ISCR Case 08-11563.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-11563.h1

deniedJun 7, 2010· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old technical writer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol-related incidents and unresolved financial difficulties.

Specifically, the applicant had multiple DUI arrests, including one in April 2007, which resulted in probation, fines, and alcohol education, and another in October 2008. Her alcohol consumption also necessitated detoxification and inpatient treatment. While she disclosed her 2007 DUI, she failed to report a 1996 arrest, explaining she misunderstood the reporting requirements.

Financially, the applicant experienced mortgage payment issues starting in February 2007 after a layoff in December 2007. She also had several unresolved debts, including medical bills for her son and herself, a utility bill, and other outstanding obligations, some lacking documentation of payment or settlement. Despite some rehabilitation efforts, the judge found insufficient time had passed to establish a consistent pattern of alcohol abstinence, and the undisclosed DUI raised concerns about her reliability, leading to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple DUI arrests, indicating a pattern of excessive alcohol consumption.
The applicant failed to disclose a prior DUI arrest from 1996, raising questions about her honesty and reliability.
Insufficient time had passed since the applicant's last alcohol-related incident to demonstrate rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
E ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

G ¶ 23(b)rejectedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Issues and Actions Taken to Overcome ThemWhile the applicant acknowledged her alcohol issues, insufficient time had passed to establish a pattern of abstinence.
G ¶ 23(c)appliedCurrent Employee Participating in a Counseling or Treatment ProgramThe applicant was participating in aftercare and making progress.
G ¶ 23(d)rejectedSuccessful Completion of Counseling or RehabilitationAlthough the applicant completed treatment, she had not demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the AG.”
— Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 15, 2009
Answer filedNov 23, 2009Applicant's response was undated.
Hearing heldFeb 18, 2010
Decision dateJun 7, 2010

Cite For

Denial Based on Multiple Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
Failure to Disclose Prior Arrests Under Guideline E
Insufficient Time to Demonstrate Rehabilitation After Alcohol Treatment 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	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	When Applicant submitted her most recent security clearance application, she disclosed her April 2007 DUI arrest, but she did not disclose her 1996 arrest. She explained that she misunderstood the question and believed that she was required to report only arrests that occurred in the seven years preceding her application.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	Applicant’s record of DUI arrests raises AG ¶ 22(a). Her level of intoxication when she was arrested for DUI and her testimony about her drinking habits raise AG ¶ 22(c).	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.c	Applicant began falling behind on her home mortgage payments in February 2007. She was laid off from her job in December 2007 until she started her current job in January 2008.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

When Applicant submitted her most recent security clearance application, she disclosed her April 2007 DUI arrest, but she did not disclose her 1996 arrest. She explained that she misunderstood the question and believed that she was required to report only arrests that occurred in the seven years preceding her application.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

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

—

2.b

Applicant’s record of DUI arrests raises AG ¶ 22(a). Her level of intoxication when she was arrested for DUI and her testimony about her drinking habits raise AG ¶ 22(c).

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

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

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

—

2.c

Applicant began falling behind on her home mortgage payments in February 2007. She was laid off from her job in December 2007 until she started her current job in January 2008.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant has a medical debt for her son’s medical treatment that has not been resolved.	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.b	Applicant has a utility bill that she made payments on in 2008 but has not reached a settlement agreement.	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.c	Applicant has a medical debt that was submitted to her insurance company but was denied due to a preexisting condition.	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.d	Applicant has not resolved the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.d.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.e	Applicant has a debt that was stated to be paid in full, but it refers to a different account from the debt alleged in the SOR.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.f	Applicant submitted a medical debt to her insurance company in 2005, but it has not been resolved.	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.g	Applicant has not contacted the creditor alleged in SOR ¶ 3.g.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.h	Applicant could not identify the creditor alleged in SOR ¶ 3.h.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.i	Applicant testified that she made payments on the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.i, but provided no documentation.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.j	The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.j was paid, but no documentation was provided.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.k	The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.k was consolidated with another debt, but no documentation was provided.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.l	Applicant testified that she paid about $300 on the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.m, but provided no documentation of payment.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant has a medical debt for her son’s medical treatment that has not been resolved.

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.b

Applicant has a utility bill that she made payments on in 2008 but has not reached a settlement agreement.

Against Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.c

Applicant has a medical debt that was submitted to her insurance company but was denied due to a preexisting condition.

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.d

Applicant has not resolved the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.d.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.e

Applicant has a debt that was stated to be paid in full, but it refers to a different account from the debt alleged in the SOR.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.f

Applicant submitted a medical debt to her insurance company in 2005, but it has not been resolved.

Against Applicant

Medical Debt

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.g

Applicant has not contacted the creditor alleged in SOR ¶ 3.g.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.h

Applicant could not identify the creditor alleged in SOR ¶ 3.h.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.i

Applicant testified that she made payments on the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.i, but provided no documentation.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.j

The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.j was paid, but no documentation was provided.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.k

The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.k was consolidated with another debt, but no documentation was provided.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.l

Applicant testified that she paid about $300 on the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 3.m, but provided no documentation of payment.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant was arrested for DUI in April 2007; pleaded guilty; was sentenced to probation for six months, fines and fees totaling about $972; and was required to complete alcohol education and intervention classes.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.b	The applicant was arrested for DUI in October 2008.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.c	The applicant’s excessive consumption of alcohol required alcohol detoxification and inpatient treatment, and that she was discharged from treatment with a fair prognosis dependent on compliance with aftercare recommendations.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant was arrested for DUI in April 2007; pleaded guilty; was sentenced to probation for six months, fines and fees totaling about $972; and was required to complete alcohol education and intervention classes.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

—

1.b

The applicant was arrested for DUI in October 2008.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

—

1.c

The applicant’s excessive consumption of alcohol required alcohol detoxification and inpatient treatment, and that she was discharged from treatment with a fair prognosis dependent on compliance with aftercare recommendations.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

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

—

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