ISCR Case 06-23241.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-23241.h1

deniedJul 1, 2006· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old Department of Defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol-related offenses and issues with personal conduct, including multiple DUI arrests.

The Statement of Reasons cited the applicant's failure to disclose all relevant alcohol-related incidents and providing false information on the SF-86 security clearance application. Additionally, the applicant's excessive alcohol consumption was noted as leading to questionable judgment and raising doubts about reliability and trustworthiness. Specific concerns included a diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence, habitual consumption leading to impaired judgment, and a pattern of alcohol-related incidents away from work. The applicant also failed to comply with treatment or aftercare and continued to drink contrary to advice.

Despite acknowledging past alcohol abuse and multiple DUIs, the applicant admitted to ongoing alcohol consumption and questionable judgment while drinking. The denial was ultimately based on the applicant's long history of alcohol-related offenses, failure to participate in recommended counseling, and lack of demonstrated abstinence, which collectively prevented a finding of sufficient rehabilitation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long history of alcohol-related offenses, including multiple DUIs.
The applicant admitted to ongoing alcohol consumption and acknowledged questionable judgment when drinking.
The applicant failed to participate in recommended alcohol counseling and did not demonstrate a clear pattern of abstinence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 31(a)raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
AG ¶ 31(c)raisedAllegation or Admission of Criminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant did not demonstrate a clear pattern of abstinence or rehabilitation.
AG ¶ 23(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Alcoholism and Actions Taken to Overcome ItThe applicant continues to consume alcohol and does not participate in counseling.

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 issuedDec 28, 2007
Answer filedJan 20, 2008
Hearing heldJun 5, 2008
Decision dateJun 27, 2008

Cite For

Long History of Alcohol-related Offenses Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
Failure to Demonstrate Rehabilitation Despite Acknowledgment of Alcohol Issues
Impact of Personal Conduct on Trustworthiness and Reliability Under Guideline E

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	Applicant failed to disclose relevant information on his Security Clearance Application (SF-86) regarding his alcohol-related incidents.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
3.b	Applicant provided false information on his Security Clearance Application (SF-86) by not listing all his alcohol-related arrests.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant failed to disclose relevant information on his Security Clearance Application (SF-86) regarding his alcohol-related incidents.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

3.b

Applicant provided false information on his Security Clearance Application (SF-86) by not listing all his alcohol-related arrests.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Unknown	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
2.b	The individual is diagnosed by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Unknown	—	—	—
2.c	The individual has a habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Unknown	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
2.d	The individual has 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 whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Unknown	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
2.e	The individual has failed to comply with treatment or aftercare for alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Unknown	—	—	—
2.f	The individual has continued to drink alcohol after being diagnosed with alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence, contrary to treatment advice.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Unknown	—	—	—
2.g	The individual has established a pattern of alcohol-related incidents, including driving under the influence, that raises questions about the individual's reliability and trustworthiness.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Unknown	—	—	—
2.h	The individual has been arrested for alcohol-related incidents, including driving under the influence, that raises questions about the individual's reliability and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Unknown	—	—	—
2.i	The individual has been involved in alcohol-related incidents that raise questions about the individual's reliability and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Unknown	—	—	—
2.j	The individual has a history of alcohol-related incidents that raise questions about the individual's reliability and trustworthiness.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Unknown

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

—

2.b

The individual is diagnosed by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Unknown

—

2.c

The individual has a habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Unknown

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

—

2.d

The individual has 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 whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Unknown

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

—

2.e

The individual has failed to comply with treatment or aftercare for alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Unknown

—

2.f

The individual has continued to drink alcohol after being diagnosed with alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence, contrary to treatment advice.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Unknown

—

2.g

The individual has established a pattern of alcohol-related incidents, including driving under the influence, that raises questions about the individual's reliability and trustworthiness.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Unknown

—

2.h

The individual has been arrested for alcohol-related incidents, including driving under the influence, that raises questions about the individual's reliability and trustworthiness.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Unknown

—

2.i

The individual has been involved in alcohol-related incidents that raise questions about the individual's reliability and trustworthiness.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Unknown

—

2.j

The individual has a history of alcohol-related incidents that raise questions about the individual's reliability and trustworthiness.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a–1.k	11 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (6 against, 5 for the applicant).	Mixed		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a–1.k

11 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (6 against, 5 for the applicant).

Mixed

—

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