CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-15978.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-15978.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-15978.h1

deniedJul 15, 2004· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 47-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The applicant had a history of alcohol abuse, including two DUI convictions in 1993 and 1998, and had been diagnosed with depression and late-stage alcoholism. Despite participating in two treatment programs and Alcoholics Anonymous, she experienced multiple relapses, with the most recent occurring a few months prior to the hearing.

Her alcohol problems led to delinquent medical debts, and she failed to report a 1993 traffic offense on her SF86. Additionally, she did not list a hospital judgment related to alcohol issues, stating she had forgotten about it. In 2002, her employer issued a letter of probation for excessive absences and time card violations.

While some debts were resolved, the judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation from alcohol abuse. The denial was primarily based on her long history of alcohol abuse, repeated relapses despite treatment, and the failure to establish rehabilitation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a long history of alcohol abuse, including two DUI convictions.
Despite treatment efforts, Applicant has experienced multiple relapses, the most recent occurring shortly before the hearing.
The judge found that Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation from alcohol abuse.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol Consumption Disqualifying Condition
E2.A6.1.1raisedFinancial Considerations Disqualifying Condition
E2.A5.1.1raisedPersonal Conduct Disqualifying Condition

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.6appliedMitigating Condition for Financial ConsiderationsApplicant successfully resolved her medical debts.
E2.A5.1.3.2appliedMitigating Condition for Personal ConductApplicant's behavior has improved over time, and she is now considered a trusted employee.

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 issuedOct 1, 2003
Answer filedOct 30, 2003
Hearing heldMay 12, 2004
Decision dateJul 15, 2004

Cite For

Denial Based on Ongoing Alcohol Abuse Despite Treatment Efforts
Successful Mitigation of Financial Issues
Importance of Demonstrating Rehabilitation for Alcohol-related Disqualifications

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had committed personal conduct violations, including omissions on her security clearance application. While some allegations were mitigated, the overall conduct raised significant concerns about her reliability and judgment, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant did not report her 1993 traffic offense on her SF86 but she did report the 1998 offense.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible
3.b	Applicant's failure to list a judgment by a hospital to which she had been admitted for alcohol issues as having forgotten about it since it was several years ago and she had not been solicited for the debt.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant was issued a letter of probation by her employer in 2002 for excessive absences and reporting violations on her time card.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully	Documented Passage of Time

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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 successfully mitigated financial concerns under Guideline F, as she had resolved her medical debts and demonstrated a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors. Consequently, all allegations under Guideline F were ruled in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	As a result to her problems concerning alcohol she incurred medical debts that became delinquent as cited in the SOR.	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Documented Debt Paid in Full
2.b	As a result to her problems concerning alcohol she incurred medical debts that became delinquent as cited in the SOR.	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Documented Debt Paid in Full
2.c	As a result to her problems concerning alcohol she incurred medical debts that became delinquent as cited in the SOR.	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved	Documented Debt Paid in Full

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 judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations related to alcohol consumption under Guideline G. The applicant had a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUI arrests, and demonstrated a pattern of relapse despite treatment efforts. The judge found that the applicant failed to establish rehabilitation and did not meet the mitigating conditions for alcohol abuse.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including two DUI arrests and convictions in 1993 and 1998.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.b	The applicant has shown a pattern of alcohol abuse and has relapsed several times in the last six years, most recently a few months ago.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.c	The applicant has been diagnosed by medical professionals as suffering from depression and being a late stage alcoholic.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.d	The applicant has failed to establish that she has been rehabilitated from alcohol abuse despite having been in two programs for alcohol abuse and now being in AA.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Alcohol; Financial; Personal Conduct

DIGEST: Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor who has had alcohol and debt problems and omissions on her application for a security clearance (SF 86). She has had a serious problem with alcohol resulting in two DUI arrests and convictions in 1993 and 1998. She has been in treatment for alcoholism and has been an active participant in AA since 1999 and in hospital treatment prior to that time. She has shown considerable courage in seeking to solve her problem but has relapsed several times in the last six years most recently a few months ago. Clearance is denied.

CASENO: 02-15978.h1

DATE: 07/15/2004

DATE: July 15, 2004

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-15978

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor who has had alcohol and debt problems and omissions on her application for a security clearance (SF 86). She has had a serious problem with alcohol resulting in two DUI arrests and convictions in 1993 and 1998. She has been in treatment for alcoholism and has been an active participant in AA since 1999 and in hospital treatment prior to that time. She has shown considerable courage in seeking to solve her problem but has relapsed several times in the last six years most recently a few months ago. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On October 1, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified 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.

On October 30, 2003, Applicant, in a sworn written statement, responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and requested a hearing. The matter was assigned to me on March 22, 2004. A notice of hearing was issued on April 23, 2004, and a hearing was held on May 12, 2004. The Government introduced 28 exhibits and the Applicant introduced one exhibit in addition to the 12 exhibits attached to her answer. All exhibits were admitted into evidence. The Applicant and four other persons testified. The transcript was received on May 26, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor who admitted all of the specific allegations in the SOR relating to alcohol and debt and two of the three allegations related to falsification on her application for a security clearance (SF 86). She disagreed with all of the conclusions reached in the SOR based on the allegations.

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 was arrested in 1993 for Driving Under the Influence and sentenced to 36 months probation. She was again arrested for the same offense in 1998 and placed under supervised probation for three years. During that period of probation a further restriction was placed on use of her license for only employment and educational purposes for 120 days. Applicant admits having had a drinking problem during the period of the offenses. She has been a member of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) since 1998. She entered a twelve week program in 1999. She now attends AA meetings three or four times a week.

Applicant has attended numerous alcohol counseling programs from 1992 to 1999. She has had no alcohol related driving offenses since 1998. However, since 1998 she has had six relapses usually on weekends drinking by herself and consuming a pint of rum. The last one was only a few months prior to the hearing on this matter to which she attributes nervousness about this hearing. She has been diagnosed by medical professionals to be suffering from depression and being a late stage alcoholic. She is on medication.

As a result to her problems concerning alcohol she incurred medical debts that became delinquent as cited in the SOR. She has resolved those debts and offered proof of payment.

Applicant did not report her 1993 traffic offense on her SF86 but she did report the 1998 offense.

Applicant was issued a letter of probation by her employer in 2002 for excessive absences and reporting violations on her time card.

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

The first allegation concerns 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 her a security clearance because of alcohol abuse under Guideline G. Applicant failed to establish that she has been rehabilitated from alcohol abuse despite having been in two programs for alcohol abuse and now being in AA. Her history of alcohol abuse and the pattern of her conduct over a long period of time indicates a failure of rehabilitation. I cannot conclude that Applicant has demonstrated that it is clearly consistent with national security to grant her a security clearance. While there have been serious efforts at rehabilitation there has been no positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety and she fails to meet any of the mitigating conditions for this guideline since she has a pattern of abuse that has continued until several months ago. (E2.A7.1.3.)

Applicant's extensive debts prompted the allegation of violation of Guideline F in that an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. (E2.A6.1.1.) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include a history of not meeting financial obligations (E2.A6.1.2.1.) and evidence of inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. (E2.A6.1.2.3.) Mitigating Conditions (MC) include the fact that the person has initiated a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. (E2.A6.1.3.6.) Applicant has successfully mitigated this issue.

Also alleged is Applicant's failure to report certain of the offenses under Guideline E that might indicate questionable judgment, unreliability, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations and could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information (E2.A5.1.1.). Specifically, the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from a personnel security application could raise a security concern and be disqualifying. (E2.A5.1.2.2.) Applicant offered an explanation for failure to list the 1993 arrest believing, on the advice of her security officer, that only arrests during the last seven years were required to be reported. She explained her failure to list a judgment by a hospital to which she had been admitted for alcohol issues as having forgotten about it since it was several years ago and she had not been solicited for the debt. I can accept her first explanation but not the second.

Regarding Applicant's admonition from her employer in 2002, she has since modified her behavior and her employer reports that she has gone beyond her initial problems and is now a trusted and valuable employee. (Exhs. C-F) Her colleagues at AA testify to her character and devotion to solving her problems and performing her job. (Exhs.D-J) Her supporting witnesses vouched for her considerable efforts to solve her problems relating to alcohol and their belief that she was a person of good character and dedicated to her job and her friends. Thus, this allegation is mitigated by the passage of time and changed behavior. (E2.A5.1.3.2.)

In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.

The "whole person" concept recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts and omissions. Each case must be judged on its own merits taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. After considering all the evidence in its totality and as an integrated whole to focus on the whole person of Applicant, I conclude that while the Applicant has made considerable efforts to change her habits regarding alcohol, it has not been sufficiently successful to justify granting a clearance. It is thus premature to grant her a clearance.

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

Paragraph 2 Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 2.b.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 2.c.: For Applicant

Paragraph 3. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 3.a.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 3.b.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 3.c.: Against Applicant

DECISION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or renew a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.

Charles D. Ablard

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Eric Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-15978.h1.htm[6/24/2021 10:58:34 AM] FOR APPLICANT Jeffrey J. Plum, Esq.