ISCR Case 03-00535.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-00535.h1

grantedDec 17, 2004· Hon. Paul J. Mason· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old software engineer was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The Statement of Reasons cited two alcohol-related incidents: a 1991 arrest for driving while under the influence (DWI) and a 2000 charge for driving under the influence (DUI). Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication four times a year and omitted information about the 2000 charge from his August 2002 security clearance application.

Disqualifying conditions under both guidelines were raised, specifically GDC 1, GDC 2, and E DC 2. However, the judge applied mitigating conditions, including GMC 1, GMC 2, GMC 3, E MC 1, E MC 2, and E MC 3.

The clearance was granted because the applicant had not engaged in alcohol-related behavior since 2000, demonstrating a significant period of sobriety. The 2000 DUI charges were dismissed after the applicant tested below the legal limit, indicating no pattern of alcohol abuse. Furthermore, the omission of the 2000 incident from the security clearance application was deemed unintentional.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant has not engaged in alcohol-related behavior since 2000, demonstrating a significant period of sobriety.
The 2000 DUI charges were dismissed after the applicant tested below the legal limit, indicating no pattern of alcohol abuse.
The applicant's omission of the 2000 incident from his security clearance application was deemed unintentional.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

GDC 1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
GDC 2raisedHabitual or Binge Drinking to the Point of Impaired Judgment
E DC 2raisedThe Deliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire Used to Determine Security Clearance Eligibility

Mitigating

GMC 1appliedThe Alcohol-related Incidents Do Not Indicate a Pattern
GMC 2appliedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem
GMC 3appliedPositive Changes in a Behavior Supportive of Sobriety
E MC 1appliedThe Information Was Unsubstantiated or Not Pertinent to the Determination of Judgment, Trustworthiness or Reliability
E MC 2appliedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily
E MC 3appliedThe Individual Made Prompt, Good-faith Efforts to Correct the Falsification Before Being Confronted with the Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“The granting (or continuance) of a security clearance under this Directive may only be done upon a finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.”
— Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 17, 2003
Answer filedJun 22, 2004Response to FORM mailed on June 21, 2004.
Hearing held—Case decided on a written record.
Decision dateDec 17, 2004

Cite For

Mitigation of Past Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
Unintentional Omission of Information in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Consideration of Positive Behavioral Changes in Security Clearance Determinations.

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
2.a	Applicant omitted information regarding the November 2000 charge(s) from his security clearance application (SCA) in August 2002.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully (c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible Claimed Financial Event Outside Control

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant omitted information regarding the November 2000 charge(s) from his security clearance application (SCA) in August 2002.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

—

(b) omission/refusal followed advice of counsel; later cooperated fully

(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances

Claimed

Explanation of Omission Credible

Claimed

Financial Event Outside Control

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	On July 14, 1991, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWI).	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence (c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—
1.b	On November 19, 2000, Applicant was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI).	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence (c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—
1.c	Applicant has consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication four times a year.	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence (c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

On July 14, 1991, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWI).

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

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

—

1.b

On November 19, 2000, Applicant was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI).

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

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

—

1.c

Applicant has consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication four times a year.

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

—

(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur

(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence

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

—

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES