ISCR Case 01-03251.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-03251.h1

grantedMar 28, 2003· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old laborer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a history of DUI offenses, including an arrest in State B in March 1993, which resulted in a fine, jail time, and an alcohol education class, and for which a warrant was issued after he left the state. In March 2000, he was again arrested for DUI and later found guilty of reckless driving, leading to another fine and required attendance at a DUI school and Victim Impact Panel. There was no evidence of alcohol dependence beyond drinking and driving.

Regarding financial concerns, the applicant had several outstanding debts. He satisfied one debt in 1991, another for $193.00 in 2000, and a $161.20 debt in 2002. A further debt was satisfied in January 2003, and a $66.00 debt was resolved in 2000. He also compromised and settled a debt for $91.10 in 2000. A significant debt, estimated around $7,000.00 from a car repossession, was addressed by a recent agreement with the creditor for $150.00 monthly payments, initiated with a $500.00 good faith payment.

The judge granted the clearance based on the applicant's demonstrated rehabilitation. He credibly testified to ceasing drinking and driving after attending educational programs, satisfied most of his past debts, and established a payment plan for the remaining obligation. His good faith efforts and current financial stability mitigated past issues.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a credible commitment to abstaining from drinking and driving after attending educational programs.
The applicant satisfied most of his past debts and established a payment plan for the remaining debt, showing good faith efforts to resolve financial issues.
The applicant's past financial irresponsibility was mitigated by his current financial stability and lessons learned from previous experiences.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

E2.A7.1.3.1appliedThe Alcohol Related Incidents Do Not Indicate a Pattern.
E2.A7.1.3.2appliedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem.
E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent.
E2.A10.1.3.6appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation.
E2.A6.1.3.6appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“It is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 8, 2002
Answer filedAug 19, 2002
Hearing heldJan 28, 2003
Decision dateMar 28, 2003

Cite For

Successful Rehabilitation After Alcohol-related Incidents
Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Obligations
Mitigating Factors Under Guidelines F, G, and J

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 (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant was indebted to this creditor, but satisfied the debt in 1991	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant was indebted to this creditor in the amount of $193.00, not $1,500.00 as alleged in the SOR. The debt was satisfied in 2000 $193	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant satisfied this $161.20 debt in 2002 $161	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.d	Applicant satisfied this debt in January 2003	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.e	The exact amount of the debt cannot be determined from the record; however, it most likely stands at around $7,000.00, as opposed to the $15,868.00 alleged in the SOR. The debt arose from the repossession of applicant's car. Applicant recently reached an agreement with the creditor to pay off the debt by making monthly payments of $150.00. To show his good faith, applicant sent the creditor a $500.00 payment. Applicant testified credibly that he will follow through with the payment plan $7,000	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
3.f	Applicant satisfied this $66.00 debt in 2000 $66	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
3.g	Applicant compromised and settled this debt for $91.10 in 2000 $91	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant was indebted to this creditor, but satisfied the debt in 1991

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

3.b

Applicant was indebted to this creditor in the amount of $193.00, not $1,500.00 as alleged in the SOR. The debt was satisfied in 2000

$193

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

3.c

Applicant satisfied this $161.20 debt in 2002

$161

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

3.d

Applicant satisfied this debt in January 2003

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

3.e

The exact amount of the debt cannot be determined from the record; however, it most likely stands at around $7,000.00, as opposed to the $15,868.00 alleged in the SOR. The debt arose from the repossession of applicant's car. Applicant recently reached an agreement with the creditor to pay off the debt by making monthly payments of $150.00. To show his good faith, applicant sent the creditor a $500.00 payment. Applicant testified credibly that he will follow through with the payment plan

$7,000

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur

Documented

Payment Plan with Creditor

3.f

Applicant satisfied this $66.00 debt in 2000

$66

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

3.g

Applicant compromised and settled this debt for $91.10 in 2000

$91

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in State B.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.b	In March 2000, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.c	There is no evidence that applicant has ever been diagnosed as alcohol dependent, or that his alcohol-related misconduct has extended beyond drinking and driving.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in State B.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

1.b

In March 2000, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

—

1.c

There is no evidence that applicant has ever been diagnosed as alcohol dependent, or that his alcohol-related misconduct has extended beyond drinking and driving.

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	In March 1993, applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in State B. He pleaded no contest to the DUI charge and was fined $1,463.00, ordered to spend 48 hours in jail, and ordered to attend an alcohol education class. Applicant left State B without resolving the matter, and eventually a warrant for his arrest was issued.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(b) pressured/coerced and unlikely to recur absent that pressure (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.b	In March 2000, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. In May 2001, he was found guilty of an amended charge of Reckless Driving. He was fined $490.00, and ordered to attend a DUI school and a Victim Impact Panel presentation.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(b) pressured/coerced and unlikely to recur absent that pressure (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.c	There is no evidence that applicant has ever been diagnosed as alcohol dependent, or that his alcohol-related misconduct has extended beyond drinking and driving.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Unknown	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

In March 1993, applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in State B. He pleaded no contest to the DUI charge and was fined $1,463.00, ordered to spend 48 hours in jail, and ordered to attend an alcohol education class. Applicant left State B without resolving the matter, and eventually a warrant for his arrest was issued.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

(b) pressured/coerced and unlikely to recur absent that pressure

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.b

In March 2000, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. In May 2001, he was found guilty of an amended charge of Reckless Driving. He was fined $490.00, and ordered to attend a DUI school and a Victim Impact Panel presentation.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

(b) pressured/coerced and unlikely to recur absent that pressure

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.c

There is no evidence that applicant has ever been diagnosed as alcohol dependent, or that his alcohol-related misconduct has extended beyond drinking and driving.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Unknown

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

STATEMENT OF CASE