ISCR Case 12-05850.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-05850.h1

deniedJan 31, 2013· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old male with a master's degree in electrical engineering was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant's history included excessive alcohol use, abuse of prescription medications, and the falsification of a security clearance affidavit.

Specifically, the applicant had a history of binge drinking and driving under the influence, leading to a diagnosis of alcohol abuse. His alcohol consumption remained high, and he had not sought treatment. The applicant also deliberately omitted, concealed, or falsified relevant facts on a security questionnaire, including an affidavit regarding his alcohol abuse diagnosis, which undermined his credibility.

The judge found that the applicant's history of excessive alcohol consumption, including multiple blackouts and driving under the influence, combined with his failure to seek treatment and the falsification of an affidavit, demonstrated a lack of candor and an unwillingness to comply with regulations. Despite some mitigating conditions being considered, the applicant failed to adequately address the concerns, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's history of excessive alcohol consumption included multiple blackouts and driving under the influence without any arrests.
The applicant falsified an affidavit regarding his alcohol abuse diagnosis, which undermined his credibility.
The applicant did not seek treatment for his alcohol abuse and maintained a high level of consumption prior to the hearing.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.22.araisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G.22.craisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
G.22.draisedDiagnosis of Alcohol Abuse or Dependence
E.16.aappliedDeliberate Omission or Falsification of Relevant Facts
E.16.dappliedCredible Adverse Information Indicating Questionable Judgment

Mitigating

G.23.arejectedBehavior Infrequent or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's alcohol consumption was frequent and included serious incidents.
G.23.brejectedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Issues and Evidence of Actions TakenThe applicant did not demonstrate a pattern of responsible use or seek treatment.

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”
— AG ¶ 21

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 31, 2012
Answer filedSep 22, 2012
Hearing heldDec 17, 2012
Decision dateJan 31, 2013

Cite For

Excessive Alcohol Consumption Leading to Security Concerns Under Guideline G
Falsification of Information in the Security Clearance Process Under Guideline E
Failure to Demonstrate Rehabilitation or Responsible Use of Alcohol

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	Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	Credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
2.c–2.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

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

—

2.b

Credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior

—

2.c–2.d

2 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	Applicant has a history of binge drinking and driving under the influence of alcohol resulting in a diagnosis of alcohol abuse.	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 (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.b	Applicant's alcohol consumption remains too high and he has not sought treatment for his alcohol abuse.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has a history of binge drinking and driving under the influence of alcohol resulting in a diagnosis of alcohol abuse.

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

(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional

—

1.b

Applicant's alcohol consumption remains too high and he has not sought treatment for his alcohol abuse.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

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

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

(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional

—

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