CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02366 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 23-02366

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

Case Profile
Decision Date11/4/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Adrienne M. Driskill
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 40-year-old employee of a federal contractor who had previously served in the U.S. Air Force. The adjudicative guidelines at issue included Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged that the applicant had two driving while intoxicated (DWI) incidents and multiple delinquent debts, raising concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant admitted to the allegations regarding her DWI incidents and acknowledged her excessive alcohol consumption, expressing remorse and stating that she was receiving counseling. However, she denied owing certain amounts related to her debts while admitting the underlying debts with explanations. The applicant had a history of financial issues, including several unresolved debts totaling over $15,000, and had previously hired a law firm to assist with these debts but terminated the contract due to lack of progress.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance, citing the established disqualifying conditions under the relevant guidelines. The judge found that the applicant's alcohol-related incidents and unresolved financial issues raised significant concerns about her judgment and reliability. The judge concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated these concerns, emphasizing the importance of trustworthiness for individuals with access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · 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. 23-02366

deniedNov 4, 2024· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old federal contractor and former U.S. Air Force member was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant faced two driving while intoxicated (DWI) charges, one in February 2016 and another in March 2022, indicating a pattern of alcohol-related misconduct.

Additionally, the applicant had multiple unresolved delinquent debts. These included a charged-off apartment rent of $4,569, a charged-off appliance store debt of $3,515, and a charged-off credit card account of $506. Other financial issues involved a credit card account placed for collection for $6,222, a telecommunication debt of $827, a charge account of $391, an insurance company debt of $107, and a credit union debt for a bad check of $82.

Despite expressing remorse and seeking counseling, the judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation from the alcohol-related incidents or resolution of the financial issues. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had two DWI charges, indicating a pattern of alcohol-related misconduct.
The applicant had numerous unresolved delinquent debts, raising concerns about financial responsibility.
The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or resolution of her financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 15, 2024
Answer filedApr 4, 2024
Hearing heldNov 4, 2024Decision issued after a hearing.
Decision dateNov 4, 2024

Cite For

Denial Based on Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Denial Due to Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
Denial Related to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J

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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F, citing multiple delinquent debts including charged-off accounts and collections. Despite some admissions and explanations from the applicant regarding certain debts, the overall financial situation was deemed insufficiently mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Delinquent apartment rent charged off for $4,569. $4,569	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied with Explanation	—	—	—
2.b	Appliance store debt charged off for $3,515. $3,515	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Charge account placed for collection of $391. $391	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	Debt to insurance company past due for $107. $107	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	Debt to credit union for bad check for $82. $82	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.f	Telecommunication debt placed for collection of $827. $827	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.g	Credit-card account charged off for $506. $506	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
2.h	Credit-card account placed for collection of $6,222. $6,222	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). 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 against the applicant on both allegations of driving while intoxicated (DWI) from February 2016 and March 2022. Despite the applicant's admissions and claims of remorse and counseling, the judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns related to her alcohol consumption.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested in February 2016 and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested in March 2022 and charged with DWI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—

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 the criminal conduct allegations, specifically regarding two incidents of driving while intoxicated (DWI). The applicant admitted to both incidents but did not successfully mitigate the security concerns raised by her criminal conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Cross-allegation of Guideline G conduct under Guideline J.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse

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.