CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 00-0445.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 00-0445.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date11/1/2001
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Jerome H. Silber
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found that the applicant engaged in deliberate falsification of his security clearance application and during a Defense Security Service interview. The applicant's claims of misunderstanding the questions were deemed not credible. Consequently, the judge ruled against the applicant on all personal conduct allegations under Guideline E.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 00-0445.h1

deniedNov 1, 2001· Hon. Jerome H. Silber· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old radar instrumentation operator/repairer was denied a Top Secret security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol-related incidents and criminal conduct, compounded by deliberate falsification on his security clearance application.

The applicant's record included multiple alcohol-related arrests: drunk driving in February 1990, retail theft of beer while intoxicated in November 1990, DUI in January 1991, DUI in February 1993 (convicted April 1993), possession of an open bottle of beer during a December 1994 arrest, and DUI in March 1999 (convicted). These incidents established a pattern of excessive alcohol consumption.

Furthermore, the applicant deliberately omitted, concealed, or falsified relevant facts on his security clearance application and provided false or misleading information during an interview. The judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or positive behavioral changes to mitigate these security concerns, leading to the denial of the clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple alcohol-related incidents and arrests from 1989 to 1999, indicating a pattern of excessive alcohol consumption.
The applicant deliberately falsified information on his security clearance application and during a DSS interview, demonstrating a lack of candor and reliability.
There was no clear evidence of rehabilitation or positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
J.1raisedCriminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged
J.2raisedMultiple Lesser Offenses
E.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E.3raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Key Rule Quoted

“"A decision to grant or continue an applicant's security clearance may be made only upon an affirmative finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest."”
— Executive Order 10865

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 23, 2000
Answer filedOct 4, 2000
Hearing heldJan 30, 2001
Decision dateNov 1, 2001

Cite For

Denial Based on Multiple Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
Denial Due to Deliberate Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
Lack of Evidence for Rehabilitation in the Context of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant engaged in deliberate falsification of his security clearance application and during a Defense Security Service interview. The applicant's claims of misunderstanding the questions were deemed not credible. Consequently, the judge ruled against the applicant on all personal conduct allegations under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material 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	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	Deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official representative in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination;	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
3.c	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant had multiple alcohol-related incidents, including DUIs and other arrests, which the judge found unmitigated by evidence of rehabilitation or positive behavioral changes. The judge ruled against the applicant on all but one subparagraph under Guideline G, ultimately denying the security clearance due to concerns about the applicant's alcohol consumption and its implications for reliability and judgment.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant was arrested for drunk driving in February 1990.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	The Applicant was arrested for retail theft of a case of beer while intoxicated in November 1990.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Related Arrest	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	The Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in January 1991.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	The Applicant was arrested for DUI in February 1993 and convicted in April 1993.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	The Applicant had an open bottle of beer in his possession at the time of his December 1994 arrest.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	The Applicant was arrested for DUI in March 1999 and convicted.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline J, citing a history of criminal conduct that raised significant security concerns. The applicant's pattern of offenses, including multiple DUI incidents and other arrests, demonstrated a lack of rehabilitation and reliability, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a–2.j	10 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.