ISCR Case 16-02906.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02906.h1

deniedJul 14, 2017· Hon. Jennifer I. Goldstein· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of multiple criminal offenses between 2001 and 2011, including convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol in 2002, 2005, and 2011, and driving under the influence of marijuana. Other convictions included driving with a suspended license in 2008 and resisting, obstructing, or delaying a police officer in 2009.

Additionally, the applicant violated the terms of his 2012 probation by using alcohol between 2014 and 2016, despite not being formally charged with a probation violation. Financial concerns stemmed from unresolved debts totaling $10,731, which included a $175 delinquent phone bill from 2011, a $9,462 medical bill related to his 2011 arrest, a $540 debt to his state’s highway patrol from the same arrest, and another medical debt of $554.

The judge determined that the applicant's criminal history, particularly the repeated DUIs and probation violations, along with the unresolved financial obligations, presented unmitigated security concerns. Insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or resolution of the debts led to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of multiple criminal offenses, including several DUIs, which raised security concerns under Guideline J.
The applicant's unresolved debts totaling $10,731 indicated financial irresponsibility under Guideline F.
The applicant's alcohol-related incidents and probation violations raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness under Guideline G.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J30raisedCriminal Conduct
G21raisedAlcohol Consumption
F18raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

J32rejectedCriminal Conduct MitigationInsufficient time has passed since the applicant's last DUI and he demonstrated a history of disregarding the law.
G23rejectedAlcohol Consumption MitigationThe applicant has not completed a treatment program and has a recent history of alcohol-related offenses.
F20rejectedFinancial Considerations MitigationThe applicant has not demonstrated that his financial problems are being resolved or are under control.

Key Rule Quoted

“Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 19, 2016
Answer filedJan 3, 2017
Hearing heldMay 9, 2017
Decision dateJul 14, 2017

Cite For

Unmitigated Security Concerns Due to a History of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Financial Irresponsibility Indicated by Unresolved Debts Under Guideline F
Reliability and Trustworthiness Issues Stemming From Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	a phone bill delinquent since 2011 in the amount of $175 $175	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.b	a medical bill incurred in relation to his 2011 arrest in the amount of $9,462 $9,462	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.c	a debt owed to his state’s highway patrol as a result of his 2011 arrest in the amount of $540 $540	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.d	a medical debt in the amount of $554 $554	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

a phone bill delinquent since 2011 in the amount of $175

$175

Against Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.b

a medical bill incurred in relation to his 2011 arrest in the amount of $9,462

$9,462

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.c

a debt owed to his state’s highway patrol as a result of his 2011 arrest in the amount of $540

$540

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.d

a medical debt in the amount of $554

$554

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was convicted of DUIs in 2005 and 2011. This evidence raises the above security concern, thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate that concern.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was convicted of DUIs in 2005 and 2011. This evidence raises the above security concern, thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate that concern.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Between 2001 and 2011, Applicant was charged with multiple criminal offenses, many involving alcohol and drugs. He was convicted twice of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI); once for driving under the influence of marijuana; and once for resisting, obstructing, or delaying a police officer.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	Applicant was convicted of DUI in 2002; DUI in 2005; driving while his license was suspended in 2008; resist, obstruct, delay peace officer in 2009; and DUI in 2011.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	While he was not formally charged with a probation violation, he violated the terms of his 2012 probation by using alcohol from 2014 to 2016.	Against Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.d	Sufficient time has not passed since Applicant’s most recent DUI, given the fact that he was previously convicted of two DUIs and multiple other offenses between 2001 and 2011.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.e	Applicant has been convicted of multiple offenses, including DUIs, which raises security concerns under the guideline for criminal conduct.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.f	The evidence continues to cast doubt on Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.g	The evidence does not establish mitigation under any of the above conditions.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Between 2001 and 2011, Applicant was charged with multiple criminal offenses, many involving alcohol and drugs. He was convicted twice of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI); once for driving under the influence of marijuana; and once for resisting, obstructing, or delaying a police officer.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.b

Applicant was convicted of DUI in 2002; DUI in 2005; driving while his license was suspended in 2008; resist, obstruct, delay peace officer in 2009; and DUI in 2011.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.c

While he was not formally charged with a probation violation, he violated the terms of his 2012 probation by using alcohol from 2014 to 2016.

Against Applicant

Probation or Court Order Violation

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.d

Sufficient time has not passed since Applicant’s most recent DUI, given the fact that he was previously convicted of two DUIs and multiple other offenses between 2001 and 2011.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.e

Applicant has been convicted of multiple offenses, including DUIs, which raises security concerns under the guideline for criminal conduct.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.f

The evidence continues to cast doubt on Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

1.g

The evidence does not establish mitigation under any of the above conditions.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

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

FOOTNOTES