CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-03992.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-03992.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-03992.h1

deniedMay 6, 2004· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The applicant had a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two driving arrests in 1992 and 1996. One arrest resulted in a conviction for driving under the influence, a two-day jail sentence, and a $1,000 fine.

Following these incidents, the applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent and ordered to attend an 18-month alcohol treatment program in 1998 and 1999. However, the applicant continued to consume alcohol to excess as recently as February 2003. The judge found that the applicant failed to establish rehabilitation from alcohol abuse, noting a pattern of conduct over a long period that indicated a failure of rehabilitation.

Additionally, the applicant faced allegations of four outstanding delinquent debts totaling over $3,000. While he admitted one debt of $1,138 to a credit union, he denied three others without providing supporting evidence. The judge concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated rehabilitation from alcohol dependence and failed to mitigate financial concerns, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related driving arrests and a conviction, indicating ongoing alcohol abuse.
The applicant failed to demonstrate rehabilitation from alcohol dependence despite prior treatment.
The applicant has unexplained debts exceeding $3,000, with insufficient evidence to support denials of these debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol Consumption Disqualifying Condition
E2.A6.1.2.1raisedFinancial Disqualifying Condition

Mitigating

MC 3rejectedMitigating Condition 3The applicant did not demonstrate positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety.

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 issuedAug 11, 2003
Answer filedSep 9, 2003Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Hearing held—Written record decision.
Decision dateMay 6, 2004

Cite For

Denial Based on Ongoing Alcohol Abuse Despite Treatment
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Issues
Failure to Demonstrate Rehabilitation From Alcohol Dependence

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 multiple financial issues, including an admitted debt of $1,138.00 to a credit union and three other debts totaling over $3,000.00 that were denied without supporting evidence. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial situation raised security concerns and ultimately denied the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant is alleged to have four outstanding delinquent debts totaling over $3,000.00. $3,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
2.b	He has denied three of them but offered no evidence in support of his denial.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
2.c	He admitted one debt of $1,138.00 to a credit union. $1,138	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
2.d	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—

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: deniedAUD DIAGNOSED

The applicant had a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two driving arrests and a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. Despite attending an alcohol treatment program, the applicant continued to consume alcohol excessively, leading to a denial of security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two driving arrests in 1992 and 1996.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The applicant was convicted of driving under the influence and sentenced to two days in jail and a fine of $1,000.00.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	The applicant was ordered to attend an alcohol treatment program for 18 months in 1998 and 1999, where he was diagnosed as alcohol dependent.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	The applicant has continued to consume alcohol to excess as recently as February 2003.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	The applicant failed to establish that he has been rehabilitated from his alcohol abuse despite having been in a program for alcohol abuse.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	The applicant's history of alcohol abuse and pattern of conduct over a long period of time indicates a failure of rehabilitation.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	The applicant has not demonstrated that it is clearly consistent with national security to grant him a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	—	—	—

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: May 6, 2004

In Re:

----------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-03992

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

SYNOPSIS

Applicant is an employee of a defense contractor who had two alcohol-related driving arrests in 1992 and 1996. The second arrest resulted in a conviction and sentence to two days in jail and a fine of $1,000.00 with his driver's license suspended for 180 days. He was ordered to attend and did attend an alcohol treatment program for 18 months in 1998 and 1999 where he was diagnosed as alcohol dependent. He has continued to consume alcohol to excess as recently as February 2003. He also has debts exceeding $3,000.00 that are unexplained. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On August 11, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Information Within Industry, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, 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. DOHA recommended the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

In a sworn written statement, dated September 9, 2003, Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on November 24, 2003. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He did not do so. The case was assigned to, and received by, this Administrative Judge on February 20, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted to all of the specific allegations in the SOR relating to alcohol but denied three of the four allegations relating to financial issues. The admitted facts are hereby incorporated as findings of fact. After a complete review of the evidence in the record and upon due consideration of the record the following additional findings of fact are made:

Applicant is an employee of a defense contractor who had two alcohol-related driving arrests in 1992 and 1996. The second arrest resulted in a conviction and he was sentenced to two days in jail and fined $1,000.00 with his driver's license suspended for 180 days. He was ordered to attend an alcohol treatment program for 18 months in 1998 and 1999. The results of the treatment were not satisfactory and he was diagnosed as alcohol dependent. He has continued to consume alcohol to excess as recently as February 2003.

Applicant offered no evidence to show any change in the behavior that has led to the allegations in this matter.

Applicant is alleged to have four outstanding delinquent debts totaling over $3,000.00. He has denied three of them but offered no evidence in support of his denial. He admitted one debt of $1,138.00 to a credit union.

POLICIES

"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance." Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has "the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position that will give that person access to such information." Id. at 527.

An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when "it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so." Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).

Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the applicant's clearance. "Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security." Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. "[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b)

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal precepts, factors and conditions above, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR.

Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Condition (DC) 1 under Guideline G of the Directive (E2.A7.1.2.1.) raises the issue of alcohol-related incidents away from work such as driving while under the influence or other criminal incidents related to alcohol use and consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment (E2.A7.1.2.5.). The record of Applicant's offenses, convictions and sentences clearly show that the Government has established reasons to deny him a security clearance because of alcohol abuse under Guideline G.

Applicant failed to establish that he has been rehabilitated from his alcohol abuse despite having been in a program for alcohol abuse. His history of alcohol abuse and pattern of conduct over a long period of time indicates a failure of rehabilitation.

Applicant has not demonstrated that it is clearly consistent with national security to grant him a security clearance. There have been no positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety.(MC 3) With regard to Financial Disqualifying Condition (DC) 1 under Guideline F of the Directive (E2.A6.1.2.1.) raises the issue of a history of not meeting financial obligations and inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts (E2.A6.1.2.3.). Applicant's denials without any proof are insufficient to justify the applicability of any mitigating conditions.

After considering all the evidence in its totality and as an integrated whole to focus on the whole person of Applicant, I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant clearance to Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:

Paragraph 1. Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 2.b.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 2.c.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 2.d.: Against Applicant

DECISION

After full consideration of all the facts and documents 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. Clearance is denied.

Charles D. Ablard

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

02-03992.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-03992.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:48:40 AM] 02-03992.h1