CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-00862 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-00862

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/13/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 32-year-old married man with two children, seeking a security clearance for his position as a research lab mechanic with a government contractor. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The core allegations included the applicant's history of alcohol-related offenses, including multiple Operating a Vehicle while Intoxicated (OVI) charges, and his violation of probation terms that mandated abstinence from alcohol.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to the allegations in the SOR, including his continued alcohol consumption while on probation. He acknowledged past criminal behavior but claimed to have made positive lifestyle changes since his last arrest in January 2022. The applicant testified that he had attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and intended to maintain his sobriety. However, he also admitted to violating his probation by consuming alcohol, which he described as poor judgment. Despite his claims of moderation and control over his drinking, the administrative judge found insufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to demonstrate that future misconduct was unlikely. The judge emphasized the seriousness of the applicant's ongoing alcohol consumption in violation of probation and the lack of sufficient time since his last criminal behavior to establish a pattern of rehabilitation. Consequently, the applicant's request for national security eligibility was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 23-00862

deniedFeb 13, 2024· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old married father of two was denied a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed several charges, including an OVI in January 2022 with a registered BAC of 0.139% and speeding, a prior OVI in September 2016, and an underage drinking charge from October 2011. Additionally, the applicant faced charges in November 2011 for drug abuse and possession of paraphernalia.

A significant factor in the denial was the applicant's continued alcohol consumption while on probation, which violated the terms of his supervision. This behavior, coupled with his admission to multiple alcohol-related offenses, including the two OVI charges, led to the determination that there was insufficient evidence of rehabilitation.

Ultimately, the judge found that these issues raised doubts about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant continued to consume alcohol in violation of his probation.
He admitted to multiple alcohol-related offenses, including two OVI charges.
Insufficient evidence of rehabilitation was presented, raising doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 31(a)raisedPattern of Minor Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)raisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(d)raisedViolation of Probation

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 issuedApr 28, 2023
Answer filedMay 10, 2023
Hearing heldDec 12, 2023
Decision dateFeb 13, 2024

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Alcohol Consumption Concerns Under Guideline G
Failure to Mitigate Criminal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline J
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Affecting 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.

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 all allegations related to alcohol consumption, including multiple charges of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and underage drinking. The applicant admitted to the allegations but failed to demonstrate sufficient mitigation of the security concerns related to his alcohol-related conduct, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was charged in January 2022 with OVI, blood alcohol content (BAC) greater than 0.08% but less than 0.17% (Applicant registered 0.139%) and speeding.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b	Applicant was charged in September 2016 with operating vehicle while intoxicated (OVI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.c	Applicant was charged in October 2011 with underaged drinking of alcohol.	Against Applicant	Underage Drinking	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—

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 allegations of criminal conduct, specifically drug abuse and violation of probation due to alcohol consumption. The applicant admitted to the allegations but failed to demonstrate sufficient mitigation to overcome the security concerns, resulting in a denied clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was charged in November 2011 with drug abuse and possession of paraphernalia.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Charged Not Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
2.b	Applicant continued to consume alcohol in violation of his probation.	Against Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—

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.