ISCR Case 01-23260.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-23260.h1

deniedMay 22, 2003· Hon. James A. Young· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old defense contractor employee 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 five drunk driving convictions between 1984 and 2001, including a felony conviction in 2001. The applicant also faced allegations of deliberately falsifying information on his security clearance application regarding his police record, medical history, and alcohol use, as well as making a false statement to a Defense Security Service agent about his drinking habits.

Specifically, the applicant was found to have consumed excessive alcohol from age 15 until at least November 2001, leading to multiple arrests. He also falsified material facts on his application concerning felony offenses, alcohol/drug offenses, medical records, and alcohol use. Additionally, he falsely claimed to a DSS agent that he had stopped drinking in August 1994.

The judge determined that the applicant's pattern of criminal conduct, deliberate omissions, and false statements undermined his trustworthiness. Despite the application of some mitigating conditions, the applicant's claims of rehabilitation were not found convincing given his extensive history of alcohol abuse and dishonesty. Consequently, the security clearance was DENIED.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant had five convictions for drunk driving, demonstrating a pattern of criminal conduct.
Applicant deliberately omitted information about his alcohol treatment and provided false statements during the investigation.
The applicant's claims of rehabilitation were not convincing given his history of alcohol abuse.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.1raisedAlcohol Consumption
J.1raisedCriminal Conduct
E.2raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

G.3rejectedRehabilitationThe applicant's two years of abstinence were insufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of no recurrence.
J.6rejectedSuccessful RehabilitationThe applicant's history did not support a finding of successful rehabilitation.
E.2rejectedLack of IntentThe applicant's omissions were deemed deliberate.

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 23, 2002
Answer filedOct 22, 2002
Hearing heldMar 21, 2003Postponed due to applicant's medical condition.
Decision dateMay 22, 2003

Cite For

Denial Based on Pattern of Alcohol-related Offenses Under Guideline G
Impact of Dishonesty on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation 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.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application in answer to questions about his police record-felony offenses	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application in answer to questions about his police record-alcohol/drug offense	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application in answer to questions about his medical record	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
3.d	Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application in answer to questions about his use of alcohol	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
3.e	Applicant made a false statement to a Defense Security Service (DSS) agent by claiming he had ceased drinking in August 1994	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application in answer to questions about his police record-felony offenses

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

3.b

Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application in answer to questions about his police record-alcohol/drug offense

For Applicant

Falsification Security Form

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

3.c

Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application in answer to questions about his medical record

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

3.d

Applicant falsified material facts on his security clearance application in answer to questions about his use of alcohol

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

3.e

Applicant made a false statement to a Defense Security Service (DSS) agent by claiming he had ceased drinking in August 1994

Against Applicant

Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant consumed excessive amounts of alcohol to the point of intoxication from the age of 15 until 1994, and had been arrested multiple times for alcohol related incidents.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	—	—
1.b	The applicant continued to consume excessive amounts of alcohol up to at least November 2001, resulting in an arrest and conviction for an alcohol related incident.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant consumed excessive amounts of alcohol to the point of intoxication from the age of 15 until 1994, and had been arrested multiple times for alcohol related incidents.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed

—

1.b

The applicant continued to consume excessive amounts of alcohol up to at least November 2001, resulting in an arrest and conviction for an alcohol related incident.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Denied

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was arrested and charged with drunk driving on five different occasions between 1984 and 2001.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.b	Applicant was charged with, and convicted of, a felony only once-his 9 November 2001 conviction for driving drunk on 23 April 2001.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
2.c–2.e	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant was arrested and charged with drunk driving on five different occasions between 1984 and 2001.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Denied

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.b

Applicant was charged with, and convicted of, a felony only once-his 9 November 2001 conviction for driving drunk on 23 April 2001.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Denied

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

2.c–2.e

3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)

Against Applicant

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES