CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-00474 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-00474

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/30/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 22-00474) →
Participants
Judge: Edward W. Loughran
Government Counsel: John C. Lynch
Applicant's Counsel: Christopher Snowden
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 35-year-old employee of a defense contractor who sought to retain his security clearance, which he had held since his military service from 2007 to 2011. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines G (alcohol consumption) and J (criminal conduct), later amending it to include allegations under Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse). The core allegations involved the applicant's history of substance abuse, multiple alcohol-related incidents, and criminal conduct, including driving under the influence and public intoxication.
The applicant admitted to a history of alcohol-related issues and some substance misuse during his military service, specifically the use of synthetic marijuana. He provided evidence of his efforts to mitigate these concerns, including a statement of intent to abstain from alcohol and claims of maintaining sobriety for over a year. However, he also presented inconsistent testimony regarding his drinking habits and the circumstances surrounding his arrests. The administrative judge found the applicant's credibility lacking and determined that the evidence of his conduct was more reliable than his assertions.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he had not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns related to alcohol consumption and criminal conduct. The judge emphasized the importance of trust and confidence in individuals granted access to classified information, stating that any doubt regarding the applicant's eligibility must be resolved in favor of national security. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Against Applicant
- Guideline HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · For 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. 22-00474

deniedAug 30, 2023· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of substance abuse and multiple alcohol-related incidents.

Specifically, the applicant was arrested for DUI or DWI in 2013 and 2017. In December 2013, he was charged with DUI in State A after being refused further alcohol service at a bar/restaurant due to intoxication. Additionally, the applicant used synthetic marijuana, or 'spice,' around 2010.

While the applicant successfully mitigated concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), the judge determined that he did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns related to his alcohol use and criminal conduct, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not mitigate security concerns under Guideline G due to a history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUIs and public intoxication.
The applicant did not mitigate security concerns under Guideline J as his criminal conduct, including drug abuse and alcohol-related offenses, raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago or InfrequentlyThe judge found the applicant's alcohol-related misconduct serious and not mitigated.
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Drug Involvement and Evidence of Actions Taken to Overcome the ProblemThe applicant mitigated concerns under Guideline H regarding drug involvement.
AG ¶ 23(a)rejectedTime Has Passed or Behavior Was InfrequentThe judge did not find sufficient evidence to mitigate alcohol consumption concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 20, 2022
Answer filedOct 10, 2022
Hearing heldJul 19, 2023
Decision dateAug 30, 2023

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Under Guideline G
Seriousness of Alcohol-related Misconduct Impacting Security Clearance
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Under Guideline H Despite Ongoing Alcohol Issues

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 the alcohol-related allegations, including multiple DUI and public intoxication incidents. The applicant's claims of mitigation were not credited, leading to a denial of security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested for DUI or DWI in 2013 and 2017.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b–1.e	4 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 H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant used synthetic marijuana, commonly known as 'spice', in about 2010. Although this was the applicant's only drug involvement and occurred over 12 years ago, the judge ultimately denied the applicant's security clearance due to concerns about his overall substance abuse history and related misconduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant used synthetic marijuana, commonly known as 'spice', in about 2010.	For Applicant	Synthetic CannabinoidWHILE CLEARED	Experimental	Admitted	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug	—	Claimed Abstinence Period Documented Claimed Signed Intent with Revocation Clause Claimed Rehabilitation Evidence

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 allegations of criminal conduct under Guideline J, specifically regarding multiple incidents of driving under the influence and public intoxication. The applicant's history of substance abuse and related criminal conduct contributed to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested in State A in December 2013 and charged with driving under the influence (DUI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b	The police report indicates that Applicant was drinking in a bar/restaurant, when he was refused further alcohol service because he was intoxicated.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

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.