CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-02014 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 22-02014

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/17/2023
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Shari Dam
Government Counsel: Bryan J. Olmos
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 45-year-old individual who had been employed by federal contractors since 2015. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The core allegations included a DUI charge from July 2021, where the applicant reported to work intoxicated, leading to her termination and subsequent legal issues.
The applicant admitted to two of the allegations in the SOR, specifically regarding her intoxication at work and the DUI charge, while denying one allegation related to personal conduct. She explained that her alcohol consumption was exacerbated by stress during the COVID-19 pandemic and acknowledged her mistake in drinking before work. However, she did not provide evidence of ongoing treatment or rehabilitation for her alcohol use, nor did she demonstrate a clear pattern of modified behavior since the incident.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that she failed to mitigate the security concerns. The judge noted that the applicant's DUI incident was recent and indicative of a pattern of alcohol use that raised doubts about her reliability and judgment. The absence of credible evidence showing her participation in treatment or progress in addressing her alcohol issues further supported the decision to deny her national security eligibility.
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. 22-02014

deniedApr 17, 2023· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a DUI conviction and a broader pattern of alcohol-related misconduct.

Specifically, the applicant was arrested for DUI in July 2021, leading to a conviction. This incident was compounded by allegations that the applicant reported to work intoxicated, creating a potential vulnerability to duress. Disqualifying conditions were raised under AG ¶ 15, AG ¶ 21, and AG ¶ 30.

Despite the application of mitigating conditions AG ¶ 17, AG ¶ 23, and AG ¶ 32, the judge found insufficient credible evidence of rehabilitation or compliance with court-ordered requirements. The applicant's history of alcohol use and the circumstances of the DUI conviction ultimately led to the conclusion that the applicant could not be relied upon to protect classified information, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was arrested for DUI in July 2021 and subsequently convicted, raising significant security concerns.
The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of rehabilitation or compliance with court-ordered requirements related to alcohol consumption and criminal conduct.
The applicant's history of alcohol use and the circumstances of her DUI conviction cast doubt on her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 21raisedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23rejectedAlcohol Consumption Mitigating ConditionsThe applicant did not demonstrate a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence.
AG ¶ 32rejectedCriminal Conduct Mitigating ConditionsThe applicant did not provide evidence of successful rehabilitation or compliance with probation.
AG ¶ 17rejectedPersonal Conduct Mitigating ConditionsThe applicant did not provide proof of counseling or steps taken to address her behavior.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 8, 2022
Answer filedNov 15, 2022Requested decision on the written record.
Hearing held—Decision made based on written record.
Decision dateApr 17, 2023

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Under Guideline G
Pattern of Alcohol-related Misconduct Under Guideline J
Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation of coming to work intoxicated. The applicant acknowledged her misconduct but failed to provide credible evidence of rehabilitation or steps taken to address her alcohol-related issues, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant engaged in conduct that created a vulnerability to duress by coming to work intoxicated.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the alcohol consumption allegations, specifically noting that the applicant reported to work in an intoxicated state and was charged with DUI. The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of rehabilitation or compliance with treatment requirements, leading to a denial of clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant reported to work in an intoxicated state and was charged with DUI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work	—	—

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegation related to a DUI conviction. The applicant was arrested and charged with DUI, leading to a conviction, and failed to provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI, leading to a conviction.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	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.