ISCR Case 24-00392

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-00392

deniedJan 7, 2025· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's history included multiple Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenses and related criminal conduct.

Specific allegations included a November 2004 DUI arrest, resulting in a March 2005 conviction after the applicant crashed his car while intoxicated. He was also arrested in January 2023 for DUI with minor passengers, driving with a blood alcohol content of .15 or more, and several firearms offenses. Additionally, the applicant admitted to a July 2007 arrest for driving on a suspended license, having continued to drive without a valid license due to unfulfilled requirements from his first DUI conviction.

The denial was based on the applicant's multiple DUI offenses, including the one with minor passengers, and his failure to complete a court-ordered alcohol education program following his initial DUI conviction. The administrative judge noted that the applicant was currently on probation for his second DUI conviction, which raised ongoing concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple DUI offenses, including one involving minor passengers.
The applicant failed to complete a court-ordered alcohol education program after his first DUI conviction.
The applicant is currently on probation for his second DUI conviction, which raises concerns about his reliability and judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 21raisedExcessive Alcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 22(g)appliedFailure to Follow Court Order Regarding Alcohol Education
AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Activity Creates Doubt About Judgment
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(c)appliedCurrently on Probation

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)rejectedTime Has Passed Since BehaviorThe applicant's last arrest occurred recently, and it is too soon to conclude that he has mitigated the security significance of his misconduct.
AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant has not demonstrated sufficient evidence of rehabilitation given his ongoing 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 4, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 24, 2024
Decision dateJan 7, 2025

Cite For

Impact of Multiple DUI Offenses on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Completing Court-ordered Rehabilitation Programs
Consideration of Ongoing Probation in Security Clearance Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he consumes intoxicants to excess. Applicant admitted that he had been arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in November 2004. He drank to the point of intoxication, fell asleep behind the wheel, and crashed his car into a fire hydrant. He was convicted of the offense on March 21, 2005.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admitted he had been arrested on January 2, 2023, for various offenses including Driving Under the Influence with Minor Passengers, Driving with a Blood Alcohol of .15 or more, and several firearms offenses.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he consumes intoxicants to excess. Applicant admitted that he had been arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in November 2004. He drank to the point of intoxication, fell asleep behind the wheel, and crashed his car into a fire hydrant. He was convicted of the offense on March 21, 2005.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant admitted he had been arrested on January 2, 2023, for various offenses including Driving Under the Influence with Minor Passengers, Driving with a Blood Alcohol of .15 or more, and several firearms offenses.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admitted that he was arrested in approximately July 2007 for Driving on a Suspended License. Under questioning, he admitted that, since he had not completed all the requirements of his conviction set forth in 1.a, above, he continued to drive without a valid driver’s license.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	This allegation states that the information set forth under allegations 1.a. and 1.b, are cognizable under this guideline as well.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant admitted that he was arrested in approximately July 2007 for Driving on a Suspended License. Under questioning, he admitted that, since he had not completed all the requirements of his conviction set forth in 1.a, above, he continued to drive without a valid driver’s license.

Against Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

2.b

This allegation states that the information set forth under allegations 1.a. and 1.b, are cognizable under this guideline as well.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Unknown

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION