ISCR Case 08-07337.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-07337.h1

deniedMay 21, 2009· Hon. Rita C. O'Brien· hearing

Summary

A 53-year-old electronics technician was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had $5,300 in delinquent debts owed to ten creditors and failed to file federal income tax returns for 2002 and 2006.

Additionally, the applicant had a history of five arrests for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol between 1977 and 2006. He was evaluated as alcohol dependent by a Licensed Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselor and completed a treatment program in 2007, receiving a diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence in Early Partial Remission. However, he later resumed drinking alcohol, admitting during an interview that his judgment was impaired when he drove while intoxicated.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to sufficiently mitigate the security concerns. Specifically, there was no consistent repayment plan for the delinquent debts, and the resumption of alcohol consumption after treatment indicated a lack of rehabilitation. Consequently, granting access to classified information was deemed inconsistent with the national interest, and the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a history of $5,320 in delinquent debts, with no evidence of a consistent repayment plan.
Applicant failed to file federal income tax returns for 2002 and 2006, raising concerns about judgment and reliability.
Applicant has multiple DUI convictions and resumed alcohol consumption after treatment, indicating a lack of rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 18raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 31(a)raisedCriminal Conduct

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsApplicant did not provide proof of a track record of payments or resolution of debts.
AG ¶ 23(b)rejectedAlcohol ConsumptionApplicant did not establish a pattern of abstinence after treatment.
AG ¶ 32(d)rejectedCriminal ConductApplicant's recent criminal conduct undermines claims of rehabilitation.

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an Applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 7, 2008Applicant received SOR on November 17, 2008.
Answer filedNov 25, 2008Applicant requested an administrative decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing was held; decision made based on written submissions.
Decision dateMay 21, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Impact of Alcohol-related Offenses on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of Criminal History in Security Clearance Decisions

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant owes $5,300 in delinquent debts to ten creditors. $5,300	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant failed to file his federal income tax returns for tax years 2002 and 2006.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e–1.n	10 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

1.a

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.b

Applicant owes $5,300 in delinquent debts to ten creditors.

$5,300

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.c

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

—

1.d

Applicant failed to file his federal income tax returns for tax years 2002 and 2006.

Against Applicant

Tax Filing Failure

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

1.e–1.n

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

For Applicant

—

¶	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	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
2.b	The applicant has been arrested on charges of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in 1977, 1978, 1997, 1999, and 2006.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
2.c	The applicant's history of excessive alcohol use, as well as the poor judgment he displayed by driving after becoming intoxicated, implicate AG ¶ 22(c).	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
2.d	The applicant was evaluated as Alcohol Dependent by a Licensed Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselor (LADAC).	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Denied	(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment	—	—
2.e	The applicant completed a treatment program and was discharged in 2007 with a diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence in Early Partial Remission and a positive prognosis.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Denied	(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment	—	—
2.f	The applicant admitted during his investigative interview that he drove when intoxicated because his thinking and judgment were clouded by the alcohol.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
2.g	The applicant's decision to return to drinking alcohol casts serious doubt on his current good judgment.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Denied	(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment	—	—
2.h	The applicant has not established a pattern of abstinence, as he had resumed drinking alcohol.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Denied	(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment	—	—

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

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Denied

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

—

2.b

The applicant has been arrested on charges of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in 1977, 1978, 1997, 1999, and 2006.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Denied

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

—

2.c

The applicant's history of excessive alcohol use, as well as the poor judgment he displayed by driving after becoming intoxicated, implicate AG ¶ 22(c).

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied

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

—

2.d

The applicant was evaluated as Alcohol Dependent by a Licensed Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselor (LADAC).

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Denied

(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment

—

2.e

The applicant completed a treatment program and was discharged in 2007 with a diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence in Early Partial Remission and a positive prognosis.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Denied

(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment

—

2.f

The applicant admitted during his investigative interview that he drove when intoxicated because his thinking and judgment were clouded by the alcohol.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Denied

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

—

2.g

The applicant's decision to return to drinking alcohol casts serious doubt on his current good judgment.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Denied

(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment

—

2.h

The applicant has not established a pattern of abstinence, as he had resumed drinking alcohol.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Denied

(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a–3.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a–3.d

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

Against Applicant

—

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 RULINGS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES