CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00425.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 16-00425.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date5/17/2018
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Martin H. Mogul
Applicant's Counsel: Leah M. Peer; Dena M. Acosta
Case Summary
The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E, citing a history of criminal conduct and alcohol abuse that raised questions about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness. The judge determined that no mitigating factors applied to alleviate these concerns, leading to a denial of the security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
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. 16-00425.h1

deniedMay 17, 2018· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old single male and Navy veteran was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's Statement of Reasons detailed a history of criminal conduct, including multiple arrests for Felony Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) in July 1996, March 2002, November 2005, and August 2011. Additional arrests included Drunk in Public in August 2010 and April 2011 (with Trespass), and charges in May 2013 for Transportation and Possession of Controlled Substances, Possession of Unlawful Paraphernalia, Under the Influence of Controlled Substance, and Driving on a Suspended License.

The applicant also faced allegations regarding three overdue debts totaling $1,814, $553, and $3,249. While the applicant claimed these debts were paid, and evidence confirmed their resolution, this financial responsibility was not sufficient to mitigate the broader concerns.

The denial was primarily based on the applicant's extensive criminal record, a history of alcohol abuse, and questions regarding his credibility due to implausible explanations for his behavior. Despite resolving his financial debts, the long history of criminal conduct and lack of credible rehabilitation led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a long history of criminal conduct, including multiple DUI arrests and convictions.
The applicant's credibility was questioned due to implausible explanations for his criminal behavior.
The applicant's history of alcohol abuse raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

JappliedCriminal Conduct
GappliedAlcohol Consumption
EappliedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

FappliedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 7, 2016
Answer filedDec 8, 2016
Hearing heldJun 6, 2017
Decision dateMay 17, 2018

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Related to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Disqualifying Conditions Related to Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G
Mitigating Conditions for Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

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 against the applicant on the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E, citing a history of criminal conduct and alcohol abuse that raised questions about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness. The judge determined that no mitigating factors applied to alleviate these concerns, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct alleged in paragraph 1, above, constitutes Personal Conduct concerns.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had resolved his delinquent debts, which mitigated the financial concerns raised under Guideline F. As a result, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on all financial allegations, indicating responsible management of his financial obligations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
4.a	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,814. In his RSOR Applicant wrote that this debt was paid. At the hearing, Applicant claimed that this debt had been paid. (Tr at 65-66.) Exhibit F establishes that this debt has been resolved. $1,814	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
4.b	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $553. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. At the hearing, Applicant claimed that this debt had been paid. (Tr at 66-67.) Exhibit F establishes that this debt has been resolved. $553	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
4.c	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $3,249. In his RSOR Applicant wrote that this debt was paid. At the hearing, Applicant claimed that this debt had been paid. (Tr at 66-67.) Exhibit F establishes that this debt has been resolved. $3,249	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). 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 against the applicant under Guideline G due to a long history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUI arrests and other alcohol-related offenses. The applicant's failure to demonstrate a commitment to abstain from alcohol consumption despite previous treatment and recommendations contributed to the negative outcome.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct alleged in paragraph 1, above, constitutes Alcohol Consumption concerns.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	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 under Guideline J, citing a long history of criminal conduct that raised significant concerns about the applicant's judgment and reliability. The applicant's admissions regarding multiple DUI offenses and other related charges contributed to the decision to deny security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant was arrested in July 1996, and charged with Felony Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.b	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant was arrested in March 2002, and charged with DUI Alcohol/Drugs and Driving While Having a Measurable Blood Alcohol. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.c	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant was arrested in November 2005, and charged with DUI Alcohol/Drugs and Driving While Having a Measurable Blood Alcohol. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.d	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant was arrested in August 2010, and charged with Drunk in Public. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.e	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant was arrested in April 2011, and charged with Trespass and Drunk in Public. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR.	Against Applicant	Trespassing or Burglary	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.f	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant was arrested in August 2011, and charged with DUI Alcohol/Drugs and Driving While Having a Measurable Blood Alcohol. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.g	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant was arrested in May 2013, and charged with Transportation of Controlled Substance, Possession of Controlled Substance, Possession of Unlawful Paraphernalia, Under the Influence of Controlled Substance, and Driving on a Suspended License. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR.	Against Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

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.