CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-17921.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 07-17921.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date1/23/2009
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Joseph Testan
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found for the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, determining that the allegations were not a legally proper use of the guideline. As a result, the personal conduct concerns were resolved in favor of the applicant.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-17921.h1

deniedJan 23, 2009· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 48-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a long history of criminal conduct and significant financial delinquencies.

The applicant's criminal record included a 1981 conviction for Theft, a 1982 conviction for Malicious Destruction of Property resulting in a one-year jail sentence, and a 1985 conviction for Disorderly Conduct and Prowling and Loitering. In 1986, he was convicted of Driving While License Suspended or Revoked and Reckless Driving. A 1988 conviction for felony Burglary and Possession of Burglary tools led to a three-month jail sentence. Further convictions included selling or consuming alcoholic beverages on city property in 1990, Driving with No Valid Drivers License in 1991, and two convictions for Driving While License Suspended or Revoked in 1992.

Financially, the applicant was indebted to the IRS for approximately $17,773.00 in back taxes. Additional debts included approximately $1,442.00 to NCO Financial, approximately $3,338.00 to AAC, and approximately $300.00 to ACE on an account more than 180 days delinquent. The judge found that the applicant's multiple convictions raised significant doubts about his judgment and reliability, and he provided no credible evidence of addressing his financial delinquencies, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long history of serious criminal conduct, including multiple convictions.
The applicant has significant financial delinquencies and provided no credible evidence of addressing them.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J.31.araisedCriminal Conduct
F.19.araisedFinancial Considerations
F.19.craisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— Directive, Paragraph E2.2.2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 22, 2008
Answer filedJul 25, 2008
Hearing held—Applicant appeared pro se.
Decision dateJan 23, 2009

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline J Due to Multiple Criminal Convictions
Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline F Due to Financial Delinquencies
The Importance of Credible Evidence of Rehabilitation in Security Clearance Cases

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found for the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, determining that the allegations were not a legally proper use of the guideline. As a result, the personal conduct concerns were resolved in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–2.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had multiple financial delinquencies, including debts to the IRS and various collection accounts, which raised significant security concerns under Guideline F. Despite the applicant's claims, the judge concluded that none of the mitigating factors applied, resulting in a decision against the applicant regarding financial considerations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
4.a	Applicant is indebted to the IRS in the approximate amount of $17,773.00 for back taxes. $17,773	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
4.b	Applicant is indebted to NCO Financial in the approximate amount of $1,442.00 on an account that was referred for collection. $1,442	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
4.c	Applicant is indebted to AAC in the approximate amount of $3,338.00 on an account that was referred for collection. $3,338	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
4.d	Applicant is indebted to ACE on an account that is more than 180 days delinquent in the approximate amount of $300.00. $300	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the evidence presented by the government regarding alcohol consumption did not establish a prima facie case against the applicant. The applicant had a DUI charge that was dismissed and a low-level alcohol-related conviction from over 17 years ago. Therefore, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant under Guideline G.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	In 1986, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI, and the charge was dismissed.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	In 1990, he was convicted of selling or consuming alcoholic beverages on city property.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations under Guideline J, citing a long history of serious criminal offenses. The applicant's multiple convictions raised significant security concerns that were not mitigated by any evidence of rehabilitation or reform.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In or about November 1981, applicant was arrested and charged with (1) Breaking and Entering with Intent to Steal and (2) Theft. He was convicted of the Theft charge and fined.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.b	In or about December 1981, applicant was arrested and charged with (1) Breaking and Entering and (2) Theft, both felonies.	Against Applicant	Trespassing or Burglary	Charged Not Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.c	In or about February 1982, applicant was arrested and charged with Malicious Destruction of Property. He was convicted of the charge and sentenced to one year in jail.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.d	In or about February 1982, applicant was charged with (1) Breaking and Entering and (2) Theft.	Against Applicant	Trespassing or Burglary	Charged Not Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.e	In 1984, applicant was arrested and charged with Theft three separate times. There is no credible evidence that any of the arrests resulted in a conviction.	Against Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Arrested Not Charged	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.f	In 1985, applicant was arrested and charged with (1) Disorderly Conduct and Prowling and (2) Loitering. He was convicted and sentenced to two days in jail.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.g	In 1986, applicant was arrested and charged with (1) Driving Under the Influence (DUI), (2) Driving While License Suspended or Revoked, and (3) Reckless Driving. The DUI charge was dropped, and applicant was convicted of the other two charges. He was sentenced to one day in jail.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.h	In 1987, applicant was arrested and charged with Contempt of Court in connection with a prior reckless driving case against him.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Charged Not Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.i	In 1988, applicant was arrested for, charged with, and convicted of Burglary and Possession of Burglary tools, both felonies, and sentenced to three months in jail.	Against Applicant	Trespassing or Burglary	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.j	In 1990, applicant was convicted of selling or consuming alcoholic beverages on city property and was sentenced to one day in jail.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.k	In 1991, applicant was convicted of Driving with No Valid Drivers License and was sentenced to two days in jail.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.l	In 1992, applicant was twice convicted of Driving While License Suspended or Revoked. He was sentenced to two days in jail on the first conviction and ten days in jail on the second.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.