ISCR Case 03-13558.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-13558.h1

grantedDec 28, 2004· Hon. Kathryn Moen Braeman· hearing

Summary

A 58-year-old defense contractor with 30 years of employment history was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant faced allegations stemming from multiple alcohol-related arrests, including driving under the influence and other incidents away from work. Financial concerns totaled approximately $10,000, involving several utility debts, a co-signed car loan for his son that resulted in repossession, and a judgment for property damage also related to his son.

The applicant successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating significant rehabilitation. He committed to sobriety, actively participated in Alcoholics Anonymous, and limited his alcohol consumption. Furthermore, all outstanding debts were fully resolved prior to the hearing, including specific payments made in 2004 for utility bills, a settlement for the repossessed car, and a judgment related to property damage.

The judge ultimately granted the security clearance, citing the applicant's long-standing record of exemplary job performance and integrity over three decades, alongside the compelling evidence of his reform and resolution of all financial and alcohol-related issues.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a commitment to sobriety by attending Alcoholics Anonymous and limiting alcohol consumption.
All debts totaling approximately $10,000 were resolved prior to the hearing.
The applicant has a 30-year history of exemplary job performance and integrity.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
J.araisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct
F.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

G.2appliedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem
G.3appliedPositive Changes in Behavior Supportive of Sobriety
J.aappliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
J.fappliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
F.6appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

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 issuedFeb 17, 2004
Answer filedMar 4, 2004Notarized response admitting most allegations.
Hearing heldJun 9, 2004Hearing conducted with both parties presenting evidence.
Decision dateDec 28, 2004

Cite For

Mitigation of Alcohol-related Incidents Under Guideline G
Successful Rehabilitation in Criminal Conduct Cases Under Guideline J
Resolution of Financial Obligations 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	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	The debt of $311 to a collection agency (Creditor #1) for a utility bill for services at another address where he lived in 2001 was paid in full in May 2004. $311	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	—
3.b	The debt of $924 to another utility (Creditor #2) for services at another address was paid in full in April 2004. $924	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	—
3.c	The debt of $260 to another utility (Creditor #3) for services was paid in full in April 2004. $260	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	—
3.d	The debt of $8,068 to an automobile finance services agency (Creditor #4) was a result of his having co-signed his son's car loan; when his son lost his job, Applicant continued making payments. Then his son went back to work, but again lost his job. The car was repossessed in January 2002 when they were behind two payments. Applicant settled his debt with them for $1,054 which he paid in full in April 2004. $8,054	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	—
3.e	The judgment of $1,200 to Creditor #5 resulted after his son had an accident that damaged a fence in January 2002; Applicant had co-signed the insurance and began payments in May 2003 immediately after the court judgment; he had paid the amount in full in May 2004. $1,200	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	—	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

The debt of $311 to a collection agency (Creditor #1) for a utility bill for services at another address where he lived in 2001 was paid in full in May 2004.

$311

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

—

3.b

The debt of $924 to another utility (Creditor #2) for services at another address was paid in full in April 2004.

$924

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

—

3.c

The debt of $260 to another utility (Creditor #3) for services was paid in full in April 2004.

$260

For Applicant

Utility or Phone Debt

Admitted

—

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

—

3.d

The debt of $8,068 to an automobile finance services agency (Creditor #4) was a result of his having co-signed his son's car loan; when his son lost his job, Applicant continued making payments. Then his son went back to work, but again lost his job. The car was repossessed in January 2002 when they were behind two payments. Applicant settled his debt with them for $1,054 which he paid in full in April 2004.

$8,054

For Applicant

Auto Loan Debt

Admitted

—

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

—

3.e

The judgment of $1,200 to Creditor #5 resulted after his son had an accident that damaged a fence in January 2002; Applicant had co-signed the insurance and began payments in May 2003 immediately after the court judgment; he had paid the amount in full in May 2004.

$1,200

For Applicant

Judgment Against Applicant

Admitted

—

(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.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	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	—	—	—
1.b–1.h	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.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

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Denied

—

1.b–1.h

7 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
2.a	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related arrests, including multiple offenses for driving under the influence and other alcohol-related incidents.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related arrests, including multiple offenses for driving under the influence and other alcohol-related incidents.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

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

(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