ISCR Case 16-02273.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02273.h1

deniedApr 20, 2018· Hon. Gregg A. Cervi· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old senior engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed three alcohol-related arrests: public intoxication in August 2013, driving while intoxicated (DWI) in October 2014, and a second DWI in September 2015. While the 2015 DWI charge was dismissed after a plea to obstructing a highway, the applicant admitted to the incidents, providing explanations for each.

The 2013 public intoxication arrest occurred after consuming several beers and mixed drinks at a professional football game. For the 2014 DWI, the applicant, who had been drinking beer at a party, refused initial field sobriety tests. A subsequent breathalyzer showed a .15% blood alcohol level. He later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor DWI, received a suspended jail sentence, probation with an alcohol abstinence condition, and completed a DWI intervention program, including using a vehicle interlock device.

Despite some positive changes, the judge found insufficient evidence of sustained abstinence or rehabilitation. The denial was based on the applicant's pattern of excessive alcohol use, as evidenced by the three arrests, and his failure to independently seek alcohol assessment or treatment beyond court-ordered programs. His claims of abstinence also lacked sufficient support from long-term behavioral change.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had three alcohol-related arrests, including two for DWI, demonstrating a pattern of excessive alcohol use.
The applicant did not independently seek alcohol assessment or treatment outside of court-ordered programs, raising concerns about future behavior.
The applicant's claims of abstinence were not sufficiently supported by evidence of long-term behavioral change.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.22.araisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G.22.craisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
J.31.braisedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

G.23.arejectedTime Has Passed or Behavior Was InfrequentThe applicant's recent arrests and ongoing concerns about alcohol use do not support this condition.
G.23.brejectedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Use and Actions TakenThe applicant did not demonstrate a clear pattern of modified consumption or abstinence.
J.32.arejectedTime Elapsed Since Criminal BehaviorInsufficient time has passed to demonstrate that similar criminal conduct will not recur.
J.32.drejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant's history of arrests and lack of independent rehabilitation efforts do not support this condition.

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 issuedAug 21, 2016
Answer filedOct 12, 2016
Hearing heldNov 16, 2017Hearing was rescheduled and reassigned.
Decision dateApr 20, 2018

Cite For

Denial Based on Pattern of Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation Under Guideline J
Importance of Independent Treatment for Alcohol Issues in Security Clearance Cases

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including public intoxication and two DWIs.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including public intoxication and two DWIs.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	The SOR alleges under Guidelines G and J, three alcohol-related arrests including in August 2013 for public intoxication; in October 2014 for driving while intoxicated (DWI); and in September 2015 for DWI. Each arrest resulted in a plea and conviction, although in the 2015 incident, Applicant pleaded guilty to obstructing a highway, and the DWI charge was dismissed. Applicant admitted the allegations with explanations, and provided documents with his answer.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	Applicant was first arrested in August 2013, while walking to a vehicle in a parking lot after a professional football game. Applicant testified that he consumed several beers at the game. He denied drinking anything other than beer, however in his answer to the SOR, he noted that: "I attended the game and that night was the first time my section was able to purchased [sic] hard liquor and mixed drinks. I did not pace myself as I should have an [sic] I made the mistake of drinking one too many alcoholic beverages."	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	Applicant was arrested in October 2014 for DWI. He was drinking beer at a party and drove home. He testified that he did not know why he was stopped by the police, and based on information he previously learned, he refused a field sobriety and field breathalyzer test. After he was arrested, a breathalyzer test disclosed he had a .15% blood alcohol level. The court records show that Applicant used a vehicle interlock device and completed a DWI intervention program by the time he entered a final plea. In May 2015, he pled guilty to a lesser offense of misdemeanor DWI, and was sentenced to 90 days in jail suspended, one year probation with the condition that he abstain from alcohol abuse and have no more arrests. The vehicle interlock device was removed.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	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

The SOR alleges under Guidelines G and J, three alcohol-related arrests including in August 2013 for public intoxication; in October 2014 for driving while intoxicated (DWI); and in September 2015 for DWI. Each arrest resulted in a plea and conviction, although in the 2015 incident, Applicant pleaded guilty to obstructing a highway, and the DWI charge was dismissed. Applicant admitted the allegations with explanations, and provided documents with his answer.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

—

1.b

Applicant was first arrested in August 2013, while walking to a vehicle in a parking lot after a professional football game. Applicant testified that he consumed several beers at the game. He denied drinking anything other than beer, however in his answer to the SOR, he noted that: "I attended the game and that night was the first time my section was able to purchased [sic] hard liquor and mixed drinks. I did not pace myself as I should have an [sic] I made the mistake of drinking one too many alcoholic beverages."

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

—

1.c

Applicant was arrested in October 2014 for DWI. He was drinking beer at a party and drove home. He testified that he did not know why he was stopped by the police, and based on information he previously learned, he refused a field sobriety and field breathalyzer test. After he was arrested, a breathalyzer test disclosed he had a .15% blood alcohol level. The court records show that Applicant used a vehicle interlock device and completed a DWI intervention program by the time he entered a final plea. In May 2015, he pled guilty to a lesser offense of misdemeanor DWI, and was sentenced to 90 days in jail suspended, one year probation with the condition that he abstain from alcohol abuse and have no more arrests. The vehicle interlock device was removed.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

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