ISCR Case 17-03035.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03035.h1

deniedAug 16, 2018· Hon. Braden M. Murphy· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old single mother and former U.S. Navy member was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of criminal conduct, alcohol dependence, and personal conduct issues.

The applicant's record included a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) charge in September 2015, five ignition interlock violations between September 2015 and December 2016, and non-compliance with the Alcohol Safety Awareness Program (ASAP) in August 2016. She also failed to appear at a court hearing in October 2016. Earlier charges included disturbing the peace in July 2014 (later dismissed) and assault and battery, public intoxication, and destruction of property in December 2013.

Despite diagnoses of alcohol dependence in 2014 and severe alcohol use disorder in 2016, and inpatient treatment through the Navy’s SARP program, the applicant continued to consume alcohol. She also failed to disclose five ignition-interlock violations and recent alcohol consumption during her initial personal subject interview. The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient mitigating information regarding her criminal conduct, alcohol involvement, and personal conduct, including continued alcohol consumption despite advice to abstain and non-compliance with probation terms.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not provide sufficient information to mitigate security concerns related to criminal conduct, alcohol involvement, and personal conduct.
The applicant had multiple alcohol-related criminal offenses and failed to comply with probation terms.
The applicant continued to consume alcohol despite being advised to abstain after treatment for alcohol dependence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 31(a)appliedPattern of Criminal Offenses
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 31(d)appliedViolation of Probation
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents
AG ¶ 22(d)appliedDiagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder
AG ¶ 22(e)appliedFailure to Follow Treatment Advice
AG ¶ 22(f)appliedNon-compliance with Treatment Recommendations
AG ¶ 22(g)appliedFailure to Follow Court Orders

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 13, 2017
Answer filedNov 30, 2017
Hearing heldApr 23, 2018
Decision dateAug 16, 2018

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Alcohol Dependence Issues
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Failure to Demonstrate Rehabilitation After Multiple Alcohol-related Offenses

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	The applicant failed to disclose five ignition-interlock violations during her initial personal subject interview (PSI).	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	The applicant admitted to having consumed alcohol as recently as August 1, 2017, but did not disclose this information during her initial PSI.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

The applicant failed to disclose five ignition-interlock violations during her initial personal subject interview (PSI).

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

—

3.b

The applicant admitted to having consumed alcohol as recently as August 1, 2017, but did not disclose this information during her initial PSI.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence in 2014 and alcohol use disorder, severe, in 2016, while in the Navy’s SARP program.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
2.b	The applicant was treated for alcohol dependence in 2014 and 2016, but continued to consume alcohol despite being advised to abstain.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
2.c	The applicant was advised that she should abstain from alcohol use, yet has continued to drink.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
2.d	The applicant was referred to the Navy’s SARP program for 33 days of inpatient treatment for alcohol use disorder, severe.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	The applicant had five interlock violations while on probation for her DWI.	Against Applicant	Ignition Interlock Violation	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
2.f	The applicant continued to consume alcohol after her treatment and during her probation period.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence in 2014 and alcohol use disorder, severe, in 2016, while in the Navy’s SARP program.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

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

—

2.b

The applicant was treated for alcohol dependence in 2014 and 2016, but continued to consume alcohol despite being advised to abstain.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

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

—

2.c

The applicant was advised that she should abstain from alcohol use, yet has continued to drink.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

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

—

2.d

The applicant was referred to the Navy’s SARP program for 33 days of inpatient treatment for alcohol use disorder, severe.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

—

2.e

The applicant had five interlock violations while on probation for her DWI.

Against Applicant

Ignition Interlock Violation

Admitted

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

—

2.f

The applicant continued to consume alcohol after her treatment and during her probation period.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Failure to appear at a court hearing in October 2016.	Against Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
1.b	Five ignition interlock violations between September 2015 and December 2016.	Against Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
1.c	Non-compliance with the Alcohol Safety Awareness Program (ASAP) in August 2016.	Against Applicant	Probation or Court Order Violation	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
1.d	Driving while intoxicated (DWI) in September 2015.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
1.e	Charged with disturbing the peace in July 2014; charge later dismissed.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Admitted	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.f	Charged with assault and battery, public intoxication, and destruction of property in December 2013.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Charged Not Convicted	Denied	(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Failure to appear at a court hearing in October 2016.

Against Applicant

Probation or Court Order Violation

Convicted

Admitted

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

(d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program

—

1.b

Five ignition interlock violations between September 2015 and December 2016.

Against Applicant

Probation or Court Order Violation

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

(d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program

—

1.c

Non-compliance with the Alcohol Safety Awareness Program (ASAP) in August 2016.

Against Applicant

Probation or Court Order Violation

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

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

(d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program

—

1.d

Driving while intoxicated (DWI) in September 2015.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

(d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program

—

1.e

Charged with disturbing the peace in July 2014; charge later dismissed.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Admitted

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

—

1.f

Charged with assault and battery, public intoxication, and destruction of property in December 2013.

Against Applicant

Assault or Battery

Charged Not Convicted

Denied

(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