ISCR Case 22-02299

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-02299

deniedJul 18, 2023· Hon. John Bayard Glendon· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old male applicant was denied national security eligibility due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol-related offenses and illegal drug use, which the judge found demonstrated a pattern of poor judgment and unreliability.

Specifically, the applicant had two alcohol-related arrests: one in August 2021 for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) with a 0.15% BAC, and a prior arrest in 2015 for Drunk in Public, which was later dropped. Despite completing an alcohol education program required by his DUI sentence, he continued to consume alcohol.

Furthermore, the applicant used MDMA (Ecstasy) on two occasions in 2014 and 2015 while having access to classified information. He also admitted to using marijuana from high school through post-graduate education, including four instances between 2010 and 2015 while working at a DoD facility. The judge concluded that his ongoing alcohol consumption and drug use, particularly while holding a security clearance, raised significant concerns about his trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant exhibited a pattern of poor judgment and unreliability due to two alcohol-related arrests.
He used illegal drugs while granted access to classified information.
Ongoing alcohol consumption raised concerns about his trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 30(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 24(a)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(f)raisedIllegal Drug Use While Granted Access to Classified Information

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant's ongoing alcohol consumption and recent DUI arrest undermined claims of rehabilitation.
AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's recent conduct indicated a likelihood of recurrence.
AG ¶ 32(a)rejectedTime Elapsed Since Criminal BehaviorInsufficient time had passed since the applicant's last DUI arrest.
AG ¶ 26(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Drug InvolvementThe applicant's past drug use while holding a clearance raised doubts about his current reliability.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 13, 2023
Answer filedFeb 7, 2023
Hearing heldMay 24, 2023via Microsoft Teams
Decision dateJul 18, 2023

Cite For

Pattern of Poor Judgment and Unreliability Under Guideline E
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Alcohol Consumption and Drug Use
Impact of Ongoing Substance Use on Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
4.a	The Government cross-alleges the SOR allegations in subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 2.a, 2.b, and 3.b under Personal Conduct guideline.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Unknown	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

The Government cross-alleges the SOR allegations in subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 2.a, 2.b, and 3.b under Personal Conduct guideline.

Against Applicant

Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

—

Unknown

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	The Government cross-alleges the two alcohol-related offenses under Guideline J under the guideline for Alcohol Consumption.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Unknown	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
3.b	The SOR further alleges that Applicant continues to consume alcohol despite his two alcohol-related arrests and his completion of a three-month alcohol education and awareness program, which was required pursuant to his DUI sentence.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Unknown	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

The Government cross-alleges the two alcohol-related offenses under Guideline J under the guideline for Alcohol Consumption.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Unknown

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

3.b

The SOR further alleges that Applicant continues to consume alcohol despite his two alcohol-related arrests and his completion of a three-month alcohol education and awareness program, which was required pursuant to his DUI sentence.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Unknown

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
2.a	After having been granted access to classified information during 2011, Applicant attended two concerts with a friend. The friend gave him MDMA (Ecstasy) during both concerts, which occurred in or about December 2014 and October 2015. Applicant took the illegal drug knowing that to do so was inconsistent with his responsibilities and commitments as a person granted access to classified information	Against Applicant	MDMAWHILE CLEARED	Occasional	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Beginning in high school and extending through his college years and his post-graduate education when he worked at a DoD facility, Applicant used marijuana. He claims that his use during the period of 2010 to 2015 was limited to four occasions.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Experimental	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

2.a

After having been granted access to classified information during 2011, Applicant attended two concerts with a friend. The friend gave him MDMA (Ecstasy) during both concerts, which occurred in or about December 2014 and October 2015. Applicant took the illegal drug knowing that to do so was inconsistent with his responsibilities and commitments as a person granted access to classified information

Against Applicant

MDMAWHILE CLEARED

Occasional

Admitted

—

2.b

Beginning in high school and extending through his college years and his post-graduate education when he worked at a DoD facility, Applicant used marijuana. He claims that his use during the period of 2010 to 2015 was limited to four occasions.

Against Applicant

Marijuana

Experimental

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In August 2021, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of alcohol (DUI). He attended a wedding reception prior to his arrest and drank beer for three to four hours. He went to the party intending to drive home, and he believed he was sufficiently sober to drive. He was stopped due to poor driving, and his BAC following the arrest was 0.15%.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.b	Applicant experienced a prior arrest related to his use of alcohol. In 2015, he and his then-girlfriend went to a bar. Applicant believes that someone added a drug to his drink. He wrote in the Answer that a friend accompanied him and his former girlfriend, and the friend also believed he was drugged. He claims that he subsequently learned that he went to a second bar where he had an altercation with the bar’s bouncer. He was arrested and charged with Drunk in Public. He hired a lawyer, and the charge was dropped.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

In August 2021, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of alcohol (DUI). He attended a wedding reception prior to his arrest and drank beer for three to four hours. He went to the party intending to drive home, and he believed he was sufficiently sober to drive. He was stopped due to poor driving, and his BAC following the arrest was 0.15%.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

1.b

Applicant experienced a prior arrest related to his use of alcohol. In 2015, he and his then-girlfriend went to a bar. Applicant believes that someone added a drug to his drink. He wrote in the Answer that a friend accompanied him and his former girlfriend, and the friend also believed he was drugged. He claims that he subsequently learned that he went to a second bar where he had an altercation with the bar’s bouncer. He was arrested and charged with Drunk in Public. He hired a lawyer, and the charge was dropped.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION