ISCR Case 12-07958.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-07958.h1

deniedJun 6, 2013· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 53-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The judge determined that the applicant's actions demonstrated questionable judgment and unreliability, raising significant doubts about his suitability for access to classified information.

The Statement of Reasons detailed several allegations. These included an arrest and conviction for Exposure of Sexual Organs, resulting in a fine, a psychological evaluation, and restrictions on contact and location. Additionally, the applicant faced charges in February 2009 for Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated and other traffic offenses, leading to a one-year loss of driving privileges despite the dismissal of charges. Earlier incidents included an April 2003 arrest for Reckless Driving, resulting in a fine, probation, and self-improvement classes, and an October 1982 arrest for Driving Under the Influence, which led to a fine, license suspension, and probation.

The applicant's history also included allegations of excessive alcohol consumption from approximately 1974 to at least 2011, often to the point of intoxication, which was linked to his criminal behavior. The judge concluded that the applicant's pattern of criminal conduct, excessive alcohol use, and sexual misconduct indicated a lack of discretion and impaired judgment, ultimately leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant engaged in multiple acts of criminal conduct from 1982 to 2011, including sexual misconduct and alcohol-related offenses.
The applicant's history of excessive alcohol consumption was linked to impaired judgment and criminal behavior.
The applicant's sexual conduct was deemed criminal and indicative of a lack of discretion.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 13(a)appliedSexual Behavior of a Criminal Nature
AG ¶ 16(d)appliedCredible Adverse Information
AG ¶ 22(a)appliedExcessive Alcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 31(a)appliedMultiple Lesser Offenses
AG ¶ 31(c)appliedAdmissions of Criminal Conduct

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 issuedSep 20, 2012
Answer filedNov 13, 2012Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Hearing heldMay 3, 2013Hearing conducted as scheduled.
Decision dateJun 6, 2013

Cite For

Evaluation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Assessment of Excessive Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G
Consideration of Sexual Conduct Under Guideline D

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
4.a	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct, reviewed in Paragraph 1a, above, constitutes sexual behavior that is either criminal, indicates a personality or emotional disorder, or reflects lack of judgement or discretion.	Against Applicant	Criminal Sexual Conduct	Denied	(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

4.a

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct, reviewed in Paragraph 1a, above, constitutes sexual behavior that is either criminal, indicates a personality or emotional disorder, or reflects lack of judgement or discretion.

Against Applicant

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Denied

(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant was arrested and charged with Exposure of Sexual Organs, and that Applicant pled nolo contendere and was found guilty. He was fined and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation and any follow up treatment required, to have no contact with any of the witnesses and not to return to the location of the offense.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
1.b	The SOR alleges that in February 2009, Applicant was charged with (1) Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated, (2) Speeding, (3) Unsafe Lane Change, and (4) No Signal Prior to Lane Change. Applicant refused to perform field sobriety tests and the charges were dismissed, but Applicant lost his driving privileges in the state for one year.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
1.c	The SOR alleges that in April 2003, Applicant was arrested and charged with Reckless Driving. Applicant was fined, placed on 1 year probation, and ordered to attend 14 hours of self improvement classes.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—
1.d	The SOR alleges that in October 1982, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence. Applicant was fined, had his license suspended for 90 days, was placed on 3 year probation, and was ordered not to have a repeat offense.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant was arrested and charged with Exposure of Sexual Organs, and that Applicant pled nolo contendere and was found guilty. He was fined and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation and any follow up treatment required, to have no contact with any of the witnesses and not to return to the location of the offense.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

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

—

1.b

The SOR alleges that in February 2009, Applicant was charged with (1) Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated, (2) Speeding, (3) Unsafe Lane Change, and (4) No Signal Prior to Lane Change. Applicant refused to perform field sobriety tests and the charges were dismissed, but Applicant lost his driving privileges in the state for one year.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

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

—

1.c

The SOR alleges that in April 2003, Applicant was arrested and charged with Reckless Driving. Applicant was fined, placed on 1 year probation, and ordered to attend 14 hours of self improvement classes.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

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

—

1.d

The SOR alleges that in October 1982, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence. Applicant was fined, had his license suspended for 90 days, was placed on 3 year probation, and was ordered not to have a repeat offense.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Admitted

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	It is alleged in the SOR that from approximately 1974 to at least 2011, Applicant consumed alcohol at time to excess and to the point of intoxication.	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	—	—
3.b	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct, reviewed in Paragraph 1.a., through 1.d., above, constitutes excessive alcohol consumption.	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	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

It is alleged in the SOR that from approximately 1974 to at least 2011, Applicant consumed alcohol at time to excess and to the point of intoxication.

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

—

3.b

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct, reviewed in Paragraph 1.a., through 1.d., above, constitutes excessive alcohol consumption.

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct, reviewed above in Paragraph 1.a., through 1.d., above, constitutes criminal behavior. Applicant denied this allegation in his RSOR.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's conduct, reviewed above in Paragraph 1.a., through 1.d., above, constitutes criminal behavior. Applicant denied this allegation in his RSOR.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

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