ISCR Case 05-00416.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-00416.h1

deniedJun 30, 2006· Hon. James A. Young· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old hardware engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant had a long history of alcohol dependence, consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication from 1968 to at least June 2004. This led to poor judgment, including missed work and financial difficulties. He received treatment for excessive alcohol consumption from January 2001 to October 2003 and was diagnosed with alcohol dependence by medical professionals.

In December 2003, the applicant was convicted of evading arrest/detention after consuming alcohol. During interviews with a security investigator on January 12 and 15, 2004, he allegedly omitted this arrest. While the judge found insufficient evidence of deliberate misleading during the security investigation regarding the omission, the applicant's alcohol-related issues remained central to the denial.

Despite attending AA almost daily since September 13, 2005, and reporting no alcohol consumption since August 2005, the applicant lacked a sufficient record of recent sobriety. The denial was based on his long-standing alcohol consumption problem, diagnosed dependence, history of alcohol-related incidents, and the resulting concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long-standing alcohol consumption problem with insufficient recent sobriety.
The applicant's alcohol dependence was diagnosed, and he had a history of alcohol-related incidents.
The applicant's conduct raised concerns about reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A7.1.2.1raisedAlcohol-related Incident Away From Work
E2.A7.1.2.3raisedDiagnosis of Alcohol Dependence
E2.A7.1.2.6raisedContinued Alcohol Consumption After Diagnosis
E2.A5.1.2.3rejectedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading InformationThe judge found insufficient evidence to conclude the applicant deliberately misled the investigator.
E2.A10.1.2.1raisedAllegations or Admissions of Criminal Conduct
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedSingle Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses

Mitigating

E2.A7.1.3.1appliedAlcohol-related Incidents Do Not Indicate a Pattern
E2.A7.1.3.3appliedPositive Changes Supportive of Sobriety
E2.A10.1.3.1appliedCriminal Behavior Was Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.2appliedCriminal Conduct Was an Isolated Incident

Key Rule Quoted

“"No one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 11, 2005
Answer filedSep 19, 2005
Hearing heldApr 26, 2006
Decision dateJun 30, 2006

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Insufficient Sobriety Record Under Guideline G
Insufficient Evidence of Deliberate Misleading Under Guideline E
Mitigating Conditions for Isolated Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J

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	During interviews with an authorized security investigator on 12 and 15 January 2004, Applicant deliberately omitted material facts by failing to disclose he had been arrested in December 2003.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

During interviews with an authorized security investigator on 12 and 15 January 2004, Applicant deliberately omitted material facts by failing to disclose he had been arrested in December 2003.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to Disclose

Criminal Conduct

Admitted

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication from 1968 to at least June 2004	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.b	received treatment for his excessive alcohol consumption in January 2001	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.c	received treatment for his excessive alcohol consumption from January 2001 to October 2003	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.d	was convicted of evading arrest/detention for an incident that occurred in December 2003 after he had consumed alcohol	Against Applicant	Alcohol Related Arrest	Admitted	(b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.e	continues to consume alcohol	For Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Denied	(b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.f	has been attending AA almost daily since 13 September 2005	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Denied	(b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.g	his abuse of alcohol has led to poor judgment including missing work and financial difficulties	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	(b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.h	he was diagnosed by credentialed medical professionals with alcohol dependence	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Denied	—	—	—
1.i	he has not had any alcohol since August 2005	For Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Denied	—	—	—
1.j	he is attending AA and receiving treatment for alcohol abuse on a recurring basis	For Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication from 1968 to at least June 2004

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional

—

1.b

received treatment for his excessive alcohol consumption in January 2001

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.c

received treatment for his excessive alcohol consumption from January 2001 to October 2003

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.d

was convicted of evading arrest/detention for an incident that occurred in December 2003 after he had consumed alcohol

Against Applicant

Alcohol Related Arrest

Admitted

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.e

continues to consume alcohol

For Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Denied

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.f

has been attending AA almost daily since 13 September 2005

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Denied

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.g

his abuse of alcohol has led to poor judgment including missing work and financial difficulties

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.h

he was diagnosed by credentialed medical professionals with alcohol dependence

For Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Denied

—

1.i

he has not had any alcohol since August 2005

For Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Denied

—

1.j

he is attending AA and receiving treatment for alcohol abuse on a recurring basis

For Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant was convicted evading arrest/detention during a December 2003 incident.	For Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur (c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
3.b	violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by deliberately failing to disclose material facts to a security investigator during January 2003 interviews.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant was convicted evading arrest/detention during a December 2003 incident.

For Applicant

Traffic Offense Pattern

Convicted

Denied

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

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

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

3.b

violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by deliberately failing to disclose material facts to a security investigator during January 2003 interviews.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

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

—

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

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES