CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00955 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00955

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/20/2026
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Wilford H. Ross
Government Counsel: Tara R. Karoian
Applicant's Counsel: Jeffrey S. Gard, Austin Hiatt
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 46-year-old defense contractor manager who sought national security eligibility after previously holding a security clearance that was revoked in 2018. The Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons citing concerns under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations included multiple arrests for DUI and domestic incidents involving his ex-wife, raising doubts about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant admitted to several incidents, including a 2022 DUI arrest for which he received probation and completed an alcohol evaluation, and a 2015 conviction for harassment related to a verbal altercation with his ex-wife. He denied being court-ordered to attend treatment at a specific center after his DUI, stating he sought evaluation from a different facility, which did not diagnose him with alcohol use disorder. He emphasized that he had significantly reduced his alcohol consumption and had not faced similar incidents since 2015.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that the evidence of successful rehabilitation, including the completion of probation and positive testimonials from colleagues and community members, mitigated the security concerns. The judge noted the elapsed time since the last incident and the applicant's proactive steps to address his alcohol use, ultimately determining that he was trustworthy and reliable enough to hold a security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · For Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · 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. 24-00955

grantedFeb 20, 2026· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old defense contractor's security clearance was GRANTED despite allegations under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed multiple arrests, including DUIs in approximately 2008 and 2022, and several domestic-related incidents in about 2009, 2012, 2013, and 2015. Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have denied a court order for alcohol treatment following his 2022 DUI arrest and to have engaged in actions involving questionable judgment and a lack of candor.

Disqualifying conditions were raised under AG ¶ 30, AG ¶ 21, and AG ¶ 15. However, the administrative judge applied several mitigating conditions, specifically AG ¶ 32(a), AG ¶ 32(d), AG ¶ 23(a), AG ¶ 23(b), AG ¶ 17(c), and AG ¶ 17(d).

The clearance was granted because the applicant successfully completed probation for his 2022 DUI, which did not result in a state law conviction. The judge noted a significant time gap between alcohol-related incidents, with 14 years passing since the earliest one. The applicant also demonstrated rehabilitation through community involvement and positive personal changes.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant successfully completed probation for his DUI charge, which did not result in a conviction under state law.
There was a significant time gap between the applicant's alcohol-related incidents, with the last occurring 14 years prior to the decision.
The applicant demonstrated rehabilitation through community involvement and positive changes in his personal life.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 30raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 21raisedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(a)appliedCriminal Conduct Mitigation
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedCriminal Conduct Mitigation
AG ¶ 23(a)appliedAlcohol Consumption Mitigation
AG ¶ 23(b)appliedAlcohol Consumption Mitigation
AG ¶ 17(c)appliedPersonal Conduct Mitigation
AG ¶ 17(d)appliedPersonal Conduct Mitigation

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 issuedOct 2, 2024
Answer filedNov 27, 2024
Hearing heldSep 18, 2025Hearing conducted as scheduled.
Decision dateFeb 20, 2026Decision delayed due to government shutdown.

Cite For

Mitigation of Past Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Successful Rehabilitation and Community Involvement as Mitigating Factors
Resolution of Doubts in Favor of National Security Eligibility

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 engaged in actions involving questionable judgment and lack of candor, but ultimately ruled in favor of the applicant under Guideline E. The applicant's history of conduct was considered, along with evidence of rehabilitation and support from colleagues and supervisors.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant has engaged in actions that involve questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.	For Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other

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: grantedTREATMENT COMPLETED · FAVORABLE

The judge found in favor of the applicant regarding the alcohol-related allegations. The applicant had a DUI arrest in 2022 but completed an alcohol evaluation and attended recommended therapy sessions, which did not indicate a substantial alcohol use disorder. The judge concluded that the applicant's actions and changes in behavior were sufficient to mitigate concerns under Guideline G.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant denied that he was court-ordered to obtain alcohol treatment from a specific treatment center after his 2022 DUI arrest.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	The information set forth under allegations 1.a., 1.b., and 1.f, are cognizable under this guideline as well.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	—	—	Documented Rehabilitation Evidence Documented Abstinence Period Documented

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: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found in favor of the applicant on all allegations under Guideline J, determining that the applicant's criminal conduct did not disqualify him from obtaining a security clearance. The applicant demonstrated significant rehabilitation and positive changes in behavior since his last incidents, leading to a granted security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested in approximately October 2022 and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol Per Se (DUI) and other charges.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested in about June 2015 and charged with Assault and Battery; Crimes Against Person Harassment – Strike, Kick, or Touch; and Crimes Against Person Harassment – Communicate in Manner Intended to Threaten.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant was arrested in about August 2013 and charged with Disorderly Conduct Hazardous/Physical.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Acquitted or Found Not Guilty	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant was arrested in about September 2012 and charged with Assault and Battery.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant was arrested in about November 2009 and charged with Crimes Against Person Harassment – Strike, Shove, Kick.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant was arrested in about December 2008 and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—

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.