KEYWORD: Guideline G
DIGEST: There was no error in the Judge finding that Applicant’s resumed drinking, albeit
moderate, is against clinical advice nor in her unfavorable conclusion which follow.  Adverse
decision affirmed.
CASENO: 04-10457.a1
DATE: 04/27/2007
DATE: April 27, 2007
In Re:
-----------
SSN: ------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 04-10457
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
William E. McCoy, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On May 13, 2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
2
requested a hearing.  On August 31, 2006, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Elizabeth M.
Matchinski denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant submitted a timely appeal
pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge did not give appropriate
weight to evidence of Applicant’s recent moderate use of alcohol; and whether the Judge’s decision
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following sustainable findings of fact: Applicant began to drink alcohol
upon entering the U.S. Navy in 1982.  From that date until 1991, Applicant’s alcohol consumption
increased from infrequent to about three times a week, three to four beers at a time.  In 1991
Applicant was assigned submarine duty and increased his drinking frequency up to 12 beers a day.
In order to save his marriage, Applicant sought treatment.  He was diagnosed as alcohol-dependent,
completed a 30 day program and returned to duty.  Remaining abstinent for 16 months, Applicant
eventually began consuming beer once again.
By 1996, Applicant was again drinking as many as 12 beers a day.  During Applicant’s
hospitalization for possible emotional problems, a clinical psychologist diagnosed him as suffering
from alcohol dependence.  In response to this diagnosis, Applicant abstained from alcohol and
attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) twice a week, according to his own statement to his
psychologist.  Applicant was placed in an alcohol treatment program, receiving inpatient
rehabilitation treatment at a military facility, which emphasized relapse prevention.  While in
treatment he attended AA at least seven times a week.  Upon discharge, Applicant was recommended
to attend at least five AA meetings a week, to abstain from alcohol, obtain an AA sponsor, and seek
help for any personal or family problems that might impede his recovery.
Navy officials subsequently advised Applicant that, to remain on active duty with the Navy,
he would be required to participate in an “aftercare” regimen.  Applicant attended AA and was
abstinent for about six to eight months, but relapsed “by choice.”  “By December 1997, he was
drinking three or four 12-ounce beers per day . . .”
In 2001, the Defense Security Service (DSS) interviewed Applicant.  He admitted to the
interviewer that he was drinking, despite being directed by his command to abstain.  He admitted
to drinking one or two beers twice weekly and a glass of wine occasionally.  
Applicant retired from the Navy in 2002.  He obtained a job with a federal contractor,
performing duties similar to those he did in the Navy.  In 2003, Applicant was re-interviewed by a
DSS agent.  He told the agent that his current drinking pattern of three or four beers per day was not
a problem and that he expected to continue drinking at that level.
In 2004, in response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant admitted that he was still drinking,
at the reduced level of one or two drinks a week.  In December 2004, Applicant was evaluated, at
DOHA’s request, by a counselor at a military alcohol rehabilitation program.  The counselor
concluded that, assuming Applicant’s information as to his reduced drinking levels was accurate,
Applicant did not have a recent problem with alcohol abuse.  Applicant states that he has not been
drunk since some time in 2004, although he admitted that he consumed one and one-half beers the
night prior to the hearing.  Additionally, about a month before the hearing, he consumed four to six
3
beers while working in his yard.  The Judge stated that, “He intends to continue to consume alcohol
in the future despite concerns of his ex-spouse and mother that he is drinking too much.”
Applicant’s drinking has not affected his work performance.
An examination of the Judge’s findings, as well as her analysis, demonstrates that she
considered the fact that Applicant’s recent alcohol consumption has been moderate, characterizing
it as “a positive change in his behavior.”  Decision at 7.  However, she also pointed out that even this
reduced consumption is against clinical advice, which undermines the “ameliorative impact” of the
various treatment programs he underwent.  Id.  We find no error in the manner in which the Judge
weighed the evidence.  See ISCR Case No. 03-16167 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 22, 2006).  Given the
Judge’s findings, we conclude that her decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.
See ISCR Case No. 00-0382 (App. Bd. Jun. 19, 2001).
Order
The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a clearance is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett             
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board