CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-01966 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-01966

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

Case Profile
Decision Date1/23/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman
Government Counsel: Alison P. O'Connell
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 37-year-old software engineer employed by a defense contractor since June 2021. He applied for a security clearance on June 3, 2022, but was issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on May 12, 2025, citing concerns under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct) and G (Alcohol Consumption). The SOR detailed three instances of criminal conduct, including two DUIs and a shoplifting conviction, raising questions about the applicant's judgment and reliability.
The applicant admitted to all allegations in the SOR. He acknowledged a DUI conviction in March 2013, a shoplifting incident in March 2016, and a second DUI in June 2022, for which he was sentenced to jail time and probation. He claimed that his first DUI conviction was set aside due to good behavior and that he had not consumed alcohol for a year. However, he provided no supporting documentation for his claims of rehabilitation or completion of required substance abuse evaluations.
The administrative judge ruled to deny the security clearance, concluding that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the concerns raised by his criminal conduct and alcohol consumption. The judge noted that the applicant's criminal history, including multiple incidents and lack of evidence for rehabilitation, did not demonstrate a clear and established pattern of modified behavior or abstinence, which is necessary for a favorable security clearance decision.
Guidelines Evaluated
- 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. 24-01966

deniedJan 23, 2026· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old software engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's history included multiple DUI charges and a shoplifting conviction, which were detailed in the Statement of Reasons.

Specifically, the applicant was convicted of DUI in March 2013, resulting in a five-day jail sentence and three years of probation. In March 2016, the applicant was convicted of shoplifting a sweater and violating the probation from the 2013 DUI. Most recently, in June 2022, the applicant faced charges for DUI (misdemeanor), failure to stop or respond to police command (felony), and reckless driving (misdemeanor).

The denial was based on the applicant's admitted criminal conduct, the lack of evidence demonstrating successful rehabilitation or compliance with court-ordered substance abuse treatment, and the recency of the criminal behavior. The judge concluded that these factors raised doubts about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple instances of criminal conduct, including two DUIs and shoplifting.
The judge found no evidence of successful rehabilitation or compliance with court-ordered substance abuse evaluation and treatment.
The recency of the applicant's criminal behavior raised doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(b)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol Consumption

Key Rule Quoted

“An applicant has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”
— ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 12, 2025
Answer filednullApplicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldnullDecision made on the written record.
Decision dateJan 23, 2026

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Under Guideline G
Recency of Criminal Conduct Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
Burden of Proof on Applicant to Demonstrate National Interest for Clearance

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 G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant regarding alcohol consumption, specifically noting a history of driving under the influence (DUI) incidents. The applicant admitted to the allegations but failed to provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or compliance with treatment recommendations, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant's admission and the evidence in the FORM establish the disqualifying condition in AG ¶ 22(a): Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—

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, which included multiple DUI charges and a shoplifting conviction. The applicant's history of criminal behavior and lack of sufficient evidence for rehabilitation led to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) in March 2013, was convicted, and was sentenced to five days in jail and three years of probation.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	Applicant was charged with shoplifting a sweater from a clothing store in March 2016 and was convicted of this offense and of violating the probation imposed in March 2013.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	In June 2022, Applicant was charged with DUI (misdemeanor), failure to stop or respond to police command (felony), and reckless driving (misdemeanor).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

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.