KEYWORD: Alcohol
DIGEST: The Applicant’s last alcohol related incident, having 08% or more by weight of alcohol
in his blood while driving a motor vehicle (DUI), occurred nearly three years ago, in May of 2004.
He now drinks alcohol only about “once a month,” and never to the point of intoxication.
Furthermore, a certified Substance Abuse Counselor avers that the Applicant is not now “or has ever
been alcohol dependent.”  He also has the unqualified support of his supervisors and colleagues.
This last incident, plus a September 2001 alcohol related incident involving Public Intoxication,
“does not cast doubt on the . . . [Applicant’s] current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgement.”
Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-19847.h1
DATE: 03/28/2007
DATE: March 28, 2007
In Re:
--------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-19847
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
RICHARD A. CEFOLA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Virginia M. Gomez, Esquire, Applicant’s Counsel
2
SYNOPSIS
The Applicant’s last alcohol related incident, having 08% or more by weight of alcohol in
his blood while driving a motor vehicle (DUI), occurred nearly three years ago, in May of 2004.  He
now drinks alcohol only about “once a month,” and never to the point of intoxication.  Furthermore,
a certified Substance Abuse Counselor avers that the Applicant is not now “or has ever been alcohol
dependent.”  He also has the unqualified support of his supervisors and colleagues.  This last
incident, plus a September 2001 alcohol related incident involving Public Intoxication, “does not
cast doubt on the . . . [Applicant’s] current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgement.”
Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 16, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the 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.
Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on December 11, 2006.
The case was received by the undersigned on February 2, 2007.  A notice of hearing was
issued on February 15, 2007, and the case was heard on March 13, 2007.  The Government
submitted documentary evidence.  Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted
documentary evidence.  The transcript (TR) was received on March 23, 2007.  The issues raised here
are whether the Applicant's past Alcohol Consumption militates against the granting of a security
clearance.  [The Applicant admits subparagraphs 1.b. and 1.c.; but denies any excessive alcohol
consumption subsequent to his May 2004 DUI arrest, which is alleged in subparagraph 1.a.]
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the documents
and the live testimony.  The Applicant is 36 years of age, and is employed by a defense contractor
who seeks a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant.  After a complete and thorough review
of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following
additional Findings of Fact.
Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption
1.a.  The Applicant started to consume alcohol in about 1987, his senior year in high school
(TR at page 19 lines 19~21).  This underage drinking continued through college, when he would
drink “once or twice a week, on weekends or maybe at a party” (TR at page 20 lines 15~20).  The
Applicant’s “drinking habits slowed down in the 90's.  Right after college, . . . [he] got married and
3
. . . was working a full-time job” (TR at page 21 lines 14~22).  He drank alcohol “[m]aybe twice a
month” (Id).  He drank to the point of intoxication about “once a year” (TR at page 22 lines 11~16).
1.b.  In September of 2001, the Applicant was arrested and subsequently charged with Public
Intoxication (Government Exhibit (GX) 1 at page 7).  He went to a concert, had a few beers, he and
his “group . . . started getting fairly rowdy,” which resulted in his arrest (TR at page 23 line 14 to
page 24 line 4).  The Applicant was fined, and placed on probation for six months (TR at page 24
line 20 to page 25 line 7).
1.c.  In May of 2004, the Applicant was arrested and subsequently pled Nolo Contendere to
a DUI (GX 2).  He was at a “Memorial Day weekend . . . party with co-workers,” and had too many
“rum and cokes” to drink (TR at page 25 line 19 to page 26 line 20).  He was pulled over by the
“Highway Patrol” (Id).  He was fined about $1,400, ordered to attend six Alcoholics Anonymous
meetings, and placed on probation for 36 months (GX 2).  As a result of this DUI incident, the
Applicant changed his lifestyle (TR at page 27 lines 19~24).  He no longer socializes with those
friends, and he only consumes alcohol about “once a month,” and then not to the point of
intoxication (TR at page 27 line 19 to page 33 line 5).
Mitigation
A certified Substance Abuse Counselor avers that the Applicant is not now “or has ever been
alcohol dependent” (Applicant’s Exhibit (AppX) G).
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors and
conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern.  Furthermore, as set forth in the Directive,
each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon
consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication
policy in Enclosure 2, including as appropriate:
a. Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding
circumstances.
b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.
c. Age and maturity of the applicant.
d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct
was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of
the consequence involved.
e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.
f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in
the future.
4
The Administrative Judge, however, 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.
The Government must make out a case under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) which
establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.  While a rational
connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and his ability to
effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational
connection, objective or direct evidence is not required.
Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation,
explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct is unlikely
to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance.
The Government must be able to place a high degree of confidence in a security clearance
holder to abide by all security rules and regulations at all times and in all places.  If an applicant has
demonstrated a lack of respect for the law in his private affairs, there then exists the possibility that
an applicant may demonstrate the same attitude towards security rules and regulations.
CONCLUSIONS
The Applicant’s admitted Alcohol Consumption is evidenced by two alcohol related
convictions, one in 2001 for Public Intoxication, and the last one for DUI in May of 2004.  The first
disqualifying condition under Alcohol Consumption is therefore applicable he has had “alcohol-
related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, . . . disturbing the
peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol
abuser or alcohol dependent.”  However, this is countered the first mitigating condition as “so much
time has passed [nearly three years] . . . that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.”
Furthermore, I am not limited to the mitigating conditions, delineated in the Directive, in
deciding if an Applicant has demonstrated extenuation or mitigation.  Here, his supervisors and
colleagues speak most highly of his character, credibility and trustworthiness (AppXs A~F).  The
totality of the Applicant’s conduct and circumstances, as set forth at length above, clearly warrants
a favorable Decision under the “whole person concept.”  Mitigation is shown.  Guideline G is found
for the Applicant.
Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has rebutted the Government's case regarding his
Alcohol Consumption.  The Applicant has thus met the mitigating conditions of Guideline G, and
of Section E.2.2. of the Directive.  Accordingly, he has  met his ultimate burden of persuasion under
Guideline G.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
5
Paragraph 1: FOR THE APPLICANT
a. For the Applicant.
b. For the Applicant.
c. For the Applicant.
Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and
CONCLUSIONS, supra.
DECISION
In light of 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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge