CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-01963 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-01963

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/21/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Carol G. Ricciardello
Government Counsel: William H. Miller
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 52-year-old individual who sought a security clearance but faced significant security concerns under multiple adjudicative guidelines, including Guideline J (criminal conduct), Guideline G (alcohol consumption), Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse), and Guideline E (personal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined a history of criminal behavior, including multiple arrests for robbery, DUI, and drug possession, as well as failures to disclose these incidents on his security clearance application.
The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR, including a felony robbery charge from 1992 and various alcohol-related offenses. He explained that his failure to disclose these incidents was due to errors or misunderstandings regarding the questions on his security clearance application. Despite his claims of mitigating circumstances, the administrative judge found that the applicant's extensive criminal history and ongoing issues with alcohol consumption raised significant concerns about his reliability and judgment.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, denying his eligibility for access to classified information. The judge concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns, emphasizing the seriousness of his criminal conduct and the lack of transparency in his disclosures during the security clearance process.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · 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. 20-01963

deniedSep 21, 2023· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a long history of criminal conduct, including multiple DUIs and drug-related offenses, coupled with a failure to disclose significant past arrests during the security clearance process.

Specifically, the applicant had three DUI convictions, with the most recent occurring in 2021. He also admitted to using marijuana from approximately 1990 through June 2022. His criminal record included a 1992 felony arrest for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, a 1993 simple assault arrest, a 1994 arrest for obstructing a public highway, a 1996 arrest for possession of marijuana, a 2007 arrest for public consumption of alcohol, and a 2013 arrest for driving with a suspended/revoked license.

The judge found that the applicant failed to disclose these arrests on his security clearance application. Ultimately, the denial was based on the applicant's extensive criminal history, his lack of candor in the application process, and insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or acknowledgment of his ongoing issues with alcohol and drugs.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a long history of criminal conduct, including multiple DUIs and drug-related offenses.
He failed to disclose significant criminal history on his security clearance application, raising concerns about his honesty and reliability.
There was insufficient evidence of successful rehabilitation or acknowledgment of his issues with alcohol and drugs.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(c)appliedCurrently on Parole or Probation
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents
AG ¶ 25(a)appliedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission of Relevant Facts

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 20, 2022
Answer filedJun 14, 2022
Hearing heldAug 29, 2023
Decision dateSep 21, 2023

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Criminal History Under Guideline E
Recurring Issues with Alcohol and Drug Use Under Guidelines G and H
Pattern of Criminal Conduct Affecting Reliability and Trustworthiness Under Guideline J

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 against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, citing a failure to disclose multiple arrests. The applicant admitted to the allegations but did not provide sufficient mitigation to alleviate the concerns raised by his extensive criminal history.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
4.a	Applicant failed to disclose his felony robbery arrest in 1992; the 1993 simple assault arrest; the 1994 obstructing a public highway; the 1996 possession of marijuana; the 2007 public consumption of alcohol; and the 2013 driving with a suspended/revoked license arrest.	Against Applicant	Failure to Report Required Information	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
4.b–4.f	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against 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 G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The applicant has a history of multiple DUI convictions, with the most recent occurring in December 2021. The judge ruled against the applicant on the alcohol consumption allegations, citing the extensive criminal conduct as a basis for concern regarding future misconduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant has been convicted three times for DUI, the latest in 2021.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—

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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from approximately 1990 through June 2022. The formal finding was against the applicant, indicating that the drug involvement raised significant security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency from approximately 1990 through June 2022.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Regular	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). 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 under Guideline J, citing extensive criminal history including multiple arrests and convictions. The applicant admitted to the allegations but was unable to demonstrate that future misconduct was unlikely to recur, leading to a denial of the clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested in 1992 and charged with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, both felonies.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b–1.l	11 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

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.