ISCR Case 05-14207.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-14207.h1

deniedSep 29, 2006· Hon. Henry Lazzaro· hearing

Summary

A 48-year-old software design engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines D (Sexual Behavior), E (Personal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant's history included multiple DUI convictions in 1992 and 2002, and a battery conviction in 2000.

Further allegations detailed felony charges from December 2000 for Lewd or Lascivious Conduct and False Imprisonment of a Child Under 13, stemming from two separate incidents. These charges were later reduced, and the applicant pled guilty to misdemeanor battery for each offense in October 2002, receiving consecutive one-year probations. Additionally, the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol abuse by a medical professional and underwent treatment from November 2002 to March 2003.

The judge determined that the applicant's criminal conduct raised significant concerns regarding judgment and reliability. Insufficient evidence was presented to mitigate the security risks associated with his alcohol abuse and criminal behavior. The applicant's testimony was deemed inconsistent and lacked credibility when compared to victim statements, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's history of criminal conduct raised significant concerns about his judgment and reliability.
The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to his alcohol abuse and criminal behavior.
The judge found the applicant's testimony inconsistent and not credible compared to the statements of the victims.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
DC 2raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
DC 3raisedDiagnosis by a Credentialed Medical Professional of Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Dependence
DC 5raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol to the Point of Impaired Judgment

Mitigating

MC 1rejectedThe Alcohol-related Incidents Do Not Indicate a Pattern
MC 2rejectedThe Problem Occurred a Number of Years Ago and There Is No Indication of a Recent Problem
MC 3rejectedPositive Changes in Behavior Supportive of Sobriety

Key Rule Quoted

“No one has a right to a security clearance and "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials."”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 6, 2006
Answer filedMar 30, 2006
Hearing heldJun 14, 2006
Decision dateSep 29, 2006

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
Impact of Alcohol-related Offenses on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline G
Insufficient Mitigation of Security Concerns Related to Personal Conduct 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	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶13)	Mitigating applied (¶14)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶13)

Mitigating applied (¶14)

Mitigation

2.a–2.b

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

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
4.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

4.a

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
3.a	The applicant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in 1992 and 2002.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment (e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence (c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—
3.b	The applicant was diagnosed as alcohol abusive by a credentialed medical professional.	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
3.c	The applicant underwent treatment for alcohol abuse from November 2002 until March 2003.	For Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	—	(c) participating in counseling/treatment with satisfactory progress, no prior relapse	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

3.a

The applicant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in 1992 and 2002.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

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

(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed

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

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

—

3.b

The applicant was diagnosed as alcohol abusive by a credentialed medical professional.

For Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

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

—

3.c

The applicant underwent treatment for alcohol abuse from November 2002 until March 2003.

For Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

—

(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 convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in 1992 and 2002, and battery in 2000.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.b	Applicant was charged with the felony offenses of Lewd or Lascivious Conduct and False Imprisonment of a Child Under 13 on December 4, 2000, based on two separate incidents.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—
1.c	Applicant pled guilty to reduced charges of misdemeanor battery as to each offense on October 9, 2002, and was sentenced to one year probation on each count to be served consecutively.	For Applicant	Assault or Battery	Convicted	Admitted	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction (c) currently on parole or probation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in 1992 and 2002, and battery in 2000.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Criminal

Convicted

Admitted

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

1.b

Applicant was charged with the felony offenses of Lewd or Lascivious Conduct and False Imprisonment of a Child Under 13 on December 4, 2000, based on two separate incidents.

Against Applicant

Assault or Battery

Convicted

Denied

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

1.c

Applicant pled guilty to reduced charges of misdemeanor battery as to each offense on October 9, 2002, and was sentenced to one year probation on each count to be served consecutively.

For Applicant

Assault or Battery

Convicted

Admitted

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

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

(c) currently on parole or probation

—

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

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

CONCLUSION