ISCR Case 02-21824.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-21824.h1

grantedMar 18, 2004· Hon. Kathryn Moen Braeman· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The allegations stemmed from multiple alcohol-related incidents, including four DUIs between 1997 and 2000, one of which was reduced to reckless driving, and a 2001 arrest for driving on a revoked license. These incidents resulted in fines, license revocation, jail time, and mandatory attendance at DUI school and alcohol abuse classes.

Additionally, the applicant faced scrutiny for omissions on his 2000 security form. However, the judge determined there was no intent to falsify information, noting that the applicant had disclosed substantial adverse information on earlier forms.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on several mitigating factors. The applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation, evidenced by a two-year absence of any adverse incidents. An expert psychological evaluation concluded that he no longer had an alcohol-related problem, and strong character references supported his rehabilitation and work performance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant has not had any adverse incidents for two years.
Expert psychologist concluded Applicant no longer has an alcohol-related problem.
Applicant demonstrated successful rehabilitation through work performance and character references.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

J.araisedCriminal Conduct
G.1raisedAlcohol Consumption
E.1raisedPersonal Conduct

Mitigating

J.aappliedCriminal ConductThe criminal behavior was not recent.
J.dappliedCriminal ConductThe factors leading to the violation are not likely to recur.
J.fappliedCriminal ConductThere is clear evidence of successful rehabilitation.
G.2appliedAlcohol ConsumptionThe problem occurred a number of years ago and there is no indication of a recent problem.
G.3appliedAlcohol ConsumptionPositive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety.
E.1appliedPersonal ConductNo intent to falsify as substantial adverse information was disclosed on earlier forms.

Key Rule Quoted

“The responsibility for producing evidence initially falls on the Government to demonstrate that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 25, 2003
Answer filedAug 20, 2003Applicant admitted allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2, denied paragraph 3.
Hearing heldDec 18, 2003Hearing conducted after mutual agreement.
Decision dateMar 18, 2004

Cite For

Successful Rehabilitation of Past Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Mitigation of Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
No Intent to Falsify Information on Security Forms Under Guideline E

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	The omissions on his security form were not intentional as he disclosed substantial adverse information on earlier security forms.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other
3.b	While the Government raised security concerns over Applicant's personal conduct in failing to disclose fully all adverse information in answering fully questions on his 2000 security form, I am persuaded that he had no intent to falsify.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

3.a

The omissions on his security form were not intentional as he disclosed substantial adverse information on earlier security forms.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

Claimed

Other

3.b

While the Government raised security concerns over Applicant's personal conduct in failing to disclose fully all adverse information in answering fully questions on his 2000 security form, I am persuaded that he had no intent to falsify.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

Claimed

Other

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
2.a	Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, or other criminal incidents related to alcohol use;	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—
2.b	Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment;	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	—	(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—
2.c–2.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, or other criminal incidents related to alcohol use;

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse

—

2.b

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

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

—

(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse

—

2.c–2.d

2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Driving While Intoxicated (DUI) which was reduced to reckless driving where he was fined, served two-days and went to DUI School.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.) (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.b	a May 1997 DUI where he was fined $1,000, had his license revoked and went to alcohol abuse class.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.) (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.c	a DUI in August 1999 which was reduced to reckless driving; he was fined $350, served two-days and went to DUI School.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.) (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.d	another DUI in April 2000 after he consumed six beers and drove home; he was fined $696, served two days and went to DUI school.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.) (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.e	a July 2001 arrest for driving on a revoked license after he was stopped for speeding, jailed and released on $500 bond.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.) (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Driving While Intoxicated (DUI) which was reduced to reckless driving where he was fined, served two-days and went to DUI School.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.b

a May 1997 DUI where he was fined $1,000, had his license revoked and went to alcohol abuse class.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.c

a DUI in August 1999 which was reduced to reckless driving; he was fined $350, served two-days and went to DUI School.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.d

another DUI in April 2000 after he consumed six beers and drove home; he was fined $696, served two days and went to DUI school.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.e

a July 2001 arrest for driving on a revoked license after he was stopped for speeding, jailed and released on $500 bond.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur

(d) evidence of successful rehabilitation (time, restitution, employment, etc.)

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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