ISCR Case 12-01578.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-01578.h1

deniedJun 25, 2014· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), and G (Alcohol Consumption). The judge found that the applicant's history of alcohol abuse and financial difficulties, coupled with a lack of candor, raised significant doubts about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Specifically, the applicant had a history of alcohol abuse, including inpatient treatment in 1989 and subsequent relapses. He was arrested for DUI in 1996, resulting in a guilty plea, jail time, probation, and a fine of approximately $1,215. In August 2008, he was again arrested for DUI and other charges, pleading guilty to having a measurable blood alcohol content, leading to probation, public service, and a fine of approximately $1,942. He deliberately failed to inform his Facility Security Officer of the 2008 DUI arrest, admitting this omission in a 2011 interview and a 2013 interrogatory.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide truthful answers on an October 2011 e-Quip form regarding overdue debts, denying any bills turned over to collections, suspended accounts, or debts over 120 days delinquent. As of October 2013, he had 34 overdue debts totaling $123,042 and had filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in February 2012, which was still in progress. These issues collectively led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a history of excessive alcohol consumption leading to multiple DUI arrests.
The applicant failed to disclose his 2008 DUI arrest to his Facility Security Officer, demonstrating a lack of candor.
The applicant had unresolved financial issues, including a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and numerous overdue debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedBinge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission or Concealment
AG ¶ 18appliedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)appliedLast Alcohol-related Incident Occurred a Significant Time Ago
AG ¶ 23(b)rejectedEvidence of RehabilitationThe judge found insufficient evidence of sustained rehabilitation despite the applicant's claims.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 30, 2013
Answer filedNov 20, 2013
Hearing heldMar 5, 2014via video teleconference
Decision dateJun 25, 2014

Cite For

Lack of Candor in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Impact of Alcohol-related Incidents on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline G
Financial Difficulties as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F

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	Applicant deliberately failed to inform his Facility Security Officer of his August 2008 DUI arrest because he was ashamed, embarrassed, did not want the people at work to know about it, and he feared losing his job. It was also alleged that Applicant conceded his failure to inform his Facility Security Officer in a Personal Subject Interview dated October 19, 2011, and in a response to an interrogatory sent to him on March 28, 2013.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant failed to provide truthful and candid answers to Questions asked under section 26 of an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-Quip), executed by him on October 4, 2011. The questions asked whether in the last seven years, Applicant has had any bills turned over to a collection agency; Applicant has had any account or credit card suspended, charged off or canceled for failing to pay as agreed; or whether Applicant had been over 120 days delinquent on any debt. It also asked if Applicant is currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt. Applicant answered, 'No,' to all of these questions and listed no debts. It is alleged that Applicant deliberately failed to disclose that information concerning his finances and overdue debts as set forth in subparagraphs 3.b. through 3.u., below.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant deliberately failed to inform his Facility Security Officer of his August 2008 DUI arrest because he was ashamed, embarrassed, did not want the people at work to know about it, and he feared losing his job. It was also alleged that Applicant conceded his failure to inform his Facility Security Officer in a Personal Subject Interview dated October 19, 2011, and in a response to an interrogatory sent to him on March 28, 2013.

Against Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

—

2.b

Applicant failed to provide truthful and candid answers to Questions asked under section 26 of an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-Quip), executed by him on October 4, 2011. The questions asked whether in the last seven years, Applicant has had any bills turned over to a collection agency; Applicant has had any account or credit card suspended, charged off or canceled for failing to pay as agreed; or whether Applicant had been over 120 days delinquent on any debt. It also asked if Applicant is currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt. Applicant answered, 'No,' to all of these questions and listed no debts. It is alleged that Applicant deliberately failed to disclose that information concerning his finances and overdue debts as set forth in subparagraphs 3.b. through 3.u., below.

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Financial

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	The SOR alleges that in February 2012, Applicant filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court, and that the bankruptcy is still in progress.	Against Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
3.b	The SOR alleges that Applicant has 34 overdue debts, totaling $123,042, that remained unpaid as of the date of the Statement of Reasons, October 30, 2013. $123,042	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.c–3.i	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

The SOR alleges that in February 2012, Applicant filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court, and that the bankruptcy is still in progress.

Against Applicant

Bankruptcy Filing

Admitted

(a) inability to satisfy debts

—

3.b

The SOR alleges that Applicant has 34 overdue debts, totaling $123,042, that remained unpaid as of the date of the Statement of Reasons, October 30, 2013.

$123,042

Against Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations

—

3.c–3.i

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

Against Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	It is alleged in the SOR that despite Applicant undergoing inpatient chemical and alcohol abuse treatment in 1989, he suffered alcohol abuse relapses as described in allegations 1.b. and 1.d., below.	For Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.b	It is alleged in the SOR that in 1996, Applicant was arrested and charged with (1) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and or Drugs (DUI), (2) Driving with .08% or higher Blood Alcohol Count, and (3) Failure to Pay the Fine. Count (2) was dismissed, and Applicant pled guilty to Count (1) and was sentenced to five days in jail, probation for five years, restricted driving privileges during probationary period, and community service. He was also ordered to pay a fine of approximately $1,215, and to complete an alcohol awareness program.	For 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	It is alleged in the SOR that despite Applicant completing a court ordered alcohol rehabilitation program in 1996, he suffered an alcohol abuse relapse as described in allegation 1.d., below.	For Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.d	It is alleged in the SOR that in August 2008, Applicant was arrested and charged with (1) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and or Drugs (DUI), (2) Having a Measurable Blood Alcohol Content Level, and (3) Failure to Use Child Passenger Seat Restraints. Count (1) was dismissed, and Applicant pled guilty to Count (2) and was sentenced to summary probation for five years, 179 days custody pending, 14 days public service, attend a First Conviction program for nine months, and attend one Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting a week for 18 months. Applicant’s driving privileges were also restricted for six months, and he was fined approximately $1,942.	For 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	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

It is alleged in the SOR that despite Applicant undergoing inpatient chemical and alcohol abuse treatment in 1989, he suffered alcohol abuse relapses as described in allegations 1.b. and 1.d., below.

For Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

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

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

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

1.b

It is alleged in the SOR that in 1996, Applicant was arrested and charged with (1) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and or Drugs (DUI), (2) Driving with .08% or higher Blood Alcohol Count, and (3) Failure to Pay the Fine. Count (2) was dismissed, and Applicant pled guilty to Count (1) and was sentenced to five days in jail, probation for five years, restricted driving privileges during probationary period, and community service. He was also ordered to pay a fine of approximately $1,215, and to complete an alcohol awareness program.

For 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

It is alleged in the SOR that despite Applicant completing a court ordered alcohol rehabilitation program in 1996, he suffered an alcohol abuse relapse as described in allegation 1.d., below.

For Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

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

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

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

1.d

It is alleged in the SOR that in August 2008, Applicant was arrested and charged with (1) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and or Drugs (DUI), (2) Having a Measurable Blood Alcohol Content Level, and (3) Failure to Use Child Passenger Seat Restraints. Count (1) was dismissed, and Applicant pled guilty to Count (2) and was sentenced to summary probation for five years, 179 days custody pending, 14 days public service, attend a First Conviction program for nine months, and attend one Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting a week for 18 months. Applicant’s driving privileges were also restricted for six months, and he was fined approximately $1,942.

For 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

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

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