CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01659 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 19-01659

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/20/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Gina L. Marine
Government Counsel: William H. Miller
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 57-year-old systems engineer who had maintained a security clearance since 1987. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) addressed security concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) based on a Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued in May 2021. The SOR outlined multiple incidents of alcohol-related criminal activity and concerns regarding the applicant's alcohol use from 1991 to 2017.
The applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR but contended that they did not warrant a denial of his security clearance. He provided details of several incidents, including multiple DUI convictions and a domestic violence arrest, while asserting that he did not consider himself intoxicated during these events. He acknowledged the need to reduce or quit drinking but had only sought treatment when mandated by the courts. The applicant's testimony included a claim that he had benefited from court-ordered alcohol programs, although he had not voluntarily sought help outside of these requirements.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the evidence presented raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability, particularly in light of his repeated alcohol-related offenses. The judge noted that the applicant's admissions and lack of proactive measures to address his alcohol use contributed to the decision to deny his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · 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. 19-01659

deniedSep 20, 2023· Hon. Gina L. Marine· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a 26-year history of multiple alcohol-related offenses and associated criminal conduct. Specific allegations included alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving under the influence, fighting, and disturbing the peace, alongside general evidence of criminal conduct.

The judge identified disqualifying conditions related to alcohol consumption and criminal behavior. Despite the applicant's assertion of abstinence from alcohol since January 2022 and claims of rehabilitation, these were deemed insufficient to mitigate the security risks.

The denial was based on several factors: the applicant's extensive history of alcohol-related offenses raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability; he failed to demonstrate a sufficient pattern of modified behavior or rehabilitation; and his admissions minimized his alcohol consumption, indicating a lack of full responsibility for his actions. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's extensive history of alcohol-related offenses raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant failed to demonstrate a sufficient pattern of modified behavior or rehabilitation to mitigate the security concerns.
The applicant's admissions minimized his alcohol consumption and did not fully accept responsibility for his actions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)appliedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 22(c)appliedAlcohol Consumption

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 21, 2021
Answer filedJun 9, 2021
Hearing heldMay 12, 2023via video conference
Decision dateSep 20, 2023

Cite For

Denial Based on Extensive Criminal History Under Guideline J
Denial Due to Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Under Guideline G
Impact of Alcohol-related Offenses 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.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the alcohol-related allegations, citing multiple incidents of driving under the influence and other alcohol-related offenses. Despite the applicant's claims of completing treatment and finding it useful, the judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns associated with his alcohol consumption and criminal conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—
2.c	Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work	—	Documented Rehabilitation Evidence Claimed Abstinence Period Documented

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). 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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant regarding allegations of criminal conduct related to alcohol use and driving offenses. The applicant admitted to multiple incidents of driving under the influence and domestic violence, which the judge determined did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his history of alcohol-related offenses.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b–1.e	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		Convicted		—	—	—

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.