ISCR Case 09-06621.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-06621.h1

deniedJul 1, 2009· Hon. Rita C. O'Brien· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of alcohol consumption leading to intoxication since his teenage years, including at least two instances of driving while intoxicated, resulting in arrests. He was convicted of negligent driving in 2007 and driving while impaired in 2009.

Following the 2009 DWI, the applicant completed an alcohol treatment program. However, he resumed drinking alcohol a few months later, maintaining a similar pattern of consumption as in the past. While evaluated and not diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependence, his continued alcohol use and recent DUI offenses raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.

The applicant's criminal conduct included three arrests between 2003 and 2009. His decisions to drive while intoxicated in 2007 and 2009 demonstrated a serious disregard for rules and public safety. During a two-year probation period from July 2007 to July 2009, he was arrested for driving under the influence in a different state, which violated his probation and could have led to the reinstatement of a jail sentence if reported. The security clearance was ultimately denied due to his history of alcohol-related incidents, continued alcohol consumption after treatment, and failure to report a probation violation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUIs, which raise questions about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant's continued alcohol consumption after treatment indicates a lack of commitment to addressing his alcohol use issues.
The applicant failed to report a probation violation related to his DUI, demonstrating a disregard for legal obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)appliedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 31(a)appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
AG ¶ 31(d)appliedViolation of Parole or Probation

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(d)appliedSuccessful Completion of Counseling or RehabilitationThe applicant completed an alcohol treatment program but resumed drinking shortly after.
AG ¶ 32(d)appliedEvidence of Successful RehabilitationThe applicant demonstrated some rehabilitation by attending counseling and receiving positive recommendations from co-workers.

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance decision resolves only the question of 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 issuedJun 10, 2010
Answer filedJun 24, 2010
Hearing heldNov 9, 2010
Decision dateFeb 14, 2011

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Alcohol-related Criminal Conduct
Impact of Recent DUI Offenses on Security Clearance Eligibility
Failure to Demonstrate Rehabilitation in the Context of Ongoing Alcohol Use

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication at times since his teenage years. On at least two occasions, he drove after becoming intoxicated and was subsequently arrested.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b	Applicant was convicted of a lesser offense of negligent driving in 2007. In 2009, he was convicted of driving while impaired.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.c	Applicant participated in an alcohol treatment program following the 2009 DWI.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant resumed drinking alcohol a few months after completing the program, and currently drinks alcohol in about the same pattern as he has in the past.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant has been evaluated, and has not been diagnosed as either an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication at times since his teenage years. On at least two occasions, he drove after becoming intoxicated and was subsequently arrested.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

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

—

1.b

Applicant was convicted of a lesser offense of negligent driving in 2007. In 2009, he was convicted of driving while impaired.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

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

—

1.c

Applicant participated in an alcohol treatment program following the 2009 DWI.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

—

1.d

Applicant resumed drinking alcohol a few months after completing the program, and currently drinks alcohol in about the same pattern as he has in the past.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

—

1.e

Applicant has been evaluated, and has not been diagnosed as either an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested three times on criminal charges between 2003 and 2009. His decision to drive after becoming intoxicated in 2007 and 2009 show a serious disregard for rules, and for the public safety. In 2007, Applicant was sentenced in state A to two years of probation, which ran from July 2007 to July 2009. During that period, Applicant was arrested in state B for driving under the influence of alcohol. Applicant's conduct violated his probation in state A, and, if reported, would have resulted in reinstatement of his jail sentence.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program	—	—
2.b	Many years have passed since Applicant engaged in the conduct of 2002 and 2003. The state withdrew the 2003 charge in the domestic violence case. Moreover, the 2002 conduct listed at allegation 2.c. is not criminal in nature.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
2.c	Applicant engaged in serious criminal conduct in 2007 and 2009. These two offenses involving driving after drinking alcohol are both serious and recent. Both reflect poorly on his judgment. As neither of them occurred in unusual circumstances, and Applicant continues to drink alcohol, it is possible that such conduct may occur in the future. Applicant's conduct casts serious doubt on his trustworthiness and good judgment.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was arrested three times on criminal charges between 2003 and 2009. His decision to drive after becoming intoxicated in 2007 and 2009 show a serious disregard for rules, and for the public safety. In 2007, Applicant was sentenced in state A to two years of probation, which ran from July 2007 to July 2009. During that period, Applicant was arrested in state B for driving under the influence of alcohol. Applicant's conduct violated his probation in state A, and, if reported, would have resulted in reinstatement of his jail sentence.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(d) violation of parole/probation or failure to complete a court program

—

2.b

Many years have passed since Applicant engaged in the conduct of 2002 and 2003. The state withdrew the 2003 charge in the domestic violence case. Moreover, the 2002 conduct listed at allegation 2.c. is not criminal in nature.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

—

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

2.c

Applicant engaged in serious criminal conduct in 2007 and 2009. These two offenses involving driving after drinking alcohol are both serious and recent. Both reflect poorly on his judgment. As neither of them occurred in unusual circumstances, and Applicant continues to drink alcohol, it is possible that such conduct may occur in the future. Applicant's conduct casts serious doubt on his trustworthiness and good judgment.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

—

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 MATTERS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES