CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-13906.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 01-13906.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-13906.h1

deniedSep 4, 2002· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) due to a history of alcohol-related incidents and ongoing consumption. Disqualifying conditions G.1 and G.4 were raised, reflecting concerns about his judgment and reliability.

The Statement of Reasons detailed several incidents: a May 1995 DUI arrest following a failed field sobriety test, a November 1999 DUI arrest after an accident, and a June 2000 incident where he was taken to the police station due to alcohol consumption during a domestic dispute. Critically, the applicant continues to consume alcohol almost daily, despite acknowledging his belief that he is an alcoholic.

The denial was based on this pattern of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUI arrests, and his continued daily alcohol consumption. The applicant failed to provide credible evidence to mitigate the security concerns stemming from his alcohol use.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUI arrests.
He continues to consume alcohol almost daily despite believing he is an alcoholic.
The applicant provided no credible evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to his alcohol consumption.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work.
G.4raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol to the Point of Impaired Judgment.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 6, 2002
Answer filedMar 4, 2002Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateSep 4, 2002

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Ongoing Alcohol Consumption Despite Acknowledgment of Alcoholism
Impact of Multiple DUI Arrests on Security Clearance Eligibility
Lack of Mitigating Evidence in Cases of Habitual Alcohol Use

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 G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: deniedAUD DIAGNOSED

The applicant has a history of alcohol consumption, including two DUI arrests, and continues to drink almost daily despite believing he is an alcoholic. The judge found that this pattern of behavior raises significant security concerns, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in May 1995 after failing a field sobriety test.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.b	The applicant was arrested and charged with DUI in November 1999 after being involved in an accident.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.c	The applicant was involved in a domestic dispute in June 2000 and was taken to the police station due to alcohol consumption.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.d	The applicant continues to consume alcohol on an almost daily basis despite believing he is an alcoholic.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). 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 4, 2002 In Re: ---------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 01-13906 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

SYNOPSIS Applicant continues to consume alcohol on an almost daily basis notwithstanding the fact he believes he is an alcoholic. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On February 6, 2002, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked. Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on or about March 4, 2002, and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case (FORM) on or about April 15, 2002. Applicant did not file a response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on June 6, 2002.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is 37 years of age. Applicant consumed alcohol with varying frequency, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from approximately 1985 to at least June 2000. In May 1995, applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). This arrest occurred after applicant took and failed a field sobriety test. (He refused to take a Breathalyzer Test.) He was found guilty of Reckless Driving, fined $300.00, and his drivers license was suspended for 60 days for refusing to take the Breathalyzer Test. Although applicant had consumed "a few beers" prior to his arrest, he does not feel he was under the influence when he was stopped. In November 1999, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI after he was involved in an accident with another pickup truck. He was found guilty of the charge, fined $420.00, ordered to participate in an alcohol awareness class, and his drivers license was revoked for 90 days. Applicant attended a weekend alcohol awareness program, where he attended an AA meeting and listened to speakers. In June 2000, applicant was involved in a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. When the police arrived at their residence, they asked applicant to leave. He told them he was unable to do so because he had consumed 3-4 beers. The police took him to the police station where he waited until a friend picked him up. No charges were filed against applicant. Although applicant believes he is an alcoholic, he continues to consume alcohol on an almost daily basis.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth Guidelines (divided into conditions that could raise security concerns and conditions that could mitigate security concerns) which must be followed by the Administrative Judge. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the following Guidelines are applicable: ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION Disqualifying Conditions: 1. Alcohol-related incidents away from work. 4. Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. Mitigating Conditions: None.

CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes that applicant has consumed alcohol with varying frequency, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from approximately 1985 to at least June 2000, and that this excessive consumption of alcohol has resulted in two arrests and convictions. The evidence further establishes that applicant has consumed alcohol on an almost daily basis since June 2000, notwithstanding the fact he believes he is an alcoholic. These facts reflect adversely on applicant's judgment and reliability, and strongly suggest that he cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. Despite his history of alcohol-related incidents, and the fact he recognizes he is an alcoholic, applicant continues to consume alcohol on an almost daily basis. He has offered no credible evidence that could lead me to conclude his current level of consumption is no longer a security concern. For this reason, Guideline G is found against applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: 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. ____________________________ Joseph Testan Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

01-13906.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Marc E. Curry, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/01-13906.h1.html[7/2/2021 2:21:57 PM] 01-13906.h1