KEYWORD: Alcohol; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant has had a history of consuming alcohol to excess, which resulted in at least four
alcohol related convictions for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) from 1982 through 1995. While
there have been no DUI arrests since 1995, Applicant continues to regularly drive after consuming
alcohol in the same quantity as he did during his prior DUI arrests and convictions. Additionally,
Applicant’ credibility is extremely suspect, as he has not been truthful or candid with information
regarding his DUI convictions, that he furnished to the United States Government. Mitigation has
not been shown. Clearance is denied.                                                     
CASENO: 06-13634.h1
DATE: 1/12/2007
DATE: January 12, 2007
In Re:
--------------------------
SSN: -------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-13634
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARTIN H. MOGUL
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Candace Le’i, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has had a history of consuming alcohol to excess, which resulted in at least four
alcohol related convictions for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) from 1982 through 1995. While
there have been no DUI arrests since 1995, Applicant continues to regularly drive a vehicle after
consuming alcohol in the same quantity as he did during his prior DUI arrests and convictions.
Additionally, Applicant’ credibility is extremely suspect, as he has not been truthful or candid with
information regarding his DUI convictions, that he furnished to the United States Government.
Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.                                                       
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 18, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 (as amended) and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated
January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the 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 a clearance should be denied
or revoked.
Applicant filed a signed and sworn, notarized response, dated September 27, 2006, to the
allegations set forth in the SOR. He requested a clearance decision based on a hearing record before
a DOHA Administrative Judge.
On November 8, 2006, this case was assigned to this Administrative Judge to conduct a
hearing and issue a written decision. A Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties on November 15,
2006, and the hearing was held on December 6, 2006.
At the hearing, Department Counsel offered ten documentary exhibits (Exhibits 1 - 10) and
no witnesses were called. Applicant offered no documentary exhibits, but did testify on his own
behalf. The transcript (Tr) was received on December 18,2006.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Government opposes Applicant's request for a security clearance, based upon the
allegations set forth in the SOR. In the SOR, the Government alleges that a security risk may exist
under Adjudicative Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the
Directive. The SOR contains five allegations, 1.a. through 1.e., under Guideline G, and one
allegation, 2.a., under Guideline E. In his Response to the SOR (RSOR) Applicant admits allegations
1.c., 1.d., and 1.e.. He denies 1.a., 1.b., and 2.a..  The admitted allegations are incorporated as
findings of fact.
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's
Answer to the SOR, the admitted documents and the live testimony, and upon due consideration of
that evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact: 
3
Applicant is 63 years old. He is married and has two children. He has a Masters Degree in
Electrical Engineering. Applicant is an independent contractor, employed by a defense contractor,
and he seeks to retain a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense
sector.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline G - Alcohol consumption). 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because
he abuses alcohol to excess.
Applicant's drinking has resulted in at least four alcohol related convictions for DUI. They
occurred in 1982, 1986, and two times in 1995. 
On April 29, 1982, Applicant was arrested and charged with two Counts; 1) Driving Under
the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs, and 2) BA Level over .10%.  He pled guilty to Count 1, and he was
sentenced to three year summary probation (RSOR, Exhibit 4). 
On January 28, 1986, Applicant was arrested and charged with two Counts; 1) Driving Under
the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs, and 2) BA Level over .10%.  He pled guilty to Count 1, and he was
sentenced to three year summary probation (RSOR, Exhibit 4).
On February 7, 1995, Applicant was arrested and charged with two Counts; 1) Driving Under
the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs, and 2) BA Level over .20% or greater.  He pled No Contest, and he
received 100 hours of community service (RSOR, Exhibits 3, 7, 8).
On December 19, 1995, Applicant was arrested and charged with three Counts; 1) Driving
Under the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs, 2) Driving with BA .08% or More, and (3) Driving with
Suspended/Revoked License.  He was found guilty on all counts (Exhibit 6, 9) (Tr at 99) . Applicant
admitted that he was arrested and found guilty for this DUI. The Government’s also alleges that a
Bench Warrant was issued on April 26, 1996, for Applicant’s failure to appear, but he denies that
this occurred. Department Counsel offered Exhibit 9, a Booking Sheet, dated May 24, 2004, to
establish that a bench warrant had been issued against Applicant. I find that Exhibit 9 is not
sufficiently clear to establish that a bench warrant was issued against Applicant for failure to appear,
and the bench warrant allegation has not been proven.   
On October 19, 1989, a hearing was conducted by Directorate for Industrial Security
Clearance Review (DISCR), the Government agency that is  the predecessor to DOHA, to determine
if Applicant should be allowed to hold a security clearance. The primary concern was Applicant’s
consumption to excess of alcohol. The result of that hearing was that Applicant was denied a security
clearance.
In a sworn statement signed on January 7, 2004, (Exhibit 3),  Applicant averred that he
“drinks moderately at home and occasionally at restaurants.” He added that he has no intention to
modify his personal lifestyle. Applicant also testified that he continues to drive after one or two
alcoholic drinks, and while he does not think he would be above the legal limit, he conceded that he
has no way of knowing what his blood alcohol count would be, since he did not believe he was
above the limit, when he was found guilty of the DUIs in the past. 
4
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct) 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because
he furnished untruthful information to the Government.  Applicant completed a signed, sworn
Security Clearance Application (SCA) on March 14, 2003 (Exhibit 1) . Question #24 asked whether
Applicant was “ever charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?”
Applicant answered "No." As discussed above, Applicant was charged with or convicted of four 
DUIs in the years 1982, 1986, and two times in 1995. Applicant should have listed these four DUI
convictions.
Applicant contended that he did not include these incidents because he was instructed by a
security representative to only go back five years in his responses. While testifying at the hearing
Applicant conceded that some questions on the SCA requested that the individual completing the
SCA should refer back for the previous seven years, while other questions did not ask for a time
limit, but rather asked whether this question ever applied to the individual. Applicant acknowledged
that these question were inconsistent with the instruction he claimed to have received to only go back
five years for any question, and he did concede that the wording of the question did indicate that the
Government wanted more than a five year history (Tr at 92). 
Based on his prior 1989 hearing, which resulted in a denial of a security clearance for alcohol
consumption, Applicant certainly should have been aware that the Government was concerned about
his alcohol consumption and would want to know about his entire alcohol conviction history. 
Finally, Applicant testified that if the record was held open, he would offer a statement from
the security officer verifying that he was instructed to only go back five years in all of his answers.
While the record was held open, no statement was ever offered.
Clearly in this case, Applicant was not honest with the information that he furnished to the
Government. His explanation that he was instructed to only refer back five years is not credible, and
he knew or should have known that he should have included all four DUI convictions on his 2003
SCA.
POLICIES
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum. Accordingly, the Department of
Defense, in Enclosure 2 of the 1992 Directive, has set forth policy factors which must be given
"binding" consideration in making security clearance determinations. These factors should be
followed in every case according to the pertinent guideline. However, the factors are neither
automatically determinative of the decision in any case, nor can they supersede the Administrative
Judge's reliance on his own common sense, as well as his knowledge of the law, human nature and
the ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision. Because each security clearance case presents
its own unique facts and circumstances, it cannot be assumed that these factors exhaust the realm
of human experience, or apply equally in every case. 
5
As set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 16-17, "In evaluating the relevance of
an individual's conduct, the [Administrative Judge] should consider the following factors [General
Factors]:
a. The nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation
c. The frequency and recency of the conduct
d. The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct
e. The voluntariness of participation
f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior changes
g. The motivation for the conduct
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress
i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
The eligibility guidelines established in the DoD Directive identify personal characteristics
and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question of whether it is "clearly consistent
with the national interest" to grant an Applicant's request for access to classified information.
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to civilian
workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information twenty-four hours a day.
The Government is therefore appropriately concerned where available information indicates that an
Applicant for clearance may be involved in acts of alcohol abuse and criminal conduct that
demonstrates poor judgement, untrustworthiness or unreliability on the Applicant's part.
The DoD Directive states, "Each adjudication is to be an overall common sense
determination based upon consideration and assessment of all available information, both favorable
and unfavorable, with particular emphasis placed on the seriousness, recency, frequency, and
motivation for the individual's conduct; the extent to which conduct was negligent, willful,
voluntary, or undertaken with the knowledge of the circumstances or consequences involved; and,
to the extent that it can be estimated, the probability that conduct will or will not continue in the
future." The Administrative Judge can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have a
reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The Judge cannot draw inferences or
conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature. Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, "Any determination under this order...shall be
a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the
loyalty of the applicant concerned."
CONCLUSIONS
It is the Government's responsibility to present substantial evidence to support the finding
of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant's conduct and the continued holding of a
security clearance. If such a case has been established, the burden then shifts to the Applicant to go
forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation which is sufficient to overcome or
outweigh the Government's case. The Applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
6
(Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption) 
In this case, the Government has met its initial burden of proving by substantial evidence that
Applicant has used alcohol to excess (Guideline G). Applicant has not introduced persuasive
evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation which is sufficient to overcome the Government's
case against him.
Applicant has had a long history of consuming alcohol, at times to excess, which has caused
him four DUI convictions. While there have been no DUI arrests since 1995, Applicant continues
to regularly drive a vehicle after consuming alcohol in the same quantity as he did during his prior
DUI arrests and convictions. 
The Government has established that Applicant was involved in alcohol-related incidents
away from work, which is Disqualifying Condition (DC) (E2.A7.1.2.1.), and that he has engaged in
habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, DC (E2.A7.1.2.5.). 
In reviewing the Mitigating Conditions (MC), it could be argued that MC (E2.A7.1.3.2.)
applies because Applicant’s last DUI conviction occurred in 1995. However, since Applicant
continues to drive after consuming alcohol in the amounts that resulted in his DUI convictions, the
underlying conduct, that is of concern, has not abated.  Overall, the disqualifying conditions
outweigh the mitigating conditions, and Guideline G is concluded against Applicant.
(Guideline E -Personal Conduct) 
With respect to Guideline E, the evidence establishes that Applicant furnished to the
Government less than a complete, honest answer by failing to list any of his four DUI convictions,
in a 2003 SCA.  
The Government relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals seeking access to
our nation’s secrets. When such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts or fails to furnish
relevant information to a Government investigator, it is extremely difficult to conclude that he
nevertheless possesses the judgment, and honesty necessary for an individual given a clearance. In
this case, I do not find Applicant’s explanation for his failure to inform the Government about his
four DUIs credible or reasonable. I conclude that Applicant knowingly and willingly failed to give
complete, honest information to the Government.
In reviewing the DCs under Guideline E,  I conclude that DC (E2.A5.1.2.2.) applies because
Applicant was not candid and truthful in information that he provided to the Government in the
SCA. Applicant’s conduct, considered as a whole, including his alcohol consumption and his
dishonesty exhibits questionable judgement, unreliability, and a lack of candor. I resolve Paragraph
2, Guideline E against Applicant
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1. Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
7
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.e.: Against Applicant.
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: Against 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 the Applicant.
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge