KEYWORD: Alcohol; Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is 45 years old. Since leaving active duty with the U.S. Navy in 1984, he has
worked for a federal contractor. When he completed a security clearance application in 1993, he
disclosed three arrests, two of which related to the use of alcohol. He did not disclose those charges
in his January 2004 security clearance application. Subsequently, in September 2004 he was arrested
for driving under the influence. He mitigated the security concerns raised under the alcohol
consumption, criminal and personal conduct guidelines. Clearance is granted.  
CASENO: 06-17178.h1
DATE: 03/28/2007
DATE:  March 28, 2007
In re:
------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-17178
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
SHARI DAM
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Robert E. Coacher, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Robin A. Rattley, Esq.
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is 45 years old. Since leaving active duty with the U.S. Navy in 1984, he has
worked for a federal contractor. When he completed a security clearance application in 1993, he
disclosed three arrests, two of which related to the use of alcohol. He did not disclose those charges
in his January 2004 security clearance application. Subsequently, in September 2004 he was arrested
for driving under the influence. He mitigated the security concerns raised under the alcohol
consumption, criminal and personal conduct guidelines. Clearance is granted. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 31, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) under Executive
Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, as amended, and Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Security Clearance Review Program  (Directive), dated
January 2, 1992, as amended, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant. The SOR detailed
reasons under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), J (Criminal Conduct), and E (Personal Conduct)
why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant a security clearance to Applicant. DOHA recommended
the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted.
On October 17, 2006, Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR, but was subsequently notified
that it was insufficient to comply with the requirements under the Directive. On December 22, 2006,
he filed another Answer and elected to have a hearing. The case was assigned to me on January 26,
2007. A Notice of Hearing was issued on February 8, 2007, setting the hearing for February 28, 2007.
At the hearing, the Government introduced Exhibits (GX) 1 and 2 into evidence without objections.
Applicant and his wife testified. The record was left open until March 16, 2007, to give Applicant an
opportunity to submit documentary evidence. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on March
12, 2007. No additional documents were submitted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the entire record, including Applicant’s admissions in his Answer to the SOR and
at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is 45 years old. He recently married his girlfriend of 22 years, who has lived with
him for many years. From June 1980 to June 1984, he was on active duty in the U. S. Navy. After
leaving active duty, he went on inactive duty until January 1991, when he received an honorable
discharge. He was a 3  class petty officer at the time of the discharge (GX 2 at 2). Since June 1984,rd
he has worked as an electrician for a federal contractor where he is also a make-up supervisor (Tr.
23). He has held a secret security clearance since August 1985 (GX 1 at 6).
Applicant completed a National Agency Questionnaire (NAQ) in August 1993 (GX 2). In it,
he disclosed that he was arrested in 1990, 1992 and 1993. In November 1990, he was arrested and
charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DUI) and Reckless Driving. Both charges were not
prosecuted. In October 1992, he was arrested and charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle While
Paragraph 1.c of the SOR lists the date of the arrest as August 23, 1992.1
Paragraph 2.a of the SOR lists the date of the arrest as November 13, 1992.2
3
Under the Influence of Alcohol. The matter was not prosecuted.  In March 1993, he was arrested and1
charged with Felony Destruction of Private Property. He made restitution and the charges were
dismissed.  Applicant’s wife helped him complete the NAQ.2
When Applicant completed the January 2004 SCA, Applicant did not disclose the 1992 felony
arrest for the destruction of property under Question 21: Your Police Record-Felony Offenses, or the
1990 and 1992 alcohol related arrests under Question 24. Your Police Record-Alcohol/Drug Offenses.
He admitted that he did not list those arrests, but denied that he deliberately attempted to deceive the
Government (Tr. 24, 25). At the time, his wife was very sick and unable to help him fill out the form
(Tr. 16, 20). He was confused by the questions and did not think he was required to disclose the three
charges because they were dismissed and not convictions (Tr. 19). His explanation was credible.
In September 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with another DUI after attending his
sister-in-law’s wedding (Tr. 27). He was given a breathalyzer test and his blood alcohol level was .11
(Tr. 28). He pled guilty, was fined $250, and placed on a year’s probation. His driver’s license was
suspended for one year and he was required to attend driving school. The court also ordered him to
participate in an alcohol safety program. He attended eight weeks of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings
and stopped consuming alcohol for a year (Tr. 35-36). His wife attended a meeting with him (Tr.56).
He has not participated in any rehabilitative program since that time.
After approximately a year of alcohol abstinence and completing the program, Applicant
resumed consuming alcohol when he became distressed over his wife’s illness (Tr. 38). He drank
occasionally at home from that point to about six months ago when he stopped as his wife’s medical
condition worsened (Tr. 38). He realized that drinking caused him many problems and that he was
the sole provider for the family (Tr. 24, 30). When he met with a government investigator in March
2006, he told her that he drank “about a fifth of liquor over a week’s time in the last five years.” (Tr.
29) However, that time period was before the September 2004 conviction (Tr. 31, 38). He denied that
he consistently consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication from 1986 until March 2006 (Tr. 25).
Currently, Applicant manages stress through physical training at his home gym several days
a week with a new set of friends (Tr 38). He no longer exercises with the friends with whom he
previously drank (Tr. 51). 
Applicant’s wife generally handles all of the paperwork in the family. She helped her husband
complete the NAQ in 1993, but was unable to assist him in January 2004 because of her illness (Tr.
47). She understands how he became confused by the wording of the questions on the SCA (Tr. 48).
She confirmed that he stopped drinking about six months ago, changed friends, exercises regularly,
and has taken more responsibility around the house, as she is unable to work (Tr. 51-57). She believes
he has matured since her illness (Tr. 58).
Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E2.2.2.3
Executive Order 10865, § 7.4
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).5
ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).6
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.7
Id.8
4
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive, Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access
to Classified Information, sets forth criteria that must be evaluated when determining security
clearance eligibility. Within those adjudicative guidelines are factors to consider in denying or
revoking an individual’s request for access to classified information (Disqualifying Conditions), and
factors to consider in granting an individual’s request for access to classified information (Mitigating
Conditions). By recognizing that individual circumstances of each case are different, the guidelines
provide substantive standards to assist an administrative judge in weighing the evidence in order to
reach a fair, impartial and common sense decision.
Granting an applicant’s clearance for access to classified information is based on a high degree
of trust and confidence in the individual. Accordingly, decisions under the Directive must include
consideration of not only the actual risk of disclosure of classified information, but also consideration
of any possible risk an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently compromise classified information.
Any doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to classified information must be
resolved in favor of protecting classified information.  The decision to deny an individual a security3
clearance is not necessarily a judgment about an applicant’s loyalty.  Instead, it is a determination that4
an applicant has not met the strict guidelines established by the Department of Defense for issuing
a clearance.
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal
or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being
eligible for access to classified information.  The Directive presumes a rational connection between5
past proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed in the guidelines and an
applicant’s security suitability.6
Once the government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the
corresponding burden of rebuttal shifts to the applicant to present evidence in refutation, extenuation,
or mitigation sufficient to overcome the position of the government.  An applicant “has the ultimate7
burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his
clearance.”  8
5
Based upon the allegations contained in the SOR and a consideration of the evidence as a
whole, the following adjudicative guidelines are pertinent to an evaluation of the facts of this case:
Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption: A security concern arises because excessive alcohol
consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment, unreliability, failure to control
impulses, and increases the risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information due to
carelessness.
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct: A security concern arises when a history or pattern of
criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct: Conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could
indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information, and raises a security
concern.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all facts in evidence, an assessment of credibility and the application
of the appropriate legal standards, I conclude the following with respect to the allegations set forth
in the SOR:
Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption
Based on the evidence, including Applicant’s admissions, the Government established a
disqualification under Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Condition (AC DC) E2.A7.1.2.1 (Alcohol-
related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting child or spouse
abuse, or other criminal incidents related to alcohol use). Applicant admitted he was arrested and
charged with criminal conduct in 1990, 1992 and 2004 for incidents involving the misuse of alcohol.
The Government having raised a security concern, the burden shifted to Applicant to mitigate
or rebut the allegations. After reviewing the mitigating conditions under this guideline, in particular
Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition (AC MC) E2.A7.1.3.3 (Positive changes in behavior
supportive of sobriety), I concluded it applies. In addition to being remorseful about his past behavior,
Applicant expressed an appreciation of the consequences associated with the abuse of alcohol and the
criminal justice system. He appears to be committed to his wife and accepts sole responsibility for
supporting the family in view of her medical problems. That evidence, along with his wife’s
testimony of a noticeable change in him over the past six months, and a change in friends, comprises
sufficient mitigation under this condition.
Guideline J: Criminal Conduct
6
Based on the evidence and Applicant’s admissions regarding the four criminal charges, the
Government established a disqualification under Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (CC DC)
E2. A10.1.2.1 (Allegations or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was
formally charged), and CC DC E2.A10.1.2.2 (A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses), as
to ¶¶ 2. a and 2.b. 
In refutation of those allegations, Applicant provided evidence to establish some mitigation
under Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition (CC MC) E2.A10.1.3.1 (The criminal behavior was
not recent), and CC MC E2.A10.1.3.6 (There is clear evidence of successful rehabilitation). Three
of the charges are more than ten years old and either were dismissed or not prosecuted. As to the 2004
conviction, Applicant successfully completed all court ordered terms and has not been involved in
any subsequent incidents for more than two years. In addition to these facts and those stated above,
he has satisfactorily performed his job over the last ten years and has been a supervisor for two years,
which constitutes evidence of successful rehabilitation.
Based on the conclusion, stated below, that Applicant did not deliberately falsify his SCA, as
required under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the allegations contained in SOR ¶ 2.c are concluded in his favor.
Guideline E: Personal Conduct
The Government alleged in Paragraph 3 that Applicant intentionally falsified his SCA by
failing to disclose the 1990 and 1992 arrests, which operates as a disqualification under Personal
Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) E 2.A5.1.2.2 (The deliberate omission, concealment, or
falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal
history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status determines security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness,
or award fiduciary responsibilities). Although Applicant admitted that he failed to disclose the
information, he denied that he did intentionally.
When a falsification allegation is controverted or denied, the government has the burden of
proving it. Proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s state of
mind when the omission occurred. An administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a
whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning an applicant’s state
of mind at the time the omission occurred. See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17,
2004) (explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-23133 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004).
Applicant credibly explained that he failed to disclose the three arrests because he was
confused by the questions and did not think he was required to list them because he was not convicted
of the charges. He now realizes that he made a mistake. Regrettably, he did not have his wife to help
him interpret the questions as she had done when he completed the 1993 application and made full
disclosure. The Government conceded that his explanation was plausible and I conclude similarly.
Hence, the allegations contained in SOR ¶¶ 3.a and 3.b are found in his favor. 
Whole Person Analysis
7
In addition to evaluating the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each guideline, the
adjudicative process requires thorough consideration and review of all available, reliable information
about the applicant, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, to arrive at a balanced decision.
Directive ¶ E2.2.2. describes the essence of scrutinizing all appropriate variables in a case as the
“whole person concept.” In evaluating the disqualifying and mitigating conduct an administrative
judge should consider: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and
maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence
of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential
for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
I considered Applicant’s middle age, his fourteen years of military service, the length of time
he has worked for his current employer and his current supervisory role, as well as the fact that he has
held a security clearance since 1985 without any problems. I took into account his testimony about
the alcohol charges and his present concern about his wife’s health. Although it may be prudent for
him to participate in an ongoing rehabilitation program as an additional method of managing stress,
I do not believe similar criminal problems will recur in the future, given his awareness of the security
clearance process and the impact additional incidents would have on his employment. Applicant
mitigated those security concerns raised by his alcohol consumption and criminal conduct. Those
concerns raised under personal conduct are found in his favor. Accordingly, Guidelines G, J and E
are concluded for him.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required
by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are as follows:
Paragraph 1: Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d: For Applicant
Paragraph 2: Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a through 2.c: For Applicant
Paragraph 3. Guideline E (Personal Conduct) FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a through 3.b: For Applicant
8
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant a security clearance to Applicant. Clearance is granted.
Shari Dam
Administrative Judge