CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-03112.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 01-03112.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-03112.h1

deniedSep 26, 2001· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of five alcohol-related arrests, including three DUIs in December 1993, December 1997, and April 1999, and one public intoxication arrest in March 1999. Additionally, the applicant was convicted of issuing worthless checks.

Regarding financial considerations, a July 1999 credit report showed four past-due or charged-off accounts totaling approximately $7,000, with some debts dating back to 1994. The applicant attributed these debts to college-era financial difficulties and claimed to have paid them between October 1999 and October 2000, but provided no corroboration for these payments.

The judge found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation for alcohol abuse, noting the applicant had not been evaluated for alcohol dependence and provided no corroboration for claims of attending Alcoholics Anonymous since July 1999. This claimed period of abstinence coincided with a probation period. Due to the uncorroborated claims of abstinence and financial responsibility, the judge concluded that granting clearance was not consistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a well-established history of alcohol abuse with five alcohol-related arrests.
The applicant failed to provide corroboration for claims of rehabilitation and abstinence from alcohol since July 1999.
The applicant's financial irresponsibility was evidenced by unresolved debts and a lack of credible payment history.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct
E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 13, 2001
Answer filedFeb 27, 2001
Hearing held—Applicant requested an administrative decision on the record.
Decision dateSep 26, 2001

Cite For

Denial Based on Extensive History of Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
Denial Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Denial Based on a Pattern 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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had a history of financial irresponsibility, with unresolved debts totaling approximately $7,000. Despite the applicant's claims of having made payments on some debts, he failed to provide corroborating evidence, leading to a ruling against him under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	A July 1999 Credit Bureau Report (CBR) revealed Applicant had four past due or charged-off accounts totaling approximately $7,000.00, three of which had been past due since 1994, the last of which was past due since 1997. $7,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.b	Applicant acknowledged these debts, which he attributed to financial difficulties while he was in college.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.c	Applicant's answer to the SOR asserts he paid the debt at subparagraph 3.c. He has provided no corroboration of any of the claimed payments.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.d	Applicant asserts he paid the debt at subparagraph 3.d. in October 1999, paid the debt at subparagraph 3.a. by December 1999, paid the debt at subparagraph 3.b. by October 2000.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.e	Applicant has not corroborated his claims of subsequent payment.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
3.f	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). 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 judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to alcohol consumption under Guideline G. The applicant's extensive history of alcohol abuse, including multiple DUI arrests, raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability. The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or a change in behavior, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUI arrests.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The applicant was arrested for DUI in December 1993, December 1997, and again in April 1999.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	The applicant was arrested for public intoxication on 13 March 1999.	Against Applicant	Public Intoxication	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	The applicant has not been evaluated for alcohol abuse or dependence.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Unknown	—	—	—
1.e	The applicant claims to have been attending Alcoholics Anonymous since July 1999 but provided no corroboration.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	The applicant's claimed period of abstinence coincides with his probation period from his last DUI conviction.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Unknown	—	—	—

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 including multiple DUI convictions and a conviction for issuing worthless checks. The applicant failed to demonstrate rehabilitation or a commitment to obey the law, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related arrests, including four DUI convictions.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	The applicant was convicted of issuing worthless checks.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—

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.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DATE: September 26, 2001 In Re: -------------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 01-03112 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOHN G. METZ, JR.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On 13 February 2001, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)(Item 1) to Applicant, stating that DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding (1) that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. On 27 February 2001, Applicant answered the SOR (Item 4) and requested an administrative decision on the record. Applicant did not respond to the Government's File of Relevant Material (FORM)--issued 9 May 2001; the record in this case closed 14 June 2001, the day the response was due at DOHA. The case was originally assigned to a different Administrative Judge, but was reassigned to me on 26 July 2001 because of caseload considerations; I received the case the next day, to determine whether clearance should be granted, continued, denied or revoked.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the allegations of the SOR except for subparagraph 1.d.--that he had been arrested on 13 March 1999 for public intoxication. (2) Accordingly, I incorporate Applicant's admissions as findings of fact. Applicant--a 28-year old employee of a defense contractor--seeks access to classified information. Applicant has an extensive history of alcohol abuse which has resulted in five alcohol- related arrests. He also has a history of financial irresponsibility. Applicant was first arrested for DUI in December 1993 (BAC .180); he pleaded guilty, was fined, ordered to attend alcohol class, and had his base driving privileges suspended for a year. In December1997, he was again arrested for DUI; he was found guilty, fined, given a suspended jail sentence, and placed on one-year's probation. On 13 March 1999, he was arrested for public intoxication. Applicant has provided no explanation of the circumstances of this arrest or its disposition. Applicant reported these three arrests on his 13 April 1999 SCA (Item 6). Subsequent to his application for a clearance, Applicant was again arrested for DUI on 17 April 1999; he was found guilty, fined, given a 12-month suspended jail sentence, and placed on probation for 18 months. Finally, on 9 July 1999, Applicant was arrested for DUI; he was fined, sentenced to 360 days in jail (60 served, 300 suspended), and placed on probation for two years. (3) It does not appear from the record Applicant has been evaluated for alcohol abuse or dependence. Applicant attributed his alcohol arrests to "mistakes" he made regarding alcohol consumption (Item 4, 7). He asserts he has had no alcohol incidents since his July 1999 arrest. He also claims to have been attending church and Alcoholics Anonymous since July 1999. However, he has provided no corroboration of these latter claims, nor any information on what his involvement with AA has been or its impact on his life. On 21 March 1995, Applicant was arrested on four counts of issuing worthless checks, he was found guilty, fined, given a suspended jail sentence, and ordered to make restitution. Applicant attributed this offense to the fact one of his creditors failed to cash a check for 6 months (Item 4). This explanation overlooks the fact Applicant failed to ensure he had sufficient funds to cover all outstanding checks; the explanation also overlooks the fact Applicant failed to resolved the worthless checks until after he had been formally charged with writing worthless checks. A July 1999 Credit Bureau Report (CBR)(Item 11) revealed Applicant had four past due or charged-off accounts totaling approximately $7,000.00, three of which had been past due since 1994, the last of which was past due since 1997. In his September 1999 sworn statement, Applicant acknowledged these debts, which he attributed to financial difficulties while he was in college. Nevertheless, a Personal Financial Statement executed by Applicant the same day as his sworn statement showed a net monthly income of $737, but no payments to any of the past due accounts. Applicant's answer to the SOR asserts he paid the debt at subparagraph 3.d. in October 1999, paid the debt at subparagraph 3.a. by December 1999, paid the debt at subparagraph 3.b. by October 2000, and has begun making payments on the debt at subparagraph 3.c. He has provided no corroboration of any of the claimed payments.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating an individual's security eligibility. The Administrative Judge must take into account the conditions raising or mitigating security concerns in each area applicable to the facts and circumstances presented. Each adjudicative decision must also assess the factors listed in Section F.3. and in Enclosure (2) of the Directive. Although the presence or absence of a particular condition for or against clearance is not determinative, the specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance, as the guidelines reflect consideration of those factors of seriousness, recency, motivation, etc. Considering the evidence as a whole, the following adjudication policy factors are most pertinent to this case: ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION (GUIDELINE G) E2.A7.1.1. The Concern: Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment, unreliability, failure to control impulses, and increases the risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information due to carelessness. E2.A7.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: E2.A7.1.2.1. 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. E2.A6.1.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: None. CRIMINAL CONDUCT (GUIDELINE J) E2.A10.1.1. A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. E2.A10.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: E2.A10.1.2.1. Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged; E2.A10.1.2.2. A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses. E2.A10.1.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: None. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS (GUIDELINE F) E2.A6.1.1. The Concern: An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Unexplained affluence is often linked to proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts. E2.A6.1.2. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: E2.A6.1.2.1. A history of not meeting financial obligations; E2.A6.1.2.3. Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; E2.A6.1.3. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: None. Burden of Proof Initially, the Government must prove controverted facts alleged in the Statement of Reasons. If the Government meets that burden, the burden of persuasion then shifts to the applicant to establish his security suitability through evidence of refutation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to demonstrate that, despite the existence of disqualifying conduct, it is nevertheless clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the security clearance. A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. Where facts proven by the Government raise doubts about an applicant's judgment, reliability or trustworthiness, the applicant has a heavy burden of persuasion to demonstrate that he or she is nonetheless security worthy. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988), "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."

CONCLUSION

The Government has established its case under Guideline G. Applicant's history of alcohol abuse is well established by his five alcohol-related arrests. Applicant's claimed period of abstinence from alcohol abuse coincides precisely with the required period of probation from his last DUI conviction, rendering this accomplishment less material than if it had been accomplished without legal compunction. Further, Applicant has not met his burden of corroborating his claimed religious and AA experiences, or otherwise demonstrated that his alcohol abuse is behind him. On this record, I am unable to conclude Applicant's alcohol abuse over. I find Guideline G. against Applicant. The Government has established its case under Guideline J. Applicant's four DUI convictions and one bad check conviction raise substantial doubts about Applicant's willingness or ability to obey the law. Applicant has not met his burden of establishing clear evidence of rehabilitation. I find Guideline J. against the Applicant. The Government has established its case under Guideline F. The record clearly establishes Applicant's mishandling of his finances while in college. None of Applicant's explanations indicate the bad debts were due to circumstances beyond his control. Further, at least as late as September 1999, the debts remained unresolved despite Applicant's having sufficient net income to begin addressing the debts. Applicant has not corroborated his claims of subsequent payment. I find Guideline F. against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline G: AGAINST THE APPLICANT Subparagraph a: Against the Applicant Subparagraph b: Against the Applicant Subparagraph c: Against the Applicant Subparagraph d: Against the Applicant Subparagraph e: Against the Applicant Subparagraph f: Against the Applicant Paragraph 2. Guideline J: AGAINST THE APPLICANT Subparagraph a: Against the Applicant Subparagraph b: Against the Applicant Paragraph 3. Guideline F: AGAINST THE APPLICANT Subparagraph a: Against the Applicant Subparagraph b: Against the Applicant Subparagraph c: Against the Applicant Subparagraph d: Against the Applicant Subparagraph e: Against the Applicant Subparagraph f: Against the Applicant

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. John G. Metz, Jr. Administrative Judge 1. Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992--and amended by Change 3 dated 16 February 1996 and Change 4 dated 20 April 1999 (Directive). 2. Applicant denied the allegation without explanation. However, while the FORM acknowledged that Department Counsel was unable to obtain any arrest records to support the allegation, the allegation is based on a 13 April 1999 Security Clearance Application (SCA)(SF 86)(Item 6) prepared by Applicant in which he reported the arrest for public intoxication under question 23. Your Police Record-Pending Charges. Although Applicant did not sign this particular SCA [Applicant's signed SCA (Item 5) omits questions 17-42], I consider Item 6 some evidence of an arrest for public intoxication. 3. At the time the record closed in this case, Applicant still had some period of time to serve on his probation. Although the FORM contains no court records from this arrest, the earliest the probation could have ended was 9 July 2001.

FOOTNOTES

01-03112.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Michael H. Leonard, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/01-03112.h1.html[7/2/2021 2:14:41 PM] 01-03112.h1