CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00281 · CASE

ISCR Case 18-00281granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00281

grantedAug 7, 2018· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 27-year-old custodian for a defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline G (alcohol consumption) and Guideline H (drug involvement and substance misuse) due to a history of substance abuse. However, she demonstrated a commitment to sobriety, having abstained from illegal drug use since February 2016 and modified her alcohol consumption. The judge found that her current reliability and good judgment outweighed past issues, resulting in a granted security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified alcohol consumption.
Applicant has abstained from illegal drug use since February 2016.
The judge found that concerns over past substance abuse do not create doubt about her current reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents
AG ¶ 22(b)raisedSubstance Abuse
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedIllegal Drug Use
AG ¶ 25(a)raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 25(b)raisedSubstance Misuse
AG ¶ 25(c)raisedPattern of Behavior

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)appliedAbstinence From Illegal Drug Use
AG ¶ 23(b)appliedRehabilitation Efforts
AG ¶ 26(a)appliedChanged Circumstances
AG ¶ 26(b)appliedSupportive Community

Key Rule Quoted

“I conclude that she met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 2, 2018
Answer filedMar 14, 2018Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing heldJul 11, 2018
Decision dateAug 7, 2018

Cite For

Demonstrating a Pattern of Modified Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G
Establishing Abstinence From Illegal Drug Use Under Guideline H
Weighing Favorable Evidence Against Unfavorable Evidence in Security Clearance Cases

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: grantedTREATMENT COMPLETED · FAVORABLE

The judge found that the applicant had a history of alcohol-related incidents, including public intoxication and employment issues due to drinking. However, the applicant demonstrated a clear pattern of modified alcohol consumption and has not had any additional alcohol-related incidents since then. The judge concluded that the applicant's current reliability and trustworthiness were not in doubt, resulting in a decision to grant the security clearance.

1.a The applicant was arrested for public intoxication in 2015.
Finding: Against Applicant
Incident: Public Intoxication
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22):
(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)
(b) alcohol-related incident at work
(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment
Mitigating applied (¶23):
(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence
Mitigation: —
1.b The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including being terminated from employment for attendance issues related to her drinking.
Finding: Against Applicant
Incident: Binge or Intoxication Pattern
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22):
(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)
(b) alcohol-related incident at work
(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment
Mitigating applied (¶23):
(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence
Mitigation: —
1.c The applicant still drinks alcohol occasionally, but only in moderation.
Finding: Against Applicant
Incident: Unspecified Alcohol Incident
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶22):
(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)
(b) alcohol-related incident at work
(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment
Mitigating applied (¶23):
(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant was arrested for public intoxication in 2015.	Against Applicant	Public Intoxication	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.b	The applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents, including being terminated from employment for attendance issues related to her drinking.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—
1.c	The applicant still drinks alcohol occasionally, but only in moderation.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	(a) so much time has passed / so infrequent that it is unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges the pattern and has established modified use or abstinence	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had a history of marijuana use and alcohol abuse but has abstained from illegal drug use since February 2016. The applicant demonstrated a commitment to modified alcohol consumption and provided credible testimony regarding her future intentions. The judge concluded that the applicant's past substance use does not currently affect her reliability or trustworthiness, resulting in a decision to grant her security clearance.

1.a Smoked marijuana since February 2016.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: Marijuana
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(b) testing positive for an illegal drug
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation: —
1.b Drank alcohol to excess.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: Unspecified Drug Involvement
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(b) testing positive for an illegal drug
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation: —
1.c Was terminated from employment on three occasions for testing positive for marijuana in 2010, and in 2013 and 2015 for attendance issues related to her drinking.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: Unspecified Drug Involvement
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(b) testing positive for an illegal drug
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation: —
1.d Was arrested for public intoxication in 2015.
Finding: For Applicant
Substance / event: Unspecified Drug Involvement
Use level: Not Applicable
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶25):
(a) any substance misuse
(b) testing positive for an illegal drug
(c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia
Mitigating applied (¶26):
(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur
(b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
1.a	Smoked marijuana since February 2016.	For Applicant	Marijuana	Not Applicable	Denied	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.b	Drank alcohol to excess.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Denied	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.c	Was terminated from employment on three occasions for testing positive for marijuana in 2010, and in 2013 and 2015 for attendance issues related to her drinking.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Denied	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—
1.d	Was arrested for public intoxication in 2015.	For Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Not Applicable	Denied	(a) any substance misuse (b) testing positive for an illegal drug (c) illegal possession, cultivation, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or paraphernalia	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) acknowledges involvement; evidence of action; established abstinence	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). 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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: )

)

ISCR Case No. 18-00281

) Applicant for Security Clearance )

Appearances

For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

______________

Decision ______________

LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge:

On March 2, 2018, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines G (alcohol consumption) and H (drug involvement and substance misuse).1 Applicant responded to the SOR on March 14, 2018, and elected to have the case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel requested a hearing on April 8, 2018. The case was assigned to me on May 8, 2018. The hearing was held as scheduled on July 11, 2018. On July 27, 2018, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Department Counsel did not object.

Applicant is a 27-year-old custodian for a defense contractor. She has worked for her current employer since May 2016. She lives with a cohabitant, and she has a six- year-old child.

1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017. 08/07/2018

Applicant was born and raised in a community where drug and alcohol abuse was common. She fell into the same habits as most of the individuals around her, and she smoked marijuana and drank alcohol to excess. Her substance abuse led to academic probation in college and employment issues. She was terminated from employment on three occasions: for testing positive for marijuana in 2010, and in 2013 and 2015 for attendance issues related to her drinking. She was arrested for public intoxication in 2015.

Applicant wanted to break the cycle of drug and alcohol abuse and provide a better life and future for her child. She moved to another state. She obtained a job with a good company, where she has worked for more than two years. She has not smoked marijuana since February 2016. She credibly testified that she will not do so again. She still drinks alcohol occasionally, but only in moderation, and she has not had any additional alcohol-related incidents.

The disqualifying conditions under AG ¶¶ 22(a), 22(b), 22(c), 25(a), 25(b), and 25(c) have been raised by the evidence. However, I find that Applicant has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified alcohol consumption. I further find that she has abstained from illegal drug use for an appropriate period, and that illegal drug use is unlikely to recur. The mitigating conditions under AG ¶¶ 23(a), 23(b), 26(a), and 26(b) are applicable.

The concerns over Applicant’s alcohol and marijuana abuse do not create doubt about her current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that she met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

________________________ Edward W. Loughran Administrative Judge