CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01005 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-01005

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/21/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 22-01005) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Carol G. Ricciardello
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
Applicant was a 44-year-old individual seeking a security clearance from the Department of Defense (DOD). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued against him cited security concerns under Guideline G (alcohol consumption), Guideline E (personal conduct), and Guideline J (criminal conduct). The core allegations included multiple arrests for driving under the influence (DUI) and failure to disclose these incidents on his security clearance applications.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to several allegations in the SOR but denied others. He acknowledged his 2000 DUI arrest but claimed confusion regarding the reporting requirements, believing that the charge had been reduced and thus did not need to be disclosed. He also admitted to subsequent DUI arrests in 2013, 2019, 2020, and 2021, but argued that he was unaware of the obligation to report these incidents, particularly when they were dismissed or resulted in pretrial diversion. The administrative judge found the applicant's explanations and testimony lacking in credibility, particularly regarding his understanding of the reporting requirements and his alcohol consumption.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns associated with his alcohol-related conduct and personal integrity. The judge emphasized the pattern of behavior, including multiple DUI arrests and the applicant's inconsistent statements regarding his alcohol use and reporting obligations, leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- 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. 22-01005

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

Summary

A 44-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from multiple DUI arrests and the applicant's failure to disclose these incidents on security clearance applications.

The Statement of Reasons specifically cited the applicant's failure to mitigate security concerns related to personal conduct, alcohol consumption, and criminal conduct. Disqualifying conditions raised included AG ¶ 16(a), AG ¶ 22(a), and AG ¶ 31(a).

The judge determined that the applicant's explanations for the omissions were not credible, which raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness. Ultimately, the applicant's history of alcohol-related incidents and criminal conduct was deemed serious and not sufficiently mitigated, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple DUI arrests and failed to disclose these incidents in security clearance applications.
The judge found the applicant's explanations for his omissions not credible, raising doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's history of alcohol-related incidents and criminal conduct was deemed serious and insufficiently mitigated.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Minor Offenses

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 14, 2022
Answer filedJul 17, 2022
Hearing heldAug 30, 2023rescheduled from August 16, 2023
Decision dateSep 21, 2023

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Alcohol Consumption Issues Under Guideline G
Credibility Issues Impacting Personal Conduct Evaluations Under Guideline E
Pattern of Criminal Conduct Affecting Security Clearance Eligibility 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, indicating that the applicant failed to mitigate the personal conduct concerns. The applicant's testimony was deemed not credible, and the judge concluded that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E, personal conduct.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.b–2.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 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 judge ruled against the applicant on the alcohol consumption concerns under Guideline G, citing multiple DUI arrests. The applicant admitted to the allegations but failed to provide credible evidence of mitigation, leading to a denial of the application.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline G, alcohol consumption.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b–1.e	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	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 the criminal conduct concerns under Guideline J, concluding that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns. The applicant admitted to multiple DUI arrests but did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate mitigation of the associated risks.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline J, criminal conduct.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—

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.