ISCR Case 01-26209.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-26209.h1

deniedNov 13, 2003· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old maintenance machinist was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from his continued alcohol consumption after an alcohol dependence diagnosis, a history of criminal conduct involving multiple assaults, and significant financial issues.

Specifically, the applicant continued to drink up to five beers per sitting despite medical advice to abstain. He also had $6,034 in outstanding debt, incurred due to an unexpected loss of income, for which he made no payments or efforts to contact his former employer about back pay since 2001. His criminal history included arrests for assault and battery in 1975, 1995, and 2002, involving a police officer, a former girlfriend, and his current girlfriend's brother, respectively. While some charges were dismissed, the applicant admitted to physical altercations.

Despite some mitigating factors related to his criminal history and financial situation, the judge found persistent concerns regarding his personal conduct and alcohol use. The denial was ultimately based on his continued excessive alcohol consumption after diagnosis, his failure to attend required Alcoholics Anonymous meetings as part of probation for a 1995 assault, and his significant unaddressed debt.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant continued to consume alcohol excessively despite being diagnosed as alcohol dependent and advised to abstain.
He violated probation related to a 1995 assault by failing to attend required Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
The applicant has significant outstanding debt totaling $6,034 and made no efforts to address it.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

JraisedCriminal Conduct
GraisedAlcohol Consumption
FraisedFinancial Considerations
EraisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

JappliedCriminal ConductThe incidents of fighting were aberrational and unlikely to recur.
GrejectedAlcohol ConsumptionThe applicant's continued alcohol consumption raised concerns despite past treatment.
FappliedFinancial ConsiderationsThe financial issues were exacerbated by unexpected loss of income.
ErejectedPersonal ConductOngoing personal conduct issues related to alcohol consumption persisted.

Key Rule Quoted

“"A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness."”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 8, 2003
Answer filedFeb 3, 2003
Hearing heldJul 15, 2003
Decision dateNov 13, 2003

Cite For

Excessive Alcohol Consumption After Diagnosis Under Guideline G
Criminal Conduct History Impacting Judgment Under Guideline J
Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F

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
4.a	Applicant continues to drink beer in quantity of up to four or five beers per sitting after being diagnosed as alcohol dependent and advised to abstain from alcohol.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

Applicant continues to drink beer in quantity of up to four or five beers per sitting after being diagnosed as alcohol dependent and advised to abstain from alcohol.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant has $6,034 in outstanding bad debt that he cannot pay at present. $6,034	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
3.b	The debt was incurred because of an unexpected loss of income.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	—
3.c	Applicant made no effort to make any payments, as he hoped to get a settlement from his employer for salary lost when he was out of work which he could devote to his old debts.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
3.d	Applicant has made no payments on the $6,034 in delinquent debt owed and had made no effort to contact his employer about his back pay since 2001.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant has $6,034 in outstanding bad debt that he cannot pay at present.

$6,034

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

3.b

The debt was incurred because of an unexpected loss of income.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved

—

3.c

Applicant made no effort to make any payments, as he hoped to get a settlement from his employer for salary lost when he was out of work which he could devote to his old debts.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

3.d

Applicant has made no payments on the $6,034 in delinquent debt owed and had made no effort to contact his employer about his back pay since 2001.

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Unknown

(a) inability to satisfy debts

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	Excessive alcohol consumption, including continued drinking after a diagnosis of alcohol dependence.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Diagnosis by a credentialed medical professional of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

Excessive alcohol consumption, including continued drinking after a diagnosis of alcohol dependence.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

—

2.b

Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied

—

2.c

Diagnosis by a credentialed medical professional of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested for assault and battery in 1975, 1995, and 2002, following physical altercations with a police officer, with his then girlfriend, and with his current girlfriend's brother, respectively. The charges were either dismissed or continued without a formal adjudication of guilt. The Government is not bound by the legal disposition of an offense with respect to considering whether Applicant engaged in a criminal act (see E2.A10.1.2.1., allegations of criminal conduct are potentially disqualifying).	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Arrested Not Charged	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits to scuffling with the police officer when being placed in a jail cell in 1975. Although he now maintains that only pushed his ex-girlfriend out the door with his foot in 1995, he admitted to a DSS agent in 2001 he 'pushed and shoved her while intoxicated and made an ill attempt to give her a kick.'	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Arrested Not Charged	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant does not dispute that he wrestled with his girlfriend's brother in 2002, but he claims his actions were in self-defense. Whether the actions were justified or not, the applicant has a history of violent behavior that raises concerns about his judgment and reliability.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Arrested Not Charged	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested for assault and battery in 1975, 1995, and 2002, following physical altercations with a police officer, with his then girlfriend, and with his current girlfriend's brother, respectively. The charges were either dismissed or continued without a formal adjudication of guilt. The Government is not bound by the legal disposition of an offense with respect to considering whether Applicant engaged in a criminal act (see E2.A10.1.2.1., allegations of criminal conduct are potentially disqualifying).

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Arrested Not Charged

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant admits to scuffling with the police officer when being placed in a jail cell in 1975. Although he now maintains that only pushed his ex-girlfriend out the door with his foot in 1995, he admitted to a DSS agent in 2001 he 'pushed and shoved her while intoxicated and made an ill attempt to give her a kick.'

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Arrested Not Charged

Admitted

—

1.c

Applicant does not dispute that he wrestled with his girlfriend's brother in 2002, but he claims his actions were in self-defense. Whether the actions were justified or not, the applicant has a history of violent behavior that raises concerns about his judgment and reliability.

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Arrested Not Charged

Denied

—

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