CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-03090.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 01-03090.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date8/17/2001
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Jerome H. Silber
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found that the applicant deliberately omitted relevant information from his SF-86, including prior DUI arrests and alcohol counseling. This omission was not mitigated by the applicant's claim of inadequate advice from security personnel, leading to a ruling against the applicant 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. 01-03090.h1

deniedAug 17, 2001· Hon. Jerome H. Silber· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old engineer was denied a 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 dependence, including four alcohol-related incidents, and a diagnosis of alcohol dependence.

Despite completing an outpatient rehabilitation program, the applicant continued heavy alcohol consumption. A significant factor in the denial was the deliberate falsification of his SF-86 in November 1999, where he omitted two DUI arrests from 1989 and 1991, as well as alcohol counseling and treatment from 1994.

The judge determined that the applicant's continued alcohol use post-rehabilitation and the intentional omissions on his SF-86 demonstrated unmitigated security risks. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long history of alcohol consumption and dependence, with four alcohol-related incidents.
He continued to consume alcohol after completing rehabilitation, indicating a lack of effective mitigation.
The applicant falsified his SF-86 by omitting significant alcohol-related incidents and treatment history.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G.4raisedEvaluation of Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Dependence
G.6raisedConsumption of Alcohol After Diagnosis of Alcoholism
E.2raisedDeliberate Omission or Falsification of Relevant Facts
J.1raisedCriminal Conduct Regardless of Formal Charges
J.2raisedMultiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

G.4rejectedSuccessful Completion of Rehabilitation and After-careThe applicant did not participate frequently in AA meetings and did not abstain from alcohol for at least 12 months.
E.4appliedOmission Caused by Improper AdviceThe omission of earlier arrests was caused by inadequate advice from authorized personnel.
J.1rejectedCriminal Behavior Was Not RecentThe falsification of the SF-86 occurred less than three years ago.

Key Rule Quoted

“"The clearly consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”
— Dept. of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 16, 2001
Answer filedMar 9, 2001
Hearing heldJul 11, 2001
Decision dateAug 17, 2001

Cite For

Denial Based on Unmitigated Alcohol Dependence Under Guideline G
Falsification of SF-86 as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline E
Criminal Conduct Related to Falsification 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 deliberately omitted relevant information from his SF-86, including prior DUI arrests and alcohol counseling. This omission was not mitigated by the applicant's claim of inadequate advice from security personnel, leading to a ruling against the applicant under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—
2.b	The Applicant deliberately omitted his 1989 and 1991 DUI arrests and his 1994 alcohol counseling/treatment from his SF-86 in November 1999.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Criminal Conduct	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Other

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: deniedAUD DIAGNOSED

The Administrative Judge found that the Applicant had a lengthy history of alcohol consumption, including four alcohol-related incidents and a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. Despite completing an outpatient rehabilitation program, the Applicant continued to drink and did not demonstrate a favorable prognosis, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, or other criminal incidents related to alcohol use;	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional (f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment	—	—
1.b	Evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program;	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.c	Consumption of alcohol, subsequent to a diagnosis of alcoholism by a credentialed medical professional and following completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment	—	—
1.d–1.h	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—

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 that the applicant's history of alcohol-related incidents and the falsification of his SF-86 constituted criminal conduct. The applicant's conduct was deemed unmitigated, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	The Applicant did knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up his 1994 alcohol counseling/treatment on his SF-86, which falls within the scope of DC #1 and DC #2 under criminal conduct identified on page 5 supra.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
3.b	SOR ¶ 3.b alleges that the Applicant's alcohol-related incidents that occurred 7-12 years ago also constitutes criminal conduct.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—

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.