ISCR Case 18-01644

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01644

deniedMay 29, 2019· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old calibration technician was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol-related incidents and criminal behavior, which raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Specific allegations included an Operating a Vehicle While Drunk charge in June 1990, resulting in nonjudicial punishment and a general discharge. In March 2009, he was arrested for DUI after consuming several rum and cokes, though the charge was later dismissed after he completed a diversion plan, including six months of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and a year of sobriety. August 2012 saw charges for Disorderly Conduct and Criminal Trespass after he admitted to being intoxicated and following a 16-year-old girl. In June 2013, he was found guilty of DUI with a blood-alcohol test result of .187, leading to a $1,000 fine and one year of probation requiring sobriety.

Further incidents included a September 2015 arrest for Domestic Battery-Knowing/Reckless Bodily Harm involving his first wife, where he claimed he accidentally struck her hand with a door after having two drinks. In July 2017, he was charged with Domestic Battery-Bodily Harm following a physical altercation with his current spouse after he had been drinking. The administrative judge concluded that his lengthy history of alcohol-related arrests, including multiple DUIs and domestic violence, along with insufficient rehabilitation efforts and recent alcohol consumption, warranted the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a lengthy history of alcohol-related arrests, including multiple DUIs and domestic violence incidents.
The applicant's attempts at rehabilitation were deemed insufficient to mitigate ongoing security concerns regarding his reliability and judgment.
The applicant's recent alcohol consumption and violations of probation raised doubts about his commitment to abstinence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 29, 2018
Answer filedAug 4, 2018
Hearing heldApr 25, 2019
Decision dateMay 29, 2019

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
Denial of Security Clearance Due to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation in Cases of Repeated Alcohol-related Offenses

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	In June 1990, Applicant was charged with Operating a Vehicle While Drunk. It was dark and raining, and Applicant hit a car with his motorcycle. Applicant received minor injuries. The car left the scene of the accident. Applicant refused a breathalyzer test. He received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and a general discharge under honorable conditions because of misconduct.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b	In March 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). Applicant drank five or six rum and cokes at a bar. The police stopped Applicant because of a traffic violation. He kept burping, and the police were unable to conduct a breathalyzer. The police did not complete the breathalyzer test or attempt to conduct a blood-alcohol test. He attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings twice a week for six months. He was required to remain sober for one year. He successfully completed the diversion plan, and the charge was dismissed with prejudice.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.c	In August 2012, Applicant was charged with Disorderly Conduct and Criminal Trespass. Applicant said he drank about two drinks at a party; however, he told the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator that he drank five or six drinks and that he was intoxicated. He left the party, and he followed a 16-year-old girl to her apartment which was located in the same building as the party.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Related Arrest	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.d	In June 2013, Applicant was charged with DUI. The police stopped Applicant for a traffic violation. His blood-alcohol test (BAT) result was .187. Applicant believed he could drive, and he did not think he was impaired even though his BAT was .187. Applicant was found guilty of DUI, and he was on probation for one year. He received a $1,000 fine, and he was required to remain sober during his probation.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

In June 1990, Applicant was charged with Operating a Vehicle While Drunk. It was dark and raining, and Applicant hit a car with his motorcycle. Applicant received minor injuries. The car left the scene of the accident. Applicant refused a breathalyzer test. He received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and a general discharge under honorable conditions because of misconduct.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.b

In March 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). Applicant drank five or six rum and cokes at a bar. The police stopped Applicant because of a traffic violation. He kept burping, and the police were unable to conduct a breathalyzer. The police did not complete the breathalyzer test or attempt to conduct a blood-alcohol test. He attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings twice a week for six months. He was required to remain sober for one year. He successfully completed the diversion plan, and the charge was dismissed with prejudice.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.c

In August 2012, Applicant was charged with Disorderly Conduct and Criminal Trespass. Applicant said he drank about two drinks at a party; however, he told the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator that he drank five or six drinks and that he was intoxicated. He left the party, and he followed a 16-year-old girl to her apartment which was located in the same building as the party.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Related Arrest

Denied

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.d

In June 2013, Applicant was charged with DUI. The police stopped Applicant for a traffic violation. His blood-alcohol test (BAT) result was .187. Applicant believed he could drive, and he did not think he was impaired even though his BAT was .187. Applicant was found guilty of DUI, and he was on probation for one year. He received a $1,000 fine, and he was required to remain sober during his probation.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	In September 2015, Applicant was arrested and charged with Domestic Battery-Knowing/Reckless Bodily Harm. The assault involved Applicant's first wife. Applicant had about two drinks of an alcohol beverage. He was angry, and he pushed and kicked a door, which struck his spouse's hand. He claimed he did not see her when he hit her with the door. The police arrested him, and he was issued a 72-hour r	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	In July 2017, Applicant was charged with Domestic Battery-Bodily Harm. Applicant had gone out drinking. His current spouse took his wallet and his identification cards and credit cards. A day or so later, Applicant and his spouse were involved in a physical altercation. He said she was the aggressor, and he was only attempting to keep her from driving his truck. His spouse hit him, and her ring cu	Against Applicant	Domestic Violence	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	—	—	—
2.c–2.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

In September 2015, Applicant was arrested and charged with Domestic Battery-Knowing/Reckless Bodily Harm. The assault involved Applicant's first wife. Applicant had about two drinks of an alcohol beverage. He was angry, and he pushed and kicked a door, which struck his spouse's hand. He claimed he did not see her when he hit her with the door. The police arrested him, and he was issued a 72-hour r

Against Applicant

Domestic Violence

Charged Not Convicted

Denied

—

2.b

In July 2017, Applicant was charged with Domestic Battery-Bodily Harm. Applicant had gone out drinking. His current spouse took his wallet and his identification cards and credit cards. A day or so later, Applicant and his spouse were involved in a physical altercation. He said she was the aggressor, and he was only attempting to keep her from driving his truck. His spouse hit him, and her ring cu

Against Applicant

Domestic Violence

Charged Not Convicted

Denied

—

2.c–2.d

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

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

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION