KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct; Alcohol; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is 42 years old, and since June 2003, he has been a field engineer for a defense
contractor. Between 1986 and 2005, he had four infractions for either driving while intoxicated or
driving recklessly. In 2005, he moderated his drinking behavior and has periods when he no longer
consumes alcohol. Although he has taken credible and responsible steps to avoid further alcohol-
related driving issues, he will, more likely than not, consume alcohol to excess in the future since
he has not abstained from drinking alcohol. Applicant has not mitigated the criminal conduct,
alcohol consumption, and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 05-03114.h1
DATE: 04/30/2007
DATE:  April 30, 2007
In re:
------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case: 05-03114
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JACQUELINE T. WILLIAMS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is 42 years old, and since June 2003, he has been a field engineer for a defense
contractor. Between 1986 and 2005, he had four infractions for either driving while intoxicated or
driving recklessly. In 2005, he moderated his drinking behavior and has periods when he no longer
consumes alcohol. Although he has taken credible and responsible steps to avoid further alcohol-
related driving issues, he will, more likely than not, consume alcohol to excess in the future since
he has not abstained from drinking alcohol. Applicant has not mitigated the criminal conduct,
alcohol consumption, and personal conduct security concerns. Clearance is denied.
Ex. 2 (Security Clearance Application, dated November 22, 2003).1
Tr. 31-32.2
Tr. 20.3
Tr. 31.4
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 22, 2003, Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SF 86).  On1
August 29, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended and modified, and Department
of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified. The SOR detailed reasons under
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline 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 or continue a security clearance for
Applicant, and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance
should be granted or revoked.
In a document, dated September 21, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and
requested an in-person hearing. The case was assigned to me on February 12, 2007. A Notice of
Hearing was issued on February 21, 2007, scheduling the hearing for March 7, 2007. The hearing
was conducted as scheduled. At the hearing, the Government offered eight exhibits, Exs. 1-8.
Applicant did not offer any exhibits. The exhibits were admitted into the record without objection.
The transcript (Tr.) was received on March 15, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the allegations under Guideline J, criminal behavior, subparagraphs1.a-
1.d, Guideline G, alcohol consumption, subparagraph 2.a, and Guideline E, personal conduct,
subparagraph 3.a. Applicant’s admissions to the allegations in the SOR are incorporated herein. He
denied the allegation in subparagraph 3.b. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in
the record, and upon due consideration of same, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is 42 years old, and since June 2003, has been a field engineer for a defense
contractor.  He is a high school graduate and served in the U.S. Navy from 1982 to 1986. A random2
drug test was positive for marijuana, which led to an other than honorable discharge from the Navy.3
He has been married since 1996. At the time of the hearing, he was legally separated. He does not
have children.4
On or about December 6, 1986, after work, Applicant went to some friends’ house for dinner.
He drank no more than six, seven ounce beers. He fell asleep on their couch and woke up about 1:00
a.m. While driving home, he fell asleep at the wheel, and struck a telephone pole. Applicant was
Tr. 29.5
Ex. 4 (Citation Nos. G6455688 and G6455689 and related documents, dated June 12, 1989).6
Tr. 24-26.7
Tr. 26-29.8
Tr. 34-37. See also Applicant’s Answer, dated September 21, 2006.9
Tr. 40.10
Tr. 41-43.11
Tr. 47-48.12
4
arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). He was found guilty and sentenced. He
attended and completed court-ordered alcohol counseling sessions for about two to three months.5
On or about June 12, 1989, Applicant was observed driving at a high rate of speed. He failed
to negotiate a curve and struck a sign, skidded across a ditch, and struck a tree. He was arrested and
charged with DWI and reckless driving.  He was found guilty and sentenced. He attended and6
completed court-ordered alcohol counseling sessions for about two to three months.
On or about July 13, 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with DWI. He was driving
on the highway exceeding the speed limit. He was found guilty and sentenced. He attended and
completed a court-ordered alcohol counseling program for approximately two to three months.7
On or about July 1, 2005, Applicant was arrested and charged with reckless driving and DWI.
He was found guilty of the reckless driving charge and sentenced. As an outpatient, he voluntarily
attended and completed an alcohol counseling program that met twice a week for six months.  He8
found this program to be extremely helpful in understanding the underlying premises of why people
drink alcohol and how it impacts on each person.
On or about May 17, 2006, during an interview with an authorized investigator for the
Department of Defense, Applicant failed to disclose that he had been charged with reckless driving
and driving under the influence of alcohol on or about July 1, 2005. He pled guilty to the reckless
driving charge on November 14, 2005. Applicant denied this allegation. He contends that the
conversation with the agent was not focused on his alcohol and driving charges, but rather focused
on the use of marijuana, which is not an issue raised in the SOR.9
A character witness testified that he met Applicant at work in 1987.  For the past 20 years10
their paths have crossed, and they have kept in touch. They have worked together, along with the
witness’s son, in restoring a car. Applicant was instrumental with knowledge about building engines.
The three of them assembled the car, including the engine.  The witness has never seen Applicant11
under the influence of alcohol.12
Tr. 21, 23, 24.13
ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (July 11, 1997) at 2.14
ISCR Case No. 97-0016 (December 31, 1997) at 3; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14.15
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).16
ISCR Case No. 94-1075 (August 10, 1995) at 3-4; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.17
ISCR Case No. 93-1390 (January 27, 1995) at 7-8; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.18
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.19
Id.20
5
Applicant testified that prior to the hearing, he did not have alcohol for a couple of months.
If he does drink, he might have a couple of beers on the weekend, and not every weekend. He
testified he no longer drives if he drinks alcohol.13
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating
a person’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. Included in the guidelines are disqualifying
conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) applicable to each specific guideline. Additionally,
each security clearance decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based on the
relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole-person concept, along with the factors listed
in the Directive. Specifically these are: (1) the nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances; (2) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (3) the age of the applicant; (4) the
motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary,
or undertaken with knowledge of the consequences; (5) the absence or presence of rehabilitation; and
(6) the probability that the circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future. Although
the presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not outcome
determinative, the adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured
against this policy guidance.
The sole purpose of a security clearance determination is to decide if it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.  The Government14
has the burden of proving controverted facts.  The burden of proof is something less than a15
preponderance of evidence.  Once the government has met its burden, the burden shifts to an applicant16
to present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against him.17
Additionally, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance
decision.18
No one has a right to a security clearance  and “the clearly consistent standard indicates that19
security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable20
doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved
Id.; Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E2.2.2.21
Executive Order 10865 § 7.22
6
in favor of protecting such sensitive information.  The decision to deny an individual a security21
clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication22
that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have
established for issuing a clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards, and I reach the
following conclusions.
Criminal Conduct
Criminal conduct is a security concern because a history or pattern of criminal activity creates
doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. The Government has established a
prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline J, criminal conduct.
On at least four different occasions between 1986 and 2005, Applicant was arrested, found
guilty, and sentenced on either DWI or reckless driving charges. Thus, Criminal Conduct Disqualifying
Conditions (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) apply.
Various factors can mitigate criminal conduct security concerns. Two of his driving infractions
occurred in 1986 and 1989. Those incidents occurred more than 20 and 17 years ago, respectively, and
have been mitigated by time. Thus, Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition (CC MC) E2.A10.1.3.1
(the criminal behavior was not recent) applies to the alcohol-related offenses in the 1980s. In 2002,
he was speeding while under the influence of alcohol. In 2005, he was charged with reckless driving.
At the hearing, Applicant was contrite and remorseful for his unruly alcohol-related behavior. While
not totally abstaining from alcohol, he testified that he has moderated his drinking and will not drink
and drive again. However, the two years that he has modified his drinking behavior is not enough time
to conclude that he has changed his behavior when it comes to drinking and driving. He has taken
credible and responsible steps to avoid further alcohol-related driving incidents, he will, more likely
than not, consume alcohol to excess in the future since he has not abstained from drinking alcohol.
Looking at the 2002 and 2005 alcohol-related drinking incidents, Applicant does not qualify for CC
MC E2.A10.1.3. 2 (the criminal behavior was not recent) and CC MC E2.A10.1.3.2 (the crime was
an isolated incident). Applicant has not mitigated the Government’s case. Accordingly, allegations1.a
through 1.d of the SOR are concluded against Applicant.
Alcohol Consumption
Alcohol consumption is a security concern because excessive alcohol consumption often leads
to the exercise of questionable judgment, unreliability, failure to control impulses, and increases the
7
risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information due to carelessness. The Government has
established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline G, alcohol consumption.
From 1986 to 2005, Applicant had four arrests with charges for either DWI or reckless driving.
Thus, Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions (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) and AC DC E2.A7.1.2.5 (habitual or binge
consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment) apply.
Various factors can mitigate alcohol consumption security concerns. While not totally
abstaining from alcohol, Applicant testified that he has moderated his drinking and will not drink and
drive again. The two years that he has modified his drinking behavior, when balanced against four
incidents of DWI in 20 years, is not enough time to conclude that he has changed his behavior when
it comes to drinking and driving. Thus, Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions (AC MC)
E2.A10.1.3.61 (the alcohol-related incidents do not indicate a pattern) and AC MC E2.A10.1.3.6
(there is clear evidence of successful rehabilitation) do not apply. Applicant has not mitigated the
Government’s case. Accordingly, allegation 2.a of the SOR is concluded against Applicant.
Personal Conduct
Personal conduct is always a security concern because it asks the central question whether the
person’s past conduct justifies confidence the person can be trusted to properly safeguard classified
information. The Government has established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline
E, personal conduct.
Honesty is critical to a position of trust in safeguarding classified information. On at least four
different occasions between 1986 and 2005, Applicant was arrested, found guilty, and sentenced on
either DWI or reckless driving charges. Applicant intentionally misled the investigator when he failed
to disclose he had been charged with reckless driving in 2005. He indicates he misunderstood the
questions asked of him by the agent. Moreover, he contends that the conversation with the agent was
not focused on his alcohol and driving charges, but rather focused on a question regarding the use of
marijuana, which is not an issue raised in the SOR. Even if all of that is true, he also knew that
admitting to a 2005 drinking and driving charge could stand in the way of his employment. Thus,
Personal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions (PC DC) E2.A5.1.2.1 (reliable, unfavorable information
provided by associates, employers, coworkers, neighbors, and other acquaintances), PC DC
E2.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, determine security
clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities), PC DC E2.A5.1.2.5 (a
pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, including violation of any written or recorded agreement
made between the individual and the agency) apply.
Various factors can mitigate personal conduct security concerns. However, none of the
available Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions apply. Applicant has not mitigated the
Government’s case. Accordingly, allegations 3.a and 3.b of the SOR are concluded against Applicant.
I have considered all the evidence in the case. I have also considered the “whole person”
concept in evaluating Applicant’s risk and vulnerability in protecting our national interests. Applicant
8
at 42, appeared composed, contrite, and remorseful for his driving infractions involving an excess
consumption of alcohol and then driving while inebriated. He has moderated his drinking during the
last two years. Although he has taken credible and responsible steps to avoid further alcohol-related
driving incidents, he will, more likely than not, consume alcohol to excess in the future. For the
reasons stated, I conclude Applicant is not suitable for access to classified information.
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:
Paragraph 1. Guideline J (Criminal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3. Guideline E (Personal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Jacqueline T. Williams
 Administrative Judge