A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 20-02538
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 12, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to multiple alcohol-related arrests and convictions. The appeal board upheld the denial, finding no harmful error in the administrative judge's ruling regarding the applicant's failure to provide proof of attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had multiple alcohol-related arrests and convictions, including a DUI charge.
- The applicant failed to provide documentation of attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- G.2.a Alcohol-related incidentsraised
- J.1 Criminal conductraised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-06-09
- Answer filed
- Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
- Hearing held
- 2022-05-16
- Decision date
- 2022-07-12 Appeal affirmed the original ruling.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Due to Multiple Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
- Denial of Security Clearance Based on Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
- Affirmation of Administrative Judge's Decision When No Harmful Error Is Found
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Appeal at a glance
The appeal was filed by the applicant after the denial of a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant argued that the Judge erred in finding a lack of proof of attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous classes. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's ruling.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----- )
ISCR Case No. 20-02538
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL BOARD POST OFFICE BOX 3656 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 696-4759 Date: July 12, 2022
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 9, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision based on the written record. On May 16, 2022, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Under Guideline G, the SOR alleged that Applicant was arrested on seven occasions for alcohol-related incidents. Applicant admitted four of those allegations, including the most recent arrest that resulted in him pleading no contest to a DUI charge in September 2019 and being sentenced to four days in jail (already served) and three years of summary probation. The Judge found against Applicant on each of the Guideline G allegations.
Under Guideline J, the SOR cross-alleged the Guideline G allegations and further alleged that Applicant was arrested on four other occasions and found guilty of three of those offenses. The Judge found against Applicant on each of the Guideline J allegations. As best we can discern, Applicant is challenging the Judge’s finding that he did not provide proof of attending Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) classes. In the decision, the Judge found that Applicant reported he currently attends AA meeting when he can, but he did not document his attendance at those meetings. Decision at 3. Based on our review of the record, this finding is accurate. Applicant further indicates that he could provide proof of attendance at future AA meeting. Appeal Board, however, is prohibited from considering new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also, Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.”
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira D. Modzelewski Moira D. Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board