ISCR Case 06-21485.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-21485.h1

deniedMar 23, 2009· Hon. Carol G. Ricciardello· hearing

Summary

A 53-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The applicant had a documented history of alcohol abuse, including three arrests for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in 1986, 1996, and 2005. He underwent a 28-day inpatient alcohol treatment program in 1995 and another inpatient recovery program from March to May 2005, where he was diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence. Despite continued aftercare, he experienced a relapse and admitted to ongoing alcohol consumption.

Regarding foreign influence, the applicant's wife, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in the People's Republic of China (PRC), has family residing in the PRC. Her mother and brother are citizens and residents of the PRC, and the applicant's wife maintains regular telephonic contact with her mother, sending her approximately $1,000 to $1,500 annually. The applicant's father-in-law, a PRC citizen, resides with the applicant and his wife in the U.S.

The judge determined that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of recovery from alcohol dependence. Additionally, his connections to family members in the PRC were deemed to pose a security risk. Consequently, the applicant's request for a security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long history of alcohol abuse, including multiple DUI arrests and a diagnosis of alcohol dependence.
The applicant failed to provide recent, credible evidence of abstinence or participation in a recovery program.
The applicant's foreign family ties raised concerns about potential divided loyalties and susceptibility to coercion.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G.22(c)appliedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
B.6appliedForeign Contacts and Interests

Mitigating

G.23(a)rejectedTime Passed or Infrequent BehaviorThe applicant's long history of alcohol abuse and recent relapse do not support this condition.
G.23(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Alcoholism and Evidence of Actions TakenThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of a pattern of abstinence or responsible use.
G.23(c)rejectedParticipation in Counseling or Treatment ProgramThe applicant did not provide corroborated evidence of current participation in a treatment program.
G.23(d)rejectedSuccessful Completion of Treatment and Established Pattern of AbstinenceThe applicant's claims of modified consumption were inconsistent with his diagnosis and lack of recent evidence.

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 30, 2007
Answer filedApr 4, 2007
Hearing heldJan 29, 2008Converted to administrative determination.
Decision dateMar 23, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Alcohol Dependence Issues
Impact of Foreign Family Ties on Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Evidence of Recovery From Alcohol Abuse as a Basis for Denial Under Guideline G

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant's wife was born in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and moved with her first husband to the U.S. in 1992. She became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2003.	Against Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	People's Republic of China HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant’s father-in-law is a citizen of the PRC and resides with Applicant and his wife in the U.S. Prior to their marriage he resided with Applicant’s wife since 1997.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	People's Republic of China HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant’s mother-in-law and brother-in-law are citizens and residents of the PRC. Applicant’s wife has telephonic contact with her mother one to three times a month. She sends her approximately $1,000 to $1,500 a year as a gift.	Against Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	People's Republic of China HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	No information was provided regarding how Applicant’s mother-in-law supports herself or if she receives any type of support from the PRC government. Applicant and his wife do not know how his brother-in-law is employed.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	People's Republic of China HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant's wife was born in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and moved with her first husband to the U.S. in 1992. She became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2003.

Against Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

People's Republic of China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

2.b

Applicant’s father-in-law is a citizen of the PRC and resides with Applicant and his wife in the U.S. Prior to their marriage he resided with Applicant’s wife since 1997.

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

People's Republic of China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

2.c

Applicant’s mother-in-law and brother-in-law are citizens and residents of the PRC. Applicant’s wife has telephonic contact with her mother one to three times a month. She sends her approximately $1,000 to $1,500 a year as a gift.

Against Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

People's Republic of China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

2.d

No information was provided regarding how Applicant’s mother-in-law supports herself or if she receives any type of support from the PRC government. Applicant and his wife do not know how his brother-in-law is employed.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

People's Republic of China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted he consumed alcohol, at times to excess, and to the point of intoxication, from 1971 to at least October 2005.	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	—	—
1.b	Applicant was arrested on about January 12, 1986, and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). He was found guilty, fined and placed on three years probation.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.c	Applicant was arrested on about August 10, 1996, and charged with DUI. He pleaded guilty to Reckless Driving and was fined $750, and ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and obtain alcohol counseling.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.d	Applicant was arrested on about January 25, 2005, and charged with DUI and improper left turn. Applicant was involved in a traffic accident. He hit another vehicle.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.e	Applicant was treated in a 28-day inpatient alcohol treatment program in about 1995.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant was treated in an inpatient alcohol recovery program from about March 2, 2005, to May 10, 2005, for a condition diagnosed, in part, as Alcohol Dependence with withdrawal symptoms, by a licensed substance abuse counselor under the supervision of a psychologist.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	—	—
1.g	Applicant continued weekly aftercare from February 2006 to August 2006. He had a relapse and drank alcohol a few months after starting the aftercare program after he had some dental work.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant admits in this statement that he continues to consume alcohol despite being diagnosed as alcohol dependent.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant admitted he consumed alcohol, at times to excess, and to the point of intoxication, from 1971 to at least October 2005.

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

—

1.b

Applicant was arrested on about January 12, 1986, and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). He was found guilty, fined and placed on three years probation.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

—

1.c

Applicant was arrested on about August 10, 1996, and charged with DUI. He pleaded guilty to Reckless Driving and was fined $750, and ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and obtain alcohol counseling.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

—

1.d

Applicant was arrested on about January 25, 2005, and charged with DUI and improper left turn. Applicant was involved in a traffic accident. He hit another vehicle.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

—

1.e

Applicant was treated in a 28-day inpatient alcohol treatment program in about 1995.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

—

1.f

Applicant was treated in an inpatient alcohol recovery program from about March 2, 2005, to May 10, 2005, for a condition diagnosed, in part, as Alcohol Dependence with withdrawal symptoms, by a licensed substance abuse counselor under the supervision of a psychologist.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed

—

1.g

Applicant continued weekly aftercare from February 2006 to August 2006. He had a relapse and drank alcohol a few months after starting the aftercare program after he had some dental work.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

—

1.h

Applicant admits in this statement that he continues to consume alcohol despite being diagnosed as alcohol dependent.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

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

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES