CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01567 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-01567

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

Case Profile
Decision Date4/16/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Pamela C. Benson
Government Counsel: John C. Lynch
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 46-year-old individual who had served in the U.S. Marine Corps and was seeking a security clearance for his position with a Department of Defense contractor. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), J (Criminal Conduct), and E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations included multiple arrests for driving under the influence (DUI), driving on a suspended license, and other related offenses, which raised questions about his judgment and reliability.
During the hearing, the applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR, including a history of alcohol-related offenses and criminal conduct. He acknowledged that he had consumed alcohol excessively and had driven under the influence numerous times. Although he claimed to have stopped drinking since November 2019, he had not engaged in any formal continuing care or support programs following his treatment in 2020. The applicant's testimony indicated a lack of insight into the long-term implications of his past behavior and a reliance on family support for maintaining sobriety.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he failed to mitigate the security concerns related to his alcohol consumption, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. The judge noted that not enough time had passed to demonstrate that future misconduct was unlikely, emphasizing the importance of trust and reliability in individuals granted access to classified information. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was denied.
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. 23-01567

deniedApr 16, 2024· Hon. Pamela C. Benson· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old former U.S. Marine was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a documented history of multiple DUI offenses and driving violations spanning over 15 years.

Specific allegations included arrests for DUI in March 2013, May 2014 (resulting in conviction and mandated alcohol counseling), and a felony aggravated DUI in March 2017. Further incidents involved a felony arrest in November 2019 for driving with a suspended license, fleeing police, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. The applicant was also charged and convicted in June 2018 for driving on a revoked license, and faced a probation violation in October 2021 related to a felony driving while license suspended conviction.

Despite the applicant's claim of sobriety since November 2019, the judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or a sustained change in behavior. This led to doubts regarding the applicant's judgment, reliability, and willingness to comply with laws and regulations, ultimately resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple DUI offenses and a pattern of driving violations, demonstrating a lack of judgment and reliability.
Insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or a change in behavior was presented, raising doubts about the applicant's trustworthiness.
The applicant's history of excessive alcohol consumption and criminal conduct over 15 years indicated an unwillingness to comply with laws and regulations.

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 ¶ 16(d)(3)raisedPattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

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 issuedAug 24, 2023
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 15, 2024via Microsoft Teams
Decision dateApr 16, 2024

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Under Guideline G
Pattern of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Lack of Candor and Reliability 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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct concerns, specifically noting a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations. The applicant admitted to the allegations, which contributed to the decision to deny the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant admitted to a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	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: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found multiple alcohol-related incidents in the applicant's history, including several DUI arrests and convictions. The applicant's admissions were accepted as findings of fact, but the judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline G, concluding that the evidence raised doubts about the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For 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	—	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested in March 2013 for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and refusal to take blood alcohol test and field sobriety test.	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	In May 2014, Applicant was arrested for DUI and was convicted and required to attend a victim impact panel and participate in an alcohol counseling program.	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.d	In March 2017, Applicant was arrested for a felony aggravated DUI and driving while his license was suspended/revoked.	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.e	In November 2019, Applicant was arrested for felony driving while license suspended/revoked for DUI; fleeing or attempting to elude police; disorderly conduct – false crime report and resisting or obstruction a police officer.	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	—	—

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 all allegations under Guideline J, which included charges related to driving on a revoked license and a probation violation. The applicant admitted to the allegations, but the judge concluded that the evidence raised doubts about the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was charged in June 2018 with driving on a revoked license and was convicted and fined.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b	In October 2021, Applicant was charged with probation violation due to his felony driving while license suspended/revoked conviction.	Against Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	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–2.f	4 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 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.