ISCR Case 15-02659.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02659.h1

deniedJul 1, 2015· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The applicant had a history of financial problems, including eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $12,600. While the majority of these debts were resolved, and the applicant's current financial situation was deemed sound, these issues initially raised concerns.

However, the primary reasons for denial stemmed from the applicant's alcohol consumption and related conduct. The applicant had three DUIs, with the most recent occurring in 2007 or 2008, and was diagnosed as alcohol dependent during treatment in 2007 and 2008. In 2009, the applicant was arrested for hit-and-run and driving on a suspended or revoked license, which was related to a prior DUI.

Despite no further alcohol-related criminal charges since the last DUI, the applicant had not demonstrated a clear pattern of modified consumption or abstinence consistent with treatment recommendations, nor received a favorable prognosis from a qualified medical professional. The applicant's ongoing alcohol consumption and poor judgment, evidenced by driving on a suspended license and leaving an accident scene, ultimately led to the denial of eligibility for access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of multiple alcohol-related offenses, including three DUIs.
The applicant's alcohol consumption continues to raise doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant exhibited poor judgment by driving on a suspended license and leaving the scene of an accident.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
E 16(c)raisedCredible Adverse Information in Several Adjudicative Issue Areas
E 16(e)raisedPersonal Conduct Creating Vulnerability to Exploitation
F 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F 20(a)appliedBehavior Unlikely to Recur
F 20(c)appliedReceived Counseling for Financial Problems
F 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 15, 2016
Answer filedFeb 10, 2016
Hearing heldNov 14, 2016rescheduled from 10/04/2016
Decision dateFeb 14, 2017

Cite For

Denial Based on Ongoing Alcohol Consumption Despite Past Treatment
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Mitigation of Financial Concerns Does Not Outweigh Disqualifying Factors in Personal Conduct and Alcohol Consumption

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
2.a–2.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (2 against, 1 for the applicant).	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a–2.c

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (2 against, 1 for the applicant).

Mixed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant has a history of financial problems, including eight delinquent debts totaling about $12,600. $12,600	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
3.b	The majority of the debts have been paid, settled, or otherwise resolved.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
3.c	Applicant has attempted to resolve any remaining debts.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
3.d	Applicant's current financial situation is sound.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
3.e–3.h	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant has a history of financial problems, including eight delinquent debts totaling about $12,600.

$12,600

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

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

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

3.b

The majority of the debts have been paid, settled, or otherwise resolved.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

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

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

3.c

Applicant has attempted to resolve any remaining debts.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

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

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

3.d

Applicant's current financial situation is sound.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

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

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts

—

3.e–3.h

4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has three DUIs, most recently in 2007 or 2008.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b	The applicant received treatment in 2007 and 2008, where he was apparently diagnosed as alcohol dependent.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.c	The applicant was arrested in 2009 and charged with hit-and-run and driving on a suspended or revoked license for a DUI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.d	The applicant's alcohol consumption and alcohol-related criminal conduct continue to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.e	The applicant has not demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.	For Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.f	The applicant has not received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.	For Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.g	The applicant has not engaged in any further alcohol-related criminal charges since his last DUI.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant has three DUIs, most recently in 2007 or 2008.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

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

—

1.b

The applicant received treatment in 2007 and 2008, where he was apparently diagnosed as alcohol dependent.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

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

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

—

1.c

The applicant was arrested in 2009 and charged with hit-and-run and driving on a suspended or revoked license for a DUI.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

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

—

1.d

The applicant's alcohol consumption and alcohol-related criminal conduct continue to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied

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

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

—

1.e

The applicant has not demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.

For Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Denied

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

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

—

1.f

The applicant has not received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.

For Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Denied

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

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

—

1.g

The applicant has not engaged in any further alcohol-related criminal charges since his last DUI.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Admitted

—

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