Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-01028 · CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date5/19/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Government Counsel: Jenny Bayer, Esq.
Judge: Darlene D. Lokey Anderson
Guidelines Evaluated
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- GAlcohol Consumption · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 25-01028, answered from its own record: what was alleged, what the judge found, where it says so. Descriptive only; never advice.

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only, not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 25-01028denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 25-01028

deniedMay 19, 2026· Hon. Darlene D. Lokey Anderson· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 49-year-old defense contractor with a history of excessive alcohol consumption and financial difficulties, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). Despite acknowledging his alcohol problem and recent abstinence, the applicant's three DWI arrests and lack of rehabilitative support raised significant concerns about his reliability and judgment.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption, including three DWI arrests, which raises questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant has not demonstrated sufficient commitment to sobriety through participation in alcohol rehabilitation programs or support groups.
The applicant's financial difficulties, including delinquent debts totaling approximately $43,716, indicate poor self-control and lack of judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.22.araisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G.22.craisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
F.18raisedFailure to Live Within One's Means

Mitigating

G.23.brejectedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Problem and Actions TakenThe applicant has not demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence.
F.19notedInability to Resolve Financial Issues

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 8, 2025
Answer filedOct 21, 2025
Hearing heldApr 14, 2026
Decision dateMay 19, 2026

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Multiple DWI Arrests Under Guideline G
Impact of Financial Difficulties on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline F
Lack of Rehabilitative Support as a Factor in Alcohol-related Security Clearance Denials

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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had multiple financial issues, including a charged-off account and two delinquent debts totaling approximately $17,179. The applicant's financial difficulties were attributed to excessive spending and the impact of his alcohol-related legal issues. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on the financial allegations, citing concerns about his reliability and judgment.

2.a Applicant was indebted to a creditor for a charged off account in the approximate amount of $26,537.
$26,537
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Denied
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
2.b Applicant is indebted to a creditor in the amount of approximately $13,967. This was a personal loan that Applicant obtained when he and his wife were separated, and he needed to move into an apartment.
$13,967
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Personal Loan Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
2.c Applicant is indebted to a creditor for a charged-off account in the approximate amount of $3,212. This was a small Payday loan that Applicant took out at Christmas time in order to pay some of his bills.
$3,212
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant was indebted to a creditor for a charged off account in the approximate amount of $26,537. $26,537	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant is indebted to a creditor in the amount of approximately $13,967. This was a personal loan that Applicant obtained when he and his wife were separated, and he needed to move into an apartment. $13,967	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant is indebted to a creditor for a charged-off account in the approximate amount of $3,212. This was a small Payday loan that Applicant took out at Christmas time in order to pay some of his bills. $3,212	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: deniedAUD DIAGNOSED

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to alcohol consumption, citing a history of excessive alcohol use and three arrests for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). The applicant admitted to the allegations but did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or compliance with treatment recommendations, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

1.a Applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption that began in 2001 and has continued to at least September 2023.
Finding: Against Applicant
Incident: Binge or Intoxication Pattern
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22):
(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)
(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment
Mitigating applied (¶23): —
Mitigation: —
1.b In June 2013, Applicant was first arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).
Finding: Against Applicant
Incident: DUI or DWI Alcohol
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22):
(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)
Mitigating applied (¶23): —
Mitigation: —
1.c In December 2016, Applicant was arrested a second time and was charged with DWI.
Finding: Against Applicant
Incident: DUI or DWI Alcohol
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22):
(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)
Mitigating applied (¶23): —
Mitigation: —
1.d In September 2023, Applicant was arrested a third time and charged with DWI.
Finding: Against Applicant
Incident: DUI or DWI Alcohol
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22):
(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)
Mitigating applied (¶23): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption that began in 2001 and has continued to at least September 2023.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b	In June 2013, Applicant was first arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.c	In December 2016, Applicant was arrested a second time and was charged with DWI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.d	In September 2023, Applicant was arrested a third time and charged with DWI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—

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

assified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220

STATEMENT OF CASE

l Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD after June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR on October 21, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on January 20, 2026. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a notice of hearing on February 13, 2026, and the hearing was convened as scheduled on April 14, 2026. The Government offered fifteen exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 15, which were admitted without objection. The Applicant offered six exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s Exhibits A

through F, which were admitted without objection. Applicant also testified on his own behalf. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on April 23, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant is 49 years old. He is married with three children, ages 9, 16, and 20. He has an Associate’s degree and military training. He is employed by a defense contractor as a Help Desk Coordinator. He is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment. Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption The Gov

FINDINGS OF FACT

rnment alleges that Applicant’s history of excessive alcohol abuse leads to questionable judgment, and the failure to control impulses, which raises questions about his reliability and trustworthiness. Applicant admitted each of the allegations under this guideline. Applicant served in the U.S. Army from 2004 until 2009, and was Honorably Discharged, as an E-4. During his military service, he held a security clearance without incident. He also received a number of awards and commendations, including the Army Commendation Medal (2nd award); Army Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star (2nd Award); Army Service Ribbon; and the Combat Action Badge, among others. (Applicant’s Exhibit D.) As a civilian employee, who has worked for several defense contractors, he has held a security clearance since 2009. Applicant began working for his current employer in late May 2023. (Government Exhibit 1.) As a Help Desk Coordinator, he earns approximately $60,000 annually. Before this job, he worked for a different government contractor for about 2 and 1/2 years as an HBSS Architect, and earned $127,000 annually. When that company lost their contract with the Government, Applicant was out of a job. (Tr. p. 35.) 1.a. Applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption that began in 2001 and has continued to at least September 2023. He explained that he never consumed alcohol at home. Drinking for him was a social event. He stated that he would typically consume three alcoholic beverages when he would go out drinking. However, on some occasions, often when he had a driver, he consumed as much as five or six drinks. After five or six alcoholic beverages, he would feel intoxicated. (Tr. p. 83.) 1.b. In June 2013, Applicant was first arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). Applicant explained that he had been drinking at a club with friends. He drove his friends home. Then he went back to the club and continued drinking until the club closed. On his way home, he caused a major accident when he rear-ended a vehicle. When the police arrived, they arrested the Applicant. Applicant admits that he was heavily intoxicated, and that his blood alcohol level was .15. (Government Exhibit 12, p. 7.) The collision was so significant that all of the airbags inside his vehicle were 2

deployed. Applicant stated that the driver of the other vehicle was injured, and sustained knee injuries as a result of the collision. Applicant was incarcerated for about 22 hours, and then released. In court, he took a plea deal to lower the charge to Obstruction of Highway. Applicant was sentenced to install an interlock system on his vehicle for six months; attend court ordered alcohol counseling, and pay fee of $1,000. (Tr. pp. 77-80, and Government Exhibit 11 and 12.) Following this arrest, Applicant did not believe he had an alcohol problem, and he did not stop drinking. He did not attend or participate in any type of voluntary alcohol rehabilitation program or Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. (Tr. p. 81-82.) 1.c. In December 2016, Applicant was arrested a second time and was charged with DWI. Applicant go

POLICIES

into an altercation at the bar and when he left he was angry. On his way home he was speeding, traveling 81 miles per house in a 55 mile per hour zone, and was pulled over by the police. The officer administered a field sobriety test and Applicant failed it. (Government Exhibit 9, p. 3.) In court, Applicant took a plea deal to reduce the DWI to Obstruction of Highway. (Tr. pp. 84-85.) Applicant was sentenced to 270 days of community supervised probation; fined about $800 including court fees; 180 days jail time was suspended; required to attend a defensive driving and impact panel; and complete three months of court ordered counseling. (Tr. p. 86.) At this point, Applicant stated that although he was drinking less often, he was still drinking to excess. (Government Exhibit 9.) In his subject interview in September 2018, Applicant stated that he did not have a drinking problem. He told the investigator that there was no chance of recurrence, because he no longer consumed alcohol and that he would never drink again. (Government Exhibit 4, and Tr. p. 90.) Applicant testified that after his second DWI in December 2016, he completely abstained from alcohol for about 2 and 1/2 years. He did not intend to ever drink again. (Tr. p. 90.) When he started drinking again, he believes it was to help him deal with stress. He believed that he could consume just a couple of drinks without having a problem. He was wrong. (Tr. pp. 90-91.) 1.d. In September 2023, Applicant was arrested a third time and charged with DWI. Applicant was consuming alcohol to excess at a club. On his way home, he was speeding, doing 84 miles an hour in a 55 mile pe

ANALYSIS

hour zone, and was pulled over by the police. Applicant admits that he was heavily intoxicated, and his blood alcohol level was about .15. Applicant was taken to jail, and he missed his son’s birthday. Applicant explained that during his time in jail he reflected on his situation and came to realize that he has a s erious alcohol problem. Among other sentencing c onditions, Applicant was placed on probation for one year; required to install the interlock machine on his vehicle; fined; and required to complete a Drug and Alcohol Program. (Tr. p. 96 and Applicant’s Exhibit B.) He does not know for sure if the charges were reduced to Obstruction of Highway or whether the conviction remained a DUI. (Tr. p. 49, and Government Exhibits 6, 7, and 8.) 3

Applicant testified that he no longer consumes alcohol and believes that he is an alcoholic. He feels that he does not need Alcoholic Anonymous “meetings or a sponsor.” (Tr. p. 108.) He last consumed alcohol on the date he was arrested in September 2023. He stated that he now has a morbid fear of drinking again. His third arrest for DWI blindsided him, and he did not see it coming. He remembers that one moment he was having a drink, the next moment he was driving down the freeway without knowing where he was. He understands that he will lose everything if he drinks again. (Tr. p. 99.) Applicant further testified that all of his family, and close friends know that he no longer consumes alcohol. However, if he goes out to eat with his wife, every once in a while, she will have a drink. Applicant has not voluntarily sought out, or attended or participated in any alcohol rehabilitation programs, AA classes, counseling, or any other structured program to assist with his sobriety and to hold himself accountable. Guideline F - Financial Considerations The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because he made financial decisions that indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which raise questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. The SOR identified 3 delinquent accounts totaling approximately $43,716 owed to creditors. Applicant denied allegation 1.a., but admits the other two allegations set forth in the SOR. Credit reports of the Applicant dated April 26, 2023; December 27, 2023; and July 30, 2025, confirm the indebtedness listed in the SOR. (Government Exhibits 13, 14, and 15.) Applicant stated that he attributes his history of financial difficulty to excessive spending. He realizes that his habit of going out drinking, and his three alcohol-related arrests have made it even more difficult to pay his bills, because he has had to hire attorneys, pay fines and other court costs, and incur other related expenses. In 2020, he and his wife were separated for about a year and it caused more financial strain. In 2021 to help resolve his delinquent debt, Applicant hired a debt consolidation company to work with him. Applicant paid the company for their services until sometime in 2023, when he had to stop because he lost his high-paying job, and could no longer afford them. (Tr. p. 68) Applicant explained that in November 2023, his step-daughter was diagnosed with the brain tumor. She has had to have surgery, rehabilitation, and has numerous specialists who are and have been regularly providing care for her. Her medical bills are substantial, significant, and ongoing. (Tr. p. 43.) The following delinquent debts are a security concern: 2.a. Applicant was indebted to a creditor for a charged off account in the approximate amount of $26,537. Applicant denied this allegation. He explained that in 2017 or 2018, 4

he purchased a vehicle that he could not afford. After having it for two or three months, he realized that he needed to give it back. He contacted the dealer and had the car voluntarily repossessed. Applicant stated that he recently contacted the creditor and was told that they have no record of any debt that he owes. (Tr. p. 37.) Applicant’s credit report show a zero balance owed on the account. (Government Exhibit 15.) The debt is no longer owing. 2.b. Applicant is indebted to a creditor in the amount of approximately $13,967. This was a personal loan that Applicant obtained when he and his wife were separated, and he needed to move into an apartment. Applicant opened the account in December 2022. He made four or five payments and then fell delinquent in about 2023. His last payment on the account was in 2024. The debt remains owing. (Tr. pp. 72-23.) 2.c. Applicant is indebted to a creditor for a charged-off account in the approximate amount of $3,212. This was a small Payday loan that Applicant took out at Christmas time in order to pay some of his bills. The debt remains owing. (Tr. p. 41.) Applicant stated that his plan to resolve his debts is to file for Bankruptcy. He has retained an attorney, but must finish paying off the retainer fee before the petition will be filed. Applicant pla

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

sto file either a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. (Tr. pp. 40 and 42.) Applicant stated that he provides all of the financial support for his family of five with his salary and his disability benefits. His annual salary is $60,000. He also receives $4,900 monthly in disability benefits from the VA, which is a 100 percent disability rating. He explained that he still has several payments of $1,500 a month to pay back to the Veterans program that assisted him with his claim, before he can use the money to either pay off debts or to file Bankruptcy. (Tr. pp. 42-44.) Applicant explained that he was living a different lifestyle when he was earning more money. Eating out with the family, and going out to bars, is now a thing of the past. He can no longer afford it. He stated that he now has a financial budget that he is following. (Tr. p. 44-45 and Applicant’s Exhibit A.) Letters of recommendation from a Systems Administrator; and an IT Project Manager; both of whom have worked closely with the Applicant for the past two years, indicate that the Applicant has consistently demonstrated a high level of professionalism, integrity, and reliability. From their observations, Applicant has shown that he has exceptional judgment, discretion in handling sensitive information, and always adheres to all security protocols and procedures. They have full confidence in the Applicant and are of the opinion that he will properly safeguard classified or protected information. They indicate that he shows a commitment to upholding all of the company’s values. They believe that Applicant is no risk to the national security. They recommend without reservation that the Applicant be granted a security clearance. (Applicant’s Exhibits C and F.) 5

A letter from Applicant’s wife indicates that Applicant is fully committed to his new life of sobriety and to becoming a better husband, father, and individual. She stated that he has built in coping mechanisms to help him with

FORMAL FINDINGS

tress, including running, spending time with family, doing yard work, and focusing deeply on supporting their daughter and her medical condition. She finds that he is now extremely responsible, accountable, and devoted his job and his family. (Applicant’s Exhibit E.) Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations fo

CONCLUSION

each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexibl