ISCR Case 20-03579

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-03579

deniedSep 12, 2022· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) due to a history of alcohol-related incidents and ongoing consumption issues. The Statement of Reasons detailed several employer reprimands between July 2014 and October 2016 for arriving at work hungover, smelling of alcohol, or being excessively tardy due to alcohol use. One reprimand in October 2016 occurred at a U.S. Government facility in a foreign country, leading to a suspension from work-related travel.

In May 2017, the applicant was arrested for DUI following a car accident, pleaded no contest, and was found guilty. He was subsequently terminated from his employment in June 2017 due to repeated alcohol-related problems. Although he completed a court-ordered DUI treatment program, his prognosis for recovery was deemed only good with a support group and fair without one.

Despite these interventions, the applicant failed to seek further recommended counseling and continued to drink alcohol regularly. The denial was based on his multiple work reprimands, the DUI arrest, and his failure to demonstrate a clear pattern of modified consumption or abstinence, specifically noting his lack of follow-through with counseling after treatment.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple reprimands at work for alcohol-related incidents, including a DUI arrest.
He failed to demonstrate a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence from alcohol.
The applicant did not follow through with counseling after completing his treatment program.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(b)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents at Work
AG ¶ 22(c)appliedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 22(d)appliedDiagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder
AG ¶ 22(e)rejectedFailure to Follow Treatment AdviceThe applicant was not prescribed a treatment program post-DUI.
AG ¶ 22(f)rejectedAlcohol Consumption Not in Accordance with Treatment RecommendationsThe applicant was not ordered to continue treatment.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(d)appliedSuccessful Completion of a Treatment ProgramThe applicant completed a court-ordered treatment program.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 16, 2021
Answer filedMar 8, 2021
Hearing heldAug 17, 2022via Microsoft Teams
Decision dateSep 12, 2022

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Alcohol Consumption Issues Under Guideline G
Impact of Repeated Alcohol-related Incidents on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Following Through with Treatment Recommendations for Alcohol Dependency

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	Applicant was reprimanded by his employer in July 2014 after arriving to work hungover and smelling of alcohol.	Against Applicant	Intoxication at Work or Duty	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b	He was reprimanded by his employer in approximately June 2015 as a result of excessive tardiness resulting from his alcohol consumption.	Against Applicant	Intoxication at Work or Duty	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.c	He was reprimanded by his employer in October 2016 after arriving late and smelling of alcohol at his work assignment at a U.S. Government facility in a foreign country, and as a result he was suspended from work-related travel.	Against Applicant	Intoxication at Work or Duty	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.d	He was arrested in May 2017 for DUI after he was involved in a car accident. He pleaded no contest and was found guilty.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work	—	—
1.e	He was terminated from employment in June 2017 as a result of his repeated issues with alcohol.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.f	He completed the court-ordered DUI treatment program, but his prognosis was only good if he had a support group and fair without one.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.g	He failed to seek further counseling and continues to drink alcohol regularly, contrary to the recommendations received incident to the court-ordered treatment program.	For Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was reprimanded by his employer in July 2014 after arriving to work hungover and smelling of alcohol.

Against Applicant

Intoxication at Work or Duty

Admitted

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

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

—

1.b

He was reprimanded by his employer in approximately June 2015 as a result of excessive tardiness resulting from his alcohol consumption.

Against Applicant

Intoxication at Work or Duty

Admitted

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

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

—

1.c

He was reprimanded by his employer in October 2016 after arriving late and smelling of alcohol at his work assignment at a U.S. Government facility in a foreign country, and as a result he was suspended from work-related travel.

Against Applicant

Intoxication at Work or Duty

Admitted

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

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

—

1.d

He was arrested in May 2017 for DUI after he was involved in a car accident. He pleaded no contest and was found guilty.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

—

1.e

He was terminated from employment in June 2017 as a result of his repeated issues with alcohol.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Admitted

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

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

—

1.f

He completed the court-ordered DUI treatment program, but his prognosis was only good if he had a support group and fair without one.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

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

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

—

1.g

He failed to seek further counseling and continues to drink alcohol regularly, contrary to the recommendations received incident to the court-ordered treatment program.

For Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

—

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION