CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02600 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 21-02600

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/16/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Braden M. Murphy
Government Counsel: Mark D. Lawton
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 50-year-old individual employed by a defense contractor since May 2020, who sought a security clearance. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline G, related to alcohol consumption, due to two driving while intoxicated (DWI) convictions in 2020 and a prior DUI from 1999. The core allegations included the applicant's repeated alcohol-related offenses and insufficient time elapsed since the last conviction to mitigate these concerns.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the two DWI offenses and provided a narrative explaining the circumstances surrounding them, including personal difficulties and arguments with his wife that contributed to his drinking. He acknowledged his struggles with alcohol, expressed remorse, and indicated that he had been sober since August 2020. The applicant also mentioned attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and noted improvements in his personal relationships and work performance.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the evidence presented did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns associated with his alcohol consumption. The judge emphasized that the applicant had not demonstrated a long-term commitment to sobriety or provided adequate evidence of rehabilitation, given the recency of his offenses and the ongoing requirements related to his alcohol-related convictions. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · 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. 21-02600

deniedFeb 16, 2023· Hon. Braden M. Murphy· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) due to two recent driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenses in 2020. The applicant was arrested and pled guilty to a DWI in April 2020, followed by a second DWI arrest and guilty plea in August 2020. Additionally, the applicant disclosed a prior alcohol-related offense from 1999 during his hearing testimony.

The denial was based on the significant security concerns raised by the recency and similarity of the 2020 offenses. While the applicant acknowledged his alcohol issues and participated in Alcoholics Anonymous, the judge determined there was insufficient evidence of mitigation.

The applicant did not demonstrate a sufficient track record of responsible alcohol use or compliance with the law, leading to concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. The disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 22(a) was raised, and while mitigating conditions AG ¶ 23(a) and AG ¶ 23(b) were considered, they were not found to outweigh the recent and repeated alcohol-related incidents.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had two recent DWI offenses in 2020, which raised significant security concerns.
The applicant's prior DUI in 1999 was considered, but the focus was on the recency of the two DWIs.
The applicant did not demonstrate a sufficient track record of responsible alcohol use or compliance with the law.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)rejectedTime Has Passed or Behavior Was InfrequentThe recentness of the offenses did not support mitigation.
AG ¶ 23(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Use and Evidence of Actions TakenInsufficient evidence of a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence.

Key Rule Quoted

“"the clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 30, 2021
Answer filed—Date unclear from the record.
Hearing heldOct 25, 2022Conducted via video-teleconference.
Decision dateFeb 16, 2023

Cite For

Recent DWI Offenses as Disqualifying Under Guideline G
Insufficient Evidence of Mitigation Despite Participation in Alcoholics Anonymous
The Importance of Recency in Evaluating Alcohol-related Offenses for Security Clearance

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, including two driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenses in 2020 and a prior DUI offense from 1999. The applicant's claims of sobriety and participation in Alcoholics Anonymous were not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by his alcohol-related offenses.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested for driving while intoxicated in April 2020 and pled guilty.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested for a second driving while intoxicated offense in August 2020 and pled guilty.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.c	Applicant disclosed a prior alcohol-related offense from 1999 during his hearing testimony.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—

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

Full decision

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