CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 97-0247.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 97-0247.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 97-0247.h1

deniedNov 14, 1997· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) due to a documented history of alcohol abuse and related legal issues. The Statement of Reasons detailed that the applicant consumed alcohol to excess from approximately 1978 to at least January 1997, resulting in five arrests and convictions for alcohol-related offenses.

Specific incidents included a September 1987 arrest for DUI, reduced to 'Wet Reckless,' and a November 1988 arrest for DUI with a .08% BAC, to which he pleaded guilty. Further DUI arrests and guilty pleas occurred in July 1992 and October 1992. The October 1992 conviction resulted in a sentence of 360 days in county jail (240 days suspended), a $2,833.00 fine, and a mandatory thirty-month alcohol treatment program.

Approximately five months after completing this program, in March 1996, the applicant was again arrested for driving with a .08% BAC or more. The judge determined that the applicant's excessive alcohol consumption and continued drinking habits adversely affected his judgment and reliability, leading to the denial of his security clearance. The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate these concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had a long history of alcohol abuse, including multiple arrests and convictions.
The applicant continued to consume alcohol despite previous treatment programs.
The applicant failed to provide evidence to mitigate the concerns raised by the Government.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work.
G.4raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol to the Point of Impaired Judgment.

Key Rule Quoted

“In DOHA cases, the Government has the initial burden of producing evidence that reasonably suggests an applicant cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 8, 1997
Answer filedApr 28, 1997Applicant elected to have case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateNov 14, 1997

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to History of Alcohol Abuse
Impact of Multiple Alcohol-related Offenses on Security Clearance Eligibility
Failure to Mitigate Concerns Regarding Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant had a history of excessive alcohol consumption, resulting in multiple DUI arrests and convictions. The judge found that the applicant's continued alcohol use and the recency of his alcohol-related offenses reflected adversely on his judgment and reliability, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from approximately 1978 to at least January 1997.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.b	During this time he was arrested and convicted of five alcohol-related offenses.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.c	In September 1987 he was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of 'Wet Reckless.'	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.d	In November 1988 he was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence with a Blood Alcohol content of .08% or more. He pleaded guilty to the charge.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.e	In July 1992 he was arrested and charged with DUI. He pleaded guilty to the charge.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.f	In October 1992 he was arrested and charged with DUI. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 360 days in county jail (240 days suspended), and was fined $2,833.00. In addition, he was ordered to participate in a thirty month alcohol treatment program.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.g	In March 1996, approximately five months after he completed the thirty month alcohol treatment program, applicant was arrested and charged with Driving With a Blood Alcohol Content of .08% or more.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DATE: November 14, 1997 In Re: Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 97-0247 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se

STATEMENT OF CASE

On April 8, 1997, the Defense Office Of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) (copy appended) to (Applicant), which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked. The applicant responded to the SOR in writing on April 28, 1997, and elected to have his case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on or about June 30, 1997. The applicant did not file a response to the Government's case. The case was received by the undersigned Administrative Judge on August 14, 1997.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is thirty-seven years of age. Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from approximately 1978 to at least January 1997. During this time he was arrested and convicted of five alcohol-related offenses. In September 1987 he was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of "Wet Reckless," and was fined $663.00. In November 1988 he was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence with a Blood Alcohol content of .08% or more. He pleaded guilty to the charge, was fined $2,450.00, and was placed on probation for five years. In July 1992 he was arrested and charged with DUI. He pleaded guilty to the charge, was fined $1,025.00, and was placed on probation for three years. In October 1992 he was arrested and charged with DUI. He pleaded guilty to the charge, was sentenced to 360 days in county jail (240 days suspended), and was fined $2,833.00. In addition, he was ordered to participate in a thirty month alcohol treatment program. Applicant participated in the alcohol treatment program as ordered. In March 1996, approximately five months after he completed the thirty month alcohol treatment program, applicant was arrested and charged with Driving With a Blood Alcohol Content of .08% or more. In August 1996, he pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 360 days in county jail (240 days suspended) and was fined $2,924.00. In addition, he was ordered to participate in an eighteen month alcohol treatment program, and his drivers license was revoked for three years. Applicant began attending an alcohol treatment program in October 1996. Applicant continues to consume alcohol, although not as frequently as he did when he was younger.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth the Adjudication Policy (divided into Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors) which must be followed by the Administrative Judge. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the following Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors are applicable: ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION Disqualifying Factors: 1. Alcohol-related incidents away from work. 4. Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. Mitigating Factors: None.

CONCLUSION

In DOHA cases, the Government has the initial burden of producing evidence that reasonably suggests an applicant cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. If the Government meets its burden, it has established a prima facie case. Once the Government establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to applicant to produce evidence in refutation, extenuation, mitigation or reformation sufficient to establish that, notwithstanding the Government's prima facie case, he or she can be relied upon to safeguard classified information. In view of the Directive's requirement that a security clearance be granted only upon a finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest, the applicant has a heavy burden. In this case, the Government established a prima facie case under Criterion G. The evidence establishes that applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from approximately 1978 to at least January 1997, and that this excessive consumption of alcohol resulted in at least five arrests and convictions. Applicant's consumption of alcohol to excess, and his numerous alcohol-related arrests and convictions, reflect adversely on his judgment and reliability, and reasonably suggest that he cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. Applicant failed to rebut the Government's prima facie case under Criterion G. The recency and extent of his alcohol abuse, together with his continued consumption of alcohol, preclude a finding that his abuse of alcohol is unlikely to recur. For this reason, Criterion G is found against him.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant. _______________________ Joseph Testan Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

97-0247.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0247.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:01:00 PM] 97-0247.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0247.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:01:00 PM] 97-0247.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0247.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:01:00 PM]