CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-00282 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 07-00282

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

Case Profile
Decision Date10/31/2007
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Christopher Graham
Government Counsel: Alison P. O'Connell, Richard A. Stevens
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 26-year-old software developer employed by a federal contractor, who faced security clearance issues primarily under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons outlined concerns stemming from the applicant's history of multiple arrests and charges over a four-year period, including four instances of marijuana possession, underage alcohol possession, and driving while intoxicated (DWI). The applicant admitted to using marijuana habitually from 1997 to 2004, despite undergoing rehabilitation, and continued to use alcohol.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had a significant history of criminal conduct, which he admitted, but he denied that this conduct violated the guidelines. The applicant presented evidence of rehabilitation and character references attesting to his integrity and work ethic. However, the judge concluded that the applicant failed to sufficiently mitigate the security concerns related to his criminal history, particularly given the nature and frequency of the offenses. Ultimately, the judge ruled to deny the security clearance, stating that the government had established its case under Guideline J, while the applicant did not provide adequate evidence to mitigate the concerns raised.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For 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. 07-00282

deniedOct 31, 2007· Hon. Christopher Graham· hearing

Summary

A 26-year-old software developer was denied a security clearance primarily under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) due to a history of drug and alcohol-related arrests. The applicant disclosed criminal activity on their security clearance application, which included six arrests over a four-year period. These arrests comprised four instances of marijuana possession, two for underage alcohol possession, and two for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).

Further disqualifying conditions under Guideline J included the applicant's admission of habitual marijuana use from 1997 to 2004, and continued substance use even after undergoing rehabilitation. The judge determined there was insufficient evidence of successful rehabilitation.

Additionally, the applicant maintained an ongoing association with a known drug dealer. While concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) were initially raised, they were not substantiated. Ultimately, the government established its case under Guideline J, resulting in the denial of the applicant's security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple arrests for drug and alcohol-related offenses, including four for possession of marijuana and two for DWI.
The applicant admitted to habitual marijuana use from 1997 to 2004 and continued to use substances post-rehabilitation.
The judge found insufficient evidence of successful rehabilitation and ongoing association with a known drug dealer.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline JraisedCriminal Conduct

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 27, 2007
Answer filedJul 16, 2007
Hearing heldSep 19, 2007
Decision dateOct 31, 2007

Cite For

Denial Based on Habitual Drug Use Under Guideline J
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Despite Prior Treatment
Pattern of Criminal Conduct Affecting 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.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had a history of criminal activity, including multiple arrests and substance use. Despite the applicant's completion of a drug rehabilitation program, the judge concluded that the applicant's conduct raised significant concerns regarding his eligibility for a security clearance, resulting in a denial of the application.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant disclosed his criminal activity on his security clearance application.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b–1.g	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations, which included multiple arrests for possession of marijuana, underage possession of alcohol, and driving while intoxicated. As a result, the applicant's request for a security clearance was denied due to concerns about his criminal history.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested or charged six times over a four-year period with various offenses, including: four times for possession of marijuana, twice for underage possession of alcohol, and twice for DWI.	Against Applicant	Multiple Arrests Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

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