CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-02260 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-02260

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/7/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Roger C. Wesley
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
Applicant was a 28-year-old civilian employee of a defense contractor seeking a security clearance. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under the adjudicative guidelines for alcohol consumption, criminal conduct, and personal conduct. The allegations included multiple incidents of excessive alcohol consumption leading to hospitalizations, two DUI arrests, and a failure to disclose a DUI incident to his employer.
During the proceedings, Applicant admitted to most of the allegations but denied being unreliable or untrustworthy. He claimed to have provided all necessary information to a psychologist during an evaluation and asserted that he had reduced his alcohol consumption. However, he acknowledged withholding information about his November 2021 DUI from his employer due to concerns about its impact on his job. The administrative judge noted that Applicant's attempts at mitigation were undermined by his lack of participation in treatment programs and his inconsistent accounts regarding his alcohol use.
The administrative judge ruled against Applicant, concluding that he did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns regarding his alcohol consumption and related conduct. The judge emphasized the pattern of excessive drinking, the lack of transparency in his disclosures, and the psychologist's assessment that questioned his reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the judge denied Applicant's eligibility for access to classified information.
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. 23-02260

deniedMar 7, 2025· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant admitted to a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two arrests for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in December 2017 and November 2021, and two separate instances requiring paramedic transport and hospital admission due to intoxication. Additionally, the applicant was terminated from a managerial position for violating company fraternization rules by engaging in a romantic relationship with a subordinate.

A licensed psychologist evaluated the applicant in June 2023, concluding that his reliability and trustworthiness were questionable given his history of excessive alcohol consumption. The denial was based on the applicant's pattern of excessive alcohol use, a lack of credible rehabilitation efforts, and an insufficient period of sustained abstinence.

Furthermore, the applicant's credibility was undermined by the deliberate omission of his 2021 DUI from the psychological evaluation. The judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or reliability, leading to the unfavorable decision.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of excessive alcohol consumption, including two DUIs and hospitalizations for alcohol-related incidents.
The applicant failed to demonstrate credible rehabilitation efforts or a sustained period of abstinence from alcohol.
The applicant deliberately omitted information regarding his 2021 DUI from a psychological evaluation, undermining his credibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)appliedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 30appliedCriminal Conduct Creates Doubt About Judgment
AG ¶ 15appliedConduct Involving Questionable Judgment

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information may only be granted "upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so."”
— Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 29, 2024
Answer filedAug 15, 2024
Hearing heldJan 14, 2025via Teams Conference Services
Decision dateMar 7, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Alcohol Consumption Issues
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Full Disclosure in Psychological Evaluations for Security Clearance Assessments

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 that the applicant was fired for violating company fraternization rules by engaging in a romantic relationship with a subordinate employee. This conduct was deemed not mitigated, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	was fired from his manager position for violating his company’s fraternization rules by engaging in a romantic relationship with a subordinate employee he supervised	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	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 allegations of alcohol consumption against the applicant, including two DUI arrests and incidents of intoxication requiring hospitalization. The applicant's claims of rehabilitation were not sufficient to mitigate the concerns, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	became so intoxicated that paramedics had to transport him to a hospital, where he was admitted	Against Applicant	Public Intoxication	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	was arrested and charged with DUI in December 2017	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	became so intoxicated that paramedics had to transport him to a hospital, where he was admitted	Against Applicant	Public Intoxication	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	was arrested and charged with DUI in November 2021	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	was evaluated by a licensed psychologist in June 2023 who opined that his reliability and trustworthiness were questionable given his history of excessive alcohol consumption	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	—	—	—

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.