CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01304 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 24-01304

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/27/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 61-year-old carpenter employed by a defense contractor, who sought a security clearance but faced allegations under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed five incidents of driving while intoxicated (DWI), including two felony convictions resulting in prison sentences, and allegations of falsifying his security clearance application by denying prior convictions and alcohol-related charges.
The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR, including his history of alcohol consumption and driving under the influence. He acknowledged his DWI convictions and admitted to drinking heavily and driving intoxicated until January 2024. Despite these admissions, he did not provide evidence of rehabilitation or efforts to address his alcohol use, nor did he respond to the Government's evidence after receiving the formal case file.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance, concluding that the applicant's criminal conduct, ongoing alcohol consumption, and lack of candor in his application raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness. The judge found that the applicant failed to establish any mitigating conditions that would alleviate these concerns, emphasizing the importance of trust in individuals with 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. 24-01304

deniedJan 27, 2025· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 61-year-old carpenter was denied eligibility for access to classified information due to concerns under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and E (Personal Conduct). The applicant's history included multiple incidents of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and falsifying information on his September 2023 security clearance application (SCA).

Specifically, the applicant was arrested for DWI in April 2014, resulting in a conviction and a five-year prison sentence, with parole granted in 2017. An earlier DWI arrest in August 2003 also led to a conviction and a five-year prison sentence, of which he served one year before being paroled. Additional DWI arrests occurred in February 2000, August 1996, and January 1991. The applicant admitted to consuming alcohol, at times to excess, from approximately 1978 to at least September 2024, and reported drinking before driving approximately every two weeks until January 2024.

The denial was based on the applicant's admitted felony DWI convictions, the falsification of his SCA regarding these convictions and alcohol-related charges, and his continued heavy alcohol consumption without evidence of treatment or rehabilitation efforts. The administrative judge concluded that these factors were not mitigated, leading to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple incidents of driving while intoxicated, including felony convictions.
The applicant falsified information on his security clearance application, denying prior convictions and alcohol-related offenses.
The applicant continues to consume alcohol heavily and has not sought treatment or rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)appliedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedFalsification of Security Clearance Application

Key Rule Quoted

“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 9, 2024
Answer filedOct 15, 2024
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateJan 27, 2025

Cite For

Denial Based on Multiple Felony Convictions Under Guideline J
Ongoing Alcohol Consumption Issues Under Guideline G
Falsification of Security Clearance Application 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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant falsified his September 2023 Security Clearance Application (SCA) by answering 'No' to questions regarding felony convictions and alcohol-related charges. The judge ruled against the applicant on this allegation, concluding that the falsification was not mitigated and that it was inconsistent with national security interests.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant falsified his September 2023 SCA by answering 'No' to questions regarding felony convictions and alcohol-related charges.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	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: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant has consumed alcohol excessively since 1978 and continued to drink before driving until January 2024. The judge ruled against the applicant on both allegations under Guideline G, concluding that the applicant's ongoing alcohol consumption and history of driving while intoxicated raised significant security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant has consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication since about 1978 to at least September 2024.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Until January 2024, Applicant drank alcohol before driving approximately every two weeks.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Unknown	—	—	—

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 all allegations related to criminal conduct, specifically multiple incidents of driving while intoxicated (DWI). The applicant's history of DWI offenses and continued alcohol consumption raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In April 2014, Applicant was arrested for DWI, convicted, and sentenced to five years in prison. He was paroled in 2017 for the remaining time on his prison sentence.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	In August 2003, Applicant was arrested for DWI, convicted, and sentenced to five years in prison, served one year, and was paroled for the remainder of his prison term.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	Arrests for DWI in February 2000, August 1996, and January 1991. The SOR does not allege any prison sentences or other disposition for these arrests.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.d–1.e	2 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.