CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00196 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-00196

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/26/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Candace Le'i Garcia
Government Counsel: Kelly M. Folks
Applicant's Counsel: Troy L. Nussbaum
Case Summary
he hearing date, he had not consumed alcohol for approximately five months. Applicant expressed a desire to change his behavior and acknowledged the impact of his past actions on his life and family.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the security concerns related to alcohol consumption and criminal conduct. The judge noted the applicant's extensive history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DWIs and other alcohol-related offenses, which raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability. Despite the applicant's admissions and attempts at mitigation, the judge found that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate a commitment to abstaining from alcohol or addressing the underlying issues contributing to his behavior. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
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. 21-00196

deniedSep 26, 2023· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old industrial security specialist was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's history included multiple alcohol-related incidents and reckless driving.

Specifically, the applicant was found guilty in absentia of misdemeanor public swearing/intoxication and convicted of misdemeanor reckless driving for driving 103 mph in a 65-mph zone. Other charges included misdemeanor assault on a family member (two found not guilty, two nolle prossed), misdemeanor violation of a fire prevention code (dismissed), and additional misdemeanor reckless speeding charges for driving 101 mph in a 70-mph zone and 103 mph in a 65-mph zone. He was also fined $50 for another misdemeanor public swearing/intoxication charge.

The administrative judge determined that the applicant had six alcohol-related convictions between 2009 and 2022, raising doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. At the time of the hearing, the applicant was still on probation and had not completed a court-ordered outpatient alcohol program. This, combined with his history of criminal conduct, including multiple reckless driving incidents and assault charges, led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had six alcohol-related convictions between 2009 and 2022, raising doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant was still on probation and had not completed the court-ordered outpatient alcohol program at the time of the hearing.
The applicant's history of criminal conduct, including multiple reckless driving incidents and assault charges, further contributed to the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)appliedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(c)appliedCurrently on Parole or Probation

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 26, 2021
Answer filedDec 9, 2021
Hearing heldApr 14, 2023via video teleconference
Decision dateSep 26, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Alcohol Consumption Issues
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Failure to Demonstrate Rehabilitation in the Context of Repeated Offenses

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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to alcohol consumption. The applicant had multiple alcohol-related incidents, including public intoxication and driving while intoxicated, which contributed to the decision to deny security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was charged with misdemeanor public swearing/intoxication, and he was found guilty in absentia.	Against Applicant	Public Intoxication	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was charged and convicted of misdemeanor reckless driving for driving 103 miles per hour (mph) in a 65-mph zone.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c–1.g	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 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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to criminal conduct under Guideline J. The applicant had multiple charges, including assault on a family member and reckless speeding, with various outcomes including not guilty findings and dismissed charges. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns related to his alcohol consumption and criminal conduct, leading to a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was charged with misdemeanor assault on a family member, and he was found not guilty.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Acquitted or Found Not Guilty	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant was charged with misdemeanor violation of a fire prevention code, and the charge was dismissed.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant was charged with misdemeanor reckless speeding for driving 101 mph in a 70-mph zone.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant was charged with misdemeanor assault on a family member, and the charge was nolle prossed.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant was charged with misdemeanor assault on a family member, and he was found not guilty.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Acquitted or Found Not Guilty	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	Applicant was charged with misdemeanor assault on a family member, and the charge was nolle prossed.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
2.g	Applicant was charged with misdemeanor reckless speeding for driving 103 miles per hour (mph) in a 65-mph zone.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
2.h	Applicant was charged with misdemeanor public swearing/intoxication, and he was fined $50.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	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.