CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00603 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-00603

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/26/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Marc E. Curry
Government Counsel: Patricia M. Lynch-Epps
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 43-year-old married man with a history of severe alcohol dependence, which was the basis for the security concerns under Guideline G. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons detailing multiple alcohol-related incidents, including arrests for DUI and public intoxication, as well as job terminations due to alcohol use. The applicant admitted to these allegations and indicated that he had been sober since February 2022, but he did not provide evidence of ongoing treatment or professional evaluations to support his claim of sobriety.
The administrative judge found that while the applicant had been sober for over two years, the severity and longstanding nature of his alcohol issues, coupled with a lack of supporting documentation from a licensed professional, did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns. The applicant's acknowledgment of his past drinking problem and completion of a treatment program in 2013 were noted, but the judge emphasized that he had not followed through with recommended aftercare and had a history of relapses and alcohol-related incidents. Consequently, the judge ruled to deny the applicant's security clearance, stating that the evidence did not demonstrate a clear and established pattern of modified behavior or sufficient rehabilitation to warrant a favorable decision.
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. 23-00603

deniedNov 26, 2024· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old married man's security clearance application was denied under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) due to a documented history of severe alcohol dependence and multiple alcohol-related incidents. These incidents included arrests in April 2015 for public intoxication and disorderly conduct, in September 2015 for an open container violation and DUI, and in March 2016 for another DUI.

Further issues arose in May 2018 with an arrest for violating an ignition interlock device requirement. His employment was also impacted, with terminations in October 2019 for drinking on the job and in July 2020 for arriving at work with alcohol on his breath.

Despite the applicant's claim of over two years of sobriety, the denial was based on his extensive history of alcohol dependence, his failure to adhere to initial treatment recommendations, and the absence of supporting documentation from a licensed professional to verify his current sobriety.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long history of severe alcohol dependence and multiple alcohol-related incidents.
He failed to follow treatment recommendations after his initial inpatient treatment.
There was no supporting documentation from a licensed professional to substantiate his claim of sobriety.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(b)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents at Work
AG ¶ 22(d)appliedDiagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder
AG ¶ 22(e)appliedFailure to Follow Treatment Advice

Mitigating

AG ¶ 22(a)rejectedTime Passed Since Last IncidentThe severity and longstanding nature of the applicant's drinking problem outweigh the time since his last incident.
AG ¶ 22(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Use ProblemThe applicant acknowledged his drinking problem but did not provide evidence of actions taken to overcome it.
AG ¶ 22(d)rejectedSuccessful Completion of Treatment ProgramThe applicant completed treatment over ten years ago and did not follow up with recommended outpatient care.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 16, 2023
Answer filedMay 24, 2023Applicant requested a hearing.
Hearing heldJan 28, 2024Applicant later requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateNov 26, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Severe Alcohol Dependence Under Guideline G
Importance of Professional Documentation in Mitigating Alcohol-related Security Concerns
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant has a drinking problem and has been involved in multiple alcohol-related incidents, leading to a denial of his security clearance. Despite the applicant's claim of sobriety for over two years, the judge determined that the severity and history of the applicant's alcohol issues, along with a lack of professional documentation supporting his recovery, did not mitigate the security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	In April 2015, Applicant was arrested and charged with public intoxication and disorderly conduct after engaging in a verbal and physical altercation with his ex-wife’s male friend while at a ballpark.	Against Applicant	Public Intoxication	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	In September 2015, Applicant was arrested and charged with an open container violation and with Driving Under the Influence (DUI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	In March 2016, Applicant was stopped by police, failed a sobriety test, and was arrested and charged with DUI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	In May 2018, Applicant was arrested and charged with violation of the requirement to use an ignition interlock device.	Against Applicant	Ignition Interlock Violation	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	In October 2019, Applicant’s employer fired him for drinking on the job.	Against Applicant	Intoxication at Work or Duty	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	In July 2020, Applicant’s employer fired him after he arrived to work with alcohol on his breath.	Against Applicant	Intoxication at Work or Duty	Denied	—	—	—
1.g–1.l	6 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.

Full decision

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