ISCR Case 05-08486.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-08486.h1

grantedDec 29, 2006· Hon. Kathryn Moen Braeman· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old engineer working for a defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons detailed several incidents, including a January 2004 DUI arrest, a July 1997 non-judicial punishment for DUI, and an August 1988 DUI arrest. Additionally, the applicant was cited for possession of drug paraphernalia in April 2003, though these charges were dismissed. Earlier, in 1995, he faced charges for criminal trespass, theft, receiving stolen property, unauthorized use of an auto, and controlled substances violations, which were later reduced to two counts of disorderly conduct.

The applicant consistently disclosed these incidents on various security forms, including his SF-86 and SF-88. The administrative judge found that the applicant had no intent to falsify information, noting his consistent disclosure of adverse information across multiple applications and interviews.

Crucially, the applicant demonstrated rehabilitation by completing all court-ordered alcohol education and probation requirements stemming from his alcohol-related arrests. Based on these mitigating factors, the administrative judge determined that granting the security clearance was consistent with the national interest.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant established he had no intent to falsify information on security forms.
He disclosed adverse information consistently across multiple security applications and interviews.
The applicant completed all court-ordered alcohol education and probation requirements, demonstrating rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A10.1.2.1raisedCriminal Conduct
E2.A10.1.2.2raisedPattern of Criminal Activity
E2.A7.1.1.2.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents

Mitigating

E2.A10.1.3.1appliedCriminal Behavior Was Not Recent
E2.A10.1.3.6appliedClear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
E2.A5.1.3.2appliedFalsification Was an Isolated Incident
E2.A7.1.1.3.3appliedPositive Changes in Behavior Supportive of Sobriety

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 issuedMay 5, 2006
Answer filedJun 20, 2006Requested decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—Decision made without a hearing.
Decision dateDec 29, 2006

Cite For

Mitigation of Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Successful Rehabilitation From Alcohol-related Issues Under Guideline G
Lack of Intent to Falsify Information 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
2.a–2.c	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		Criminal Conduct		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a–2.c

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

For Applicant

Criminal Conduct

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	You operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol as stated in paragraphs 1.a., 1.c., and 1.e. above.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

You operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol as stated in paragraphs 1.a., 1.c., and 1.e. above.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

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

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was arrested in January 2004, charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI), found guilty and sentenced to pay court costs and a fine; he was placed on probation. He disclosed this arrest on his SF-86. (SOR ¶ 1.a)	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	—	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.b	Applicant was stopped in April 2003 and cited for possession of drug paraphernalia. In court the charges were dismissed. He did not know he was in a neighborhood known for drug dealing. (SOR ¶ 1.b)	For Applicant	Drug Related Criminal Charge	Dismissed or Nolle Prossed	Denied	—	(a) so much time has passed, or unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur	—
1.c	In his 1998 SF-86 Applicant disclosed he received non-judicial punishment at a captain's mast for DUI in July 1997. (SOR ¶ 1.c)	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.d	Before he joined the military Applicant advised on his SF 88 of his 1995 arrest for criminal trespass, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, unauthorized use of an auto, and violation of the controlled substances act; these charges were reduced to two counts of disorderly conduct. (SOR ¶ 1.d)	For Applicant	Theft or Larceny	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—
1.e	Applicant advised the military on his SF 88 of his arrest in August 1988 and charge of DUI; he had been placed on probation for one year, had a suspended license and entered an accelerated rehabilitation disposition program where he attended alcohol classes. (SOR ¶ 1.e)	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was arrested in January 2004, charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI), found guilty and sentenced to pay court costs and a fine; he was placed on probation. He disclosed this arrest on his SF-86. (SOR ¶ 1.a)

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

—

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.b

Applicant was stopped in April 2003 and cited for possession of drug paraphernalia. In court the charges were dismissed. He did not know he was in a neighborhood known for drug dealing. (SOR ¶ 1.b)

For Applicant

Drug Related Criminal Charge

Dismissed or Nolle Prossed

Denied

—

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

—

1.c

In his 1998 SF-86 Applicant disclosed he received non-judicial punishment at a captain's mast for DUI in July 1997. (SOR ¶ 1.c)

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.d

Before he joined the military Applicant advised on his SF 88 of his 1995 arrest for criminal trespass, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, unauthorized use of an auto, and violation of the controlled substances act; these charges were reduced to two counts of disorderly conduct. (SOR ¶ 1.d)

For Applicant

Theft or Larceny

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(c) no reliable evidence the individual committed the offense

—

1.e

Applicant advised the military on his SF 88 of his arrest in August 1988 and charge of DUI; he had been placed on probation for one year, had a suspended license and entered an accelerated rehabilitation disposition program where he attended alcohol classes. (SOR ¶ 1.e)

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Admitted

—

(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