CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00677 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-00677

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/24/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Mark D. Lawton
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 38-year-old machinist employed by a defense contractor since May 2013. He faced security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), J (Criminal Conduct), and G (Alcohol Consumption) due to multiple incidents of criminal behavior, including arrests for assault and battery on a family member and public intoxication. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined allegations of disciplinary actions at work for excessive absences, failure to report an arrest, and a history of alcohol-related offenses.
The applicant admitted to several allegations, including multiple arrests for domestic violence and public intoxication, while denying others related to specific incidents of assault. He attributed his workplace issues to personal stress following a breakup and acknowledged his alcohol consumption as a contributing factor to his criminal behavior. However, he did not provide evidence of any counseling or steps taken to address his issues.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance, citing the seriousness and frequency of his criminal conduct, which raised concerns about his judgment and reliability. The judge found that the applicant's admissions and lack of mitigating evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that he could be trusted to safeguard classified information, concluding that his behavior posed a potential risk to national security.
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. 23-00677

deniedMay 24, 2024· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old machinist was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's Statement of Reasons detailed multiple arrests, including charges for assault and battery on a family member in September 2021, May 2014, and June 2005, as well as simple assault and battery in May 2011. He was also arrested for public swearing or intoxication in January 2014 and May 2012, and for unlawful use or injury to telephone lines in May 2014.

Further allegations included the applicant's failure to report his September 2021 arrest to his facility security officer and disciplinary action from his employer in August 2022 for frequent unexcused absences. The administrative judge found that the applicant's habitual alcohol consumption was involved in his multiple arrests, raising concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

The denial was based on the applicant's admitted pattern of criminal conduct, the link between his alcohol consumption and criminal behavior, and his failure to provide evidence of rehabilitation or counseling to address his alcohol issues. The judge concluded that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, resulting in the denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple arrests for assault and battery, demonstrating a pattern of criminal conduct.
The applicant's habitual alcohol consumption was linked to his criminal behavior, raising concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant did not provide evidence of rehabilitation or counseling to address his alcohol issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information
AG ¶ 16(e)appliedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability
AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents
AG ¶ 22(c)appliedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 26, 2023
Answer filedAug 17, 2023
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateMay 24, 2024

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Pattern of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Impact of Habitual Alcohol Consumption on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline G
Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Issues 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 personal conduct concerns, specifically regarding disciplinary actions at work and failure to report an arrest. The applicant admitted to both allegations, which contributed to the decision to deny the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was disciplined by his employer in August 2022 for 'calling out' from work eight to ten times without cause.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant failed to report to his facility security officer that he was arrested in September 2021 for assault and battery on a family member.	Against Applicant	Failure to Report Required Information	Criminal Conduct	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 that the applicant's habitual alcohol consumption was involved in multiple arrests, leading to a ruling against the applicant under Guideline G. The decision was based on the applicant's admissions and the evidence presented, which established disqualifying conditions related to alcohol consumption.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant's habitual alcohol consumption was involved in his multiple arrests alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.b through 2.f.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	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 all allegations related to criminal conduct, which included multiple arrests for assault and battery on family members and public intoxication. The applicant's history of criminal behavior raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness, leading 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 September 2021 and charged with assault and battery on a family member.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	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	Applicant was arrested in May 2014 and charged with assault and battery on a family member and unlawful use or injury to telephone lines.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	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.c	Applicant was arrested in January 2014 and charged with public swearing or intoxication.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	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.d	Applicant was arrested in May 2012 and charged with public swearing or intoxication.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	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.e	Applicant was arrested in May 2011 and charged with simple assault and battery.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.f	Applicant was arrested in June 2005 and charged with assault and battery on a family member.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.g	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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.