KEYWORD: Alcohol; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: The Applicant had two Driving Under the Influence arrests.  One occurred in 2002 and the
other in 2005.  Based on his history, they are an aberration and not indicative of a pattern.  He has
taken full responsibility for his actions, and has taken steps to make sure that such acts do not occur
in the future.  He presents a considerable amount of mitigating evidence that show support for his
request for access to classified information.  The Applicant has mitigated the case against him.
Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-17601.h1
DATE: 03/01/2007
DATE: March 1, 2007
In Re:
-------------------------
SSN: ----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-17601
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
WILFORD H. ROSS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
The Applicant had two Driving Under the Influence arrests.  One occurred in 2002 and the
other in 2005.  Based on his history, they are an aberration and not indicative of a pattern.  He has
taken full responsibility for his actions, and has taken steps to make sure that such acts do not occur
in the future.  He presents a considerable amount of mitigating evidence that show support for his
request for access to classified information.  The Applicant has mitigated the case against him.
Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 31, 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 the Applicant and
recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied
or revoked.
The Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on September 12, 2006, and requested a
hearing.  The case was received by the undersigned on December 15, 2006, and a Notice of Hearing
was issued on January 5, 2007.
A hearing was held on January 25, 2007, at which the Government presented two
documentary exhibits.  Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted nine exhibits.
The transcript was received on February 6, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 26, single and has a Bachelor of Science degree.  He is employed by a
defense contractor, and he seeks to obtain a DoD security clearance in connection with his
employment in the defense sector.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, based upon the
allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings of fact are entered
as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR.  They are based on the Applicant's Answer to the
SOR, the exhibits and the live testimony.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline G - Alcohol abuse).  The Government alleges in this paragraph that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has had alcohol related incidents away from work.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline J - Criminal conduct).  The Government alleges in this paragraph that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in criminal acts.
3
The Applicant has been arrested twice for alcohol-related driving offenses.  The first arrest
occurred in January 2002, after the Applicant was involved in a motorcycle accident.  He plead guilty
to the offense.  As a result, his driver’s license was temporarily suspended, he was placed on three
years probation and he had to attend a three month drinking and driving program.  He successfully
completed all of the court’s requirements.  (Transcript at 26-29, 34-35.)
The Applicant was arrested a second time for Driving Under the Influence in February 2005.
Once again, the Applicant took complete responsibility for his actions and plead guilty to the offense.
He served 40 days of a 60 day jail sentence, attended an 18 month drinking and driving program,
paid fines, attended victim panels, was put on five years probation and signed away his driver’s
license for two years.  During those years without a license the Applicant rode a bicycle to work and
school.  (Transcript at 29-32, Applicant’s Exhibit G.)
At the time of the second arrest, the Applicant was applying for his current job.  One of the
results of this arrest was the necessity of telling his employer about this second arrest during the
middle of the hiring process.  (Transcript at 30.)
The Applicant continues to drink in moderation, but he does not drink and drive at all.  He
does this because it is a requirement of his probation, and because he simply does not feel the need
to drink to excess.  He may drink once a month, if that much.  (Transcript at 33, 39-41.)
The Applicant testified in a frank and forthright manner about his alcohol-related arrests, his
sentences, what his current drinking pattern is, and what he expects it to be in the future.  He takes
full responsibility for his actions, and for the results. 
Mitigation.
The Applicant is a well-respected young man and employee.  He submitted letters from three
co-workers, all superior to him in rank and experience.  These people find the Applicant to be
thoughtful, conscientious and mature.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.) 
One of these people, the Director, Studies & Analysis at his employer states, “[The
Applicant] is one of the brightest young men I have ever met.”  She goes on to state:
[The Applicant] is very mature and has wisdom beyond his years. . . .  He made a bad
choice several years back, but has learned a great deal from the experience.  He
himself will look you in the eye and tell you that there was a lot of good that came
out of his DUI. [The Applicant] has embraced the consequences, opened himself
completely to accepting his actions and learned from his mistakes.  He will tell you
that the whole experience has made him a better person.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A at
1.)
The Applicant’s former employer also submitted a laudatory letter.  (Applicant’s Exhibit C.)
He also submitted a letter from his girlfriend’s father, who is also in the defense industry.
(Applicant’s Exhibit B.)  Documentation from his employer shows that the Applicant is viewed as
an exceptional employee.  (Applicant’s Exhibits E, F, H and I.)
4
The Applicant is currently taking classes to earn his Master’s degree.  One of his professors
states, “[The Applicant’s] work ethic, devotion and integrity are what we would like to see in all of
our students.”  (Applicant’s Exhibit D.)
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.  Based on the Findings of Fact set forth above,
the factors most applicable to the evaluation of this case will be set forth under CONCLUSIONS,
below.
In addition, 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.
5
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 alcohol related 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 granting 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.
The evidence shows that the Applicant has two alcohol-related arrests, in 2002 and 2005.
He took, and takes, full responsibility for his actions.  His credible testimony was compelling and
believable in this respect.  The evidence shows that these incidents were an aberration, and not
indicative of his nature.  The Applicant was a young man at the time of both of these incidents.  He
has obviously matured, realized the impact alcohol has made on his life, and has made intelligent
decisions about its use in his future.
Under Guideline G, the following Disqualifying Condition applies: 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).  As described above, Mitigating
Conditions E2.A7.1.3.1. (The alcohol related incidents do not indicate a pattern) and E2.A7.1.3.3.
(Positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety) also apply and justify a finding for the
Applicant under Paragraph 1.
Regarding Guideline J, Disqualifying Conditions E2.A10.1.2.1. (Allegations or admissions
of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged) and E2.A10.1.2.2 (A
single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses) apply.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
6
following Mitigating Condition applies: E2.A10.1.3.1. (There is clear evidence of successful
rehabilitation).  Paragraph 2 is also found for the Applicant.
In addition, application of the General Factors is appropriate and supports a decision in the
Applicant's favor.  The Applicant has matured since the alcohol related incidents took place (factor
d.), he shows considerable evidence of rehabilitation (factor f.), and, under the circumstances of this
case, the probability that the Applicant will engage in such conduct again are virtually nil (factor i.).
  
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has successfully overcome the Government's
case opposing his request for a DoD security clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding
for the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
the Government's Statement of Reasons.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as required by
Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1: For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.a.: For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.b.: For the Applicant.
Paragraph 2: For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 2.a.: For the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.
Wilford H. Ross
Administrative Judge