ISCR Case 17-00812.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-00812.h1

deniedMar 13, 2018· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

A 30-year-old software engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement). The Statement of Reasons included allegations of marijuana use from 2008 to December 2015, an expressed intent to use marijuana in the future, and two instances of hallucinogenic mushroom use in 2010 and 2014. Additionally, the applicant faced allegations of alcohol-related incidents away from work and habitual or binge consumption leading to impaired judgment.

While the applicant successfully mitigated the concerns related to drug involvement, the issues surrounding his alcohol consumption remained unmitigated. Disqualifying conditions under Guideline G, specifically regarding alcohol-related incidents and habitual consumption, were raised.

The denial was based on the applicant's history of excessive alcohol consumption and multiple alcohol-related incidents, including blackouts and disturbances. Although he reduced his consumption, he continued to experience blackouts and failed to demonstrate a clear pattern of modified consumption or rehabilitation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption and multiple alcohol-related incidents, including blackouts and disturbances.
Despite reducing his alcohol consumption, the applicant continued to experience blackouts and did not demonstrate a clear pattern of modified consumption or rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)appliedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol

Mitigating

AG ¶ 26(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago or InfrequentThe applicant's recent alcohol-related incidents do not support this mitigation.
AG ¶ 23(a)rejectedTime Has Passed or Behavior Was InfrequentThe applicant's recent blackouts and alcohol-related incidents continue to cast doubt on his reliability.
AG ¶ 23(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Use and Evidence of Actions TakenThe applicant failed to provide evidence of actions taken to overcome his alcohol consumption issues.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 14, 2017
Answer filedMay 2, 2017Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 9, 2017
Decision dateMar 13, 2018

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Excessive Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G
Mitigation of Drug Involvement Concerns Under Guideline H
Impact of Recent Alcohol-related Incidents on Security Clearance Eligibility

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	Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.	For Applicant	Alcohol Related Arrest	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
2.b	Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
2.c–2.g	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.

For Applicant

Alcohol Related Arrest

Admitted

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

—

2.b

Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

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

—

2.c–2.g

5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (3 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant used marijuana from 2008 until December 2015.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Occasional	Admitted	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.b	Applicant stated in his application and during his interview that he intended to use marijuana in the future.	Against Applicant	Stated Intent to Use Again	Not Applicable	Denied	(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue	—	—
1.c	Applicant used hallucinogenic mushrooms twice, once in July 2010 when he was in college and again in July 2014 when he was on vacation.	For Applicant	Psilocybin	Experimental	Admitted	—	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—

Allegation

Finding

Substance / event

Use level

Response

Disqualifying (¶25)

Mitigating applied (¶26)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant used marijuana from 2008 until December 2015.

For Applicant

Marijuana

Occasional

Admitted

(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence

—

1.b

Applicant stated in his application and during his interview that he intended to use marijuana in the future.

Against Applicant

Stated Intent to Use Again

Not Applicable

Denied

(g) expressed intent to continue, or failure to commit to discontinue

—

1.c

Applicant used hallucinogenic mushrooms twice, once in July 2010 when he was in college and again in July 2014 when he was on vacation.

For Applicant

Psilocybin

Experimental

Admitted

—

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence

—

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