eligibility.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
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. ISCR Case No. 23-00656

unknownFeb 22, 2024· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old defense contractor was initially denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from multiple DUI convictions and drug possession charges, which indicated a pattern of criminal conduct. Additionally, the applicant was found to have falsified information regarding his alcohol consumption in response to DOHA interrogatories.

The judge initially found against the applicant on all allegations, citing a lack of demonstrated good judgment and reliability. Disqualifying conditions J1 and E2 were raised, while mitigating conditions J2 and E3 were applied.

However, the appeal board remanded the case for reconsideration. The board identified due process violations and determined that the initial decision had not sufficiently considered mitigating factors. As a result, no final outcome has yet been reached in this security clearance decision.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple DUI convictions and drug possession charges, indicating a pattern of criminal conduct.
The applicant was found to have falsified information regarding his alcohol consumption in response to DOHA interrogatories.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J1raisedCriminal Conduct
E2raisedFalsification of Information

Mitigating

J2rejectedMitigating CircumstancesThe judge found that none of the mitigating conditions were fully established.
E3rejectedMitigating CircumstancesThe judge concluded that the applicant's conduct did not meet the qualifications for access to classified information.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 12, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldNov 13, 2023
Decision dateFeb 22, 2024Decision remanded for reconsideration.

Cite For

Due Process Violations in Security Clearance Adjudications
Insufficient Consideration of Mitigating Factors Under Guidelines E and J
Impact of Falsification Allegations on 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.

Full decision

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