CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09898.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 08-09898.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/30/2010
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 08-09898.a1) →
Participants
Judge: Darlene D. Lokey-Anderson
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to alcohol consumption, indicating a history of excessive alcohol abuse and multiple alcohol-related offenses. The applicant's pattern of drinking and related incidents raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · 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. 08-09898.h1

deniedAug 30, 2010· Hon. Darlene D. Lokey-Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old Project Manager with a Bachelor's Degree in Architecture was denied a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) due to a history of excessive alcohol abuse and multiple DUI offenses. The applicant's alcohol abuse reportedly spanned from 1973 to at least September 2008. Over a sixteen-year period, the applicant was charged, arrested, and convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol on three separate occasions, and once for being Drunk in Public.

Following at least two DUI arrests, including the most recent in 2008, the applicant completed court-ordered alcohol rehabilitation programs. Despite no formal diagnosis of alcoholism in the record, the pattern of drinking and multiple alcohol-related offenses indicated a serious alcohol problem.

The denial was based on the applicant's long history of alcohol abuse, including multiple DUI arrests, and a lack of evidence demonstrating a significant period of abstinence or responsible alcohol use since the last arrest in 2008. The applicant's pattern of alcohol-related offenses was found to indicate poor judgment and unreliability.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long history of alcohol abuse, including multiple DUI arrests.
There is no evidence of a significant period of abstinence or responsible alcohol use since his last arrest in 2008.
The applicant's pattern of alcohol-related offenses indicates poor judgment and unreliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information is predicted upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 23, 2009
Answer filedFeb 23, 2010
Hearing heldMay 20, 2010Hearing rescheduled from May 17, 2010.
Decision dateAug 30, 2010

Cite For

History of Alcohol-related Offenses Under Guideline G
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation for Alcohol Abuse
Poor Judgment and Unreliability Due to Alcohol Consumption

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 G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to alcohol consumption, indicating a history of excessive alcohol abuse and multiple alcohol-related offenses. The applicant's pattern of drinking and related incidents raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant has a history of excessive alcohol abuse that has continued off and on from 1973, until at least September 2008.	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.b	Over the past sixteen years of a thirty-five year period, the Applicant was charged, arrested and convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol on three separate occasions, and once for being Drunk in Public.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.c	Following at least two of his arrests for DUI, including his most recent arrest of 2008, the Applicant participated in and completed a court ordered alcohol rehabilitation program.	Against 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.d	There is no evidence in the record that he has ever been formally diagnosed with alcoholism, but his pattern of drinking, involving multiple alcohol related offenses, indicates a serious alcohol problem.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.e	Although there is no formal diagnosis in the record of alcohol dependence, the Applicant’s pattern of alcohol abuse is clearly indicative of a serious alcohol problem.	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	—	—

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

Full decision

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