ISCR Case 03-18799.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-18799.h1

deniedFeb 13, 2006· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old field technician for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to significant concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial was primarily based on a history of criminal conduct, including a 10-year sentence for residential burglary and unlawful restraint, of which he served two years and five months. This incarceration period exceeded the one-year threshold mandated by 10 U.S.C. § 986, which requires denial of a security clearance.

Additionally, the applicant demonstrated a 20-year history of criminal conduct, evidenced by nine arrests between August 1984 and February 2004. These incidents included multiple alcohol-related charges such as DUI arrests, public intoxication, and a resisting a peace officer charge stemming from an alcohol-related bar fight. The applicant also faced charges for battery and criminal damage to property.

The judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate successful rehabilitation from alcohol abuse, noting a lack of corroboration for claimed AA meetings or counseling following a February 2004 DUI conviction. The applicant also minimized the significance of his arrests, despite court documentation. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for residential burglary and unlawful restraint, serving two years and five months in prison.
The provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 986 require denial of his clearance due to his incarceration exceeding one year.
The applicant had a pattern of alcohol-related incidents, indicating a serious security concern.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.2.3raisedCriminal Conduct
E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol Consumption

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1rejectedCriminal ConductThe criminal behavior was not recent.
E2.A7.1.3.1rejectedAlcohol ConsumptionThe alcohol-related incidents indicate a pattern.

Key Rule Quoted

“The government has a compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 29, 2004
Answer filedJan 17, 2005
Hearing held—Decision without hearing requested.
Decision dateFeb 13, 2006

Cite For

Mandatory Denial of Clearance Under 10 U.S.C. § 986 for Incarceration Over One Year
Pattern of Alcohol-related Incidents as a Disqualifying Factor
Failure to Demonstrate Successful Rehabilitation From Criminal Conduct and Alcohol Abuse

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–3.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a–3.b

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	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUI arrests and public intoxication.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including multiple DUI arrests and public intoxication.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was convicted of residential burglary and unlawful restraint and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.	Against Applicant	Trespassing or Burglary	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.b	Applicant has a 20-year history of criminal conduct demonstrated by nine arrests between August 1984 and February 2004.	Against Applicant	Multiple Arrests Pattern	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.c	Applicant minimized the significance of his arrests, even where the court dispositions or other documentation belie his version of events.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant had a February 2004 DUI charge (failure to submit).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.e	Applicant had a July 2002 drunk in public charge.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.f	Applicant had a January 2001 DUI charge (.10 B.A.C.).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
1.g	Applicant had a September 1999 resisting a peace officer charge (alcohol-related bar fight).	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant had a January 1999 battery/criminal damage to property charge.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant claims to have met all the conditions of his February 2004 DUI conviction, including counseling and AA participation.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—
1.j	Applicant provided no corroboration of the claimed AA meetings or counseling.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was convicted of residential burglary and unlawful restraint and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

Against Applicant

Trespassing or Burglary

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.b

Applicant has a 20-year history of criminal conduct demonstrated by nine arrests between August 1984 and February 2004.

Against Applicant

Multiple Arrests Pattern

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.c

Applicant minimized the significance of his arrests, even where the court dispositions or other documentation belie his version of events.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

1.d

Applicant had a February 2004 DUI charge (failure to submit).

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.e

Applicant had a July 2002 drunk in public charge.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.f

Applicant had a January 2001 DUI charge (.10 B.A.C.).

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

—

1.g

Applicant had a September 1999 resisting a peace officer charge (alcohol-related bar fight).

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

1.h

Applicant had a January 1999 battery/criminal damage to property charge.

Against Applicant

Assault or Battery

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

1.i

Applicant claims to have met all the conditions of his February 2004 DUI conviction, including counseling and AA participation.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

1.j

Applicant provided no corroboration of the claimed AA meetings or counseling.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES