CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00383 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00383

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

Case Profile
Decision Date9/25/2025
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Applicant's Counsel: Bradley P. Moss
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 54-year-old employee of a defense contractor who had held a security clearance intermittently for 24 years. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and E (Personal Conduct). The allegations included a history of alcohol-related incidents and a significant financial loss due to an online scam.
The applicant admitted to several allegations, including a severe diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder and multiple alcohol-related incidents, such as DUI arrests and public intoxication. She acknowledged failing to follow treatment advice after her diagnosis but later demonstrated a year of sobriety and established a support system. Regarding personal conduct, she admitted to being scammed out of $30,000 to $40,000 in an online relationship but claimed to have ended the relationship shortly after it began.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that the time elapsed since the last alcohol-related incident, along with her demonstrated sobriety and favorable psychological evaluations, mitigated the concerns under Guideline G. For Guideline E, while the applicant's actions raised security concerns, the judge found that the circumstances did not significantly undermine her reliability or trustworthiness, leading to a favorable decision for the applicant's security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · For 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. 24-00383

grantedSep 25, 2025· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite allegations under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant admitted to a history of alcohol-related incidents, including a diagnosis of severe Alcohol Use Disorder, multiple arrests for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Public Intoxication, and an incident where her children called the police due to her intoxication. Additionally, the applicant acknowledged providing $30,000-$40,000 in unrepaid loans to an online contact, which raised personal conduct concerns.

However, the administrative judge found significant mitigating factors. The applicant has maintained over a year of sobriety and established a robust support system for her recovery. Her last alcohol-related incident occurred more than four years prior, demonstrating a sustained change in behavior.

Furthermore, the applicant showed she had learned from past mistakes, including the financial scam, which mitigated concerns regarding her personal conduct. Based on the totality of circumstances, the applicant was found suitable for a security clearance, and eligibility was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant has over a year of sobriety and established a support system for recovery.
The applicant's last alcohol-related incident occurred more than four years ago, indicating a significant change in behavior.
The applicant demonstrated learning from past mistakes, including a financial scam, which mitigated concerns about personal conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G 21raisedAlcohol Consumption
E 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

G 23(a)appliedAlcohol Consumption
E 17(c)appliedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 11, 2024
Answer filedDec 23, 2024
Hearing heldJul 1, 2025reconvened on July 31, 2025
Decision dateSep 25, 2025

Cite For

Mitigation of Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
Consideration of Past Personal Conduct in Light of Rehabilitation
Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Determinations

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant started an online relationship with a male contact and provided him with $30,000 to $40,000 in loans that were never repaid. However, the judge concluded that the applicant mitigated the personal conduct concerns, resulting in a favorable decision for the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant started an online relationship with a male contact and provided him with $30,000~$40,000 in loans that were never repaid.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	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: grantedAUD DIAGNOSEDTREATMENT COMPLETED · FAVORABLE

The judge found that the applicant received treatment for a severe Alcohol Use Disorder and was diagnosed with the disorder in sustained remission. Despite several alcohol-related incidents, the judge concluded that the applicant mitigated the security concerns related to alcohol consumption, resulting in a granted decision.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant received treatment for a condition diagnosed as Alcohol Use Disorder, severe.	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant denied that she failed to follow treatment advice and continued to consume alcohol.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI).	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant was arrested and charged with Public Intoxication.	For Applicant	Public Intoxication	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant's children called the police, claiming she was intoxicated and disorderly.	For Applicant	Alcohol Related Arrest	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI, Refusal of Breath Test, and Hit and Run of a mailbox.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant reported being sexually assaulted and subsequently started drinking whiskey.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant was diagnosed with an Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission.	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	—	—	—

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.