KEYWORD: Alcohol; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is 47 years old and is employed as a sheet metal worker for a defense contractor.
Applicant did not intentionally falsify his 2005 security clearance. He misunderstood the question,
and therefore, he mitigated the Personal Conduct concerns. Although he has a history of alcohol-
related arrests and has attended court-ordered classes, he has continued to consume alcohol, at times
to intoxication, from approximately 1983 to at least 2002. Applicant's failure to mitigate his
excessive alcohol consumption raises security concerns. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-12477.h1
DATE: 04/17/2007
DATE:  April 17, 2007
In re:
-------------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-12477
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Robert E. Coacher, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is 47 years old and is employed as a sheet metal worker for a defense contractor.
Applicant did not intentionally falsify his 2005 security clearance. He misunderstood the question,
and therefore, he mitigated the Personal Conduct concerns. Although he has a history of alcohol-
related arrests and has attended court-ordered classes, he has continued to consume alcohol, at times
to intoxication, from approximately 1983 to at least 2002. Applicant's failure to mitigate his
excessive alcohol consumption raises security concerns. Clearance is denied.
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive1
5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified (Directive).
The government submitted five items in support of its contention.2
Item 4 (Applicant's Security Clearance Application (SF 86), dated August 31, 2005 ) at 1-20.3
Item 5 (Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records, dated November 17, 2006) at 1-2.4
Id.5
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 21, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to
Applicant Statements of Reasons (SOR) stating it was unable to find that it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance.  The SOR, which is in essence the1
administrative complaint, alleged security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct), of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on December
29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006. The revised
guidelines were provided to Applicant when the SOR was issued.
In a sworn statement, dated December 11, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations
and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel
submitted the government's written case on February 14, 2007, and provided a complete copy of the
file of relevant material (FORM)  to Applicant, along with notice of his opportunity to file objections2
and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions. Applicant received
the FORM on March 6, 2007. Applicant submitted additional information. The case was assigned
to me on March 28, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the factual allegations pertaining to alcohol consumption under Guideline
G (subparagraphs 1.a through 1.e). He denied the factual allegations pertaining to personal conduct
under Guideline E (subparagraph 2.a). Those admissions are incorporated as findings of fact. In
addition, after a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits, I make the following
findings of fact:
Applicant is 47 years old and is a sheet metal worker for a defense contractor. He has been
with his current employer since 1979. Applicant is single and has no children. He submitted a
security clearance application on August 31, 2005.3
Applicant admits consuming alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from
1983 to at least November 2006. Between 1983 and 1989, he was arrested three times and charged
with driving while intoxicated (DWI). After each of those arrests, he attended a court ordered
Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP).   His driver's license was revoked.4 5
Item 3 (Applicant's notarized answer, dated December 11, 2006 and January 8, 2007) at 1-4. 6
Item 4, supra note 3, at 19.7
Item 3, supra note 6, at 3.8
4
In November 2002, Applicant was again arrested and charged with being drunk in public. He
was convicted and required to pay a fine and fee. Applicant continues to drink approximately 18
beers per week. 6
Applicant completed and signed a security clearance application (SF 86) on August 31, 2005.
Section 23 (d) on the SF 86 asks: Your Police Record. In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for
charged with, or convicted of any offenses related to alcohol or drugs. (Leave out traffic fines of less
than $150 unless the violation was alcohol or drug related). Applicant answered "yes" to that
question, but did not disclose his three DWI convictions.7
In his answer to the SOR, he denied intentionally providing false information. He explained
that he believed if you had convictions older than ten years, you did not need to list them. He did list
his 2002 drunk in public charge on the application form and checked alcohol and drugs. He
explained that he answered the section 23 questions a through f to the best of his knowledge. He also
explained that he was not convicted of a felony, and thus, did not answer "yes" to that question. He
acknowledged that he did not deliberately leave out the alcohol convictions in the 1980s.8
Applicant has not presented any information concerning counseling for alcohol or any
treatment. There is no record in the evidence of any diagnosis. He continues to drink, as noted above,
but not to the same excess as the past.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be considered in
the evaluation of security suitability. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline,
the adjudicative guidelines are divided into those that may be considered in deciding whether to deny
or revoke an individual's eligibility for access to classified information (Disqualifying Conditions)
and those that may be considered in deciding whether to grant an individual's eligibility for access
to classified information (Mitigating Conditions).
An administrative judge need not view the adjudicative guidelines as inflexible ironclad rules
of law. Instead, acknowledging the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines, when applied
in conjunction with the factors set forth in the Adjudicative Process provision set forth in Section
E2.2., Enclosure 2, of the Directive are intended to assist the administrative judge in reaching fair
and impartial commonsense decisions.
Because the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the
"whole person concept," all available, reliable information about the person, past and present,
favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in making a meaningful decision. The Adjudicative
Process factors which an administrative judge should consider are: (1) the nature, extent, and
seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
The Directive, as amended by Change 4, dated April 20, 1999, uses 'clearly consistent with the national9
interest" (Sec. 2.3; Sec.2.5.3; Sec 3.2.; and Sec. 4.2.; Enclosure 3, Sec. E3.1.1.; Sec. E3.1.2.; Sec. E3.1.2.5.; Sec.
E3.1.2.6.; and Sec. E3.1.2.7.), "clearly consistent with the interests of national security" (Enclosure 2, Sec. E2.2.3.); and
"clearly consistent with national security" (Enclosure 2, Sec. E2.2.2.).
ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (July 11, 1997) at 2.10
ISCR Case No. 94-1075 (August 10, 1995) at 3-4; Directive, Enclosure 3, Para E3.1.15.11
Directive, Enclosure 2, Para. E2.2.212
5
participation; (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 pertinent 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.
Since the protection of the national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case must be arrived at by applying the standard that the issuance of the clearance is "clearly
consistent with the interests of national security" or "clearly consistent with the national interest."9
For the purposes herein, despite the different wording in each, I have concluded all of the standards
are the same. In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable,
logical and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing
inferences that are grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
In the decision-making process, the burden of producing evidence initially falls on the
government to establish a case which demonstrates, in accordance with the Directive, that it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s access to classified
information.  If the government meets its burden, the heavy burden of persuasion then falls upon the10
applicant to present evidence in refutation, explanation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to
overcome the doubts raised by the government’s case, and to ultimately demonstrate it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the applicant’s clearance.11
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the government predicated upon trust and confidence. It is a relationship that transcends normal duty
hours and endures throughout off-duty hours as well. Because of this special relationship, the
government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those individuals to whom
it grants access to classified information. Decisions under this Directive include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect
or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Any
doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to classified information must be resolved
in favor of national security.12
One additional comment is worthy of note. Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism are
not at issue in these proceedings. Section 7 of the Executive Order 10865 specifically provides that
industrial security clearance decisions shall be, “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Security clearance decisions cover
6
many characteristics of an applicant other than allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism. Nothing in this
decision should be construed to suggest I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express
or implied decision as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty or patriotism.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal
precepts, factors, and conditions, I conclude the following with respect to each allegation set forth in
the SOR. For clarity, I will discuss each guideline separately.
Alcohol Consumption
The government established its case under Guideline G. Applicant's admitted consumption
of alcohol to excess and at times to intoxication spans a period of twenty years. Excessive alcohol
consumption raises security concerns because it often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment
or the failure to control impulses, thus raising questions about an individual's reliability and
trustworthiness. Disqualifying Condition (FI DC) AG ¶ 22 (a) ( alcohol-related incidents away from
work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace,
or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser
or alcohol dependent) applies in this case.
The record evidence and Applicant's admissions show he was arrested three times between
1983 and 1989, and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. After each arrest, he was
directed to enroll in an alcohol safety awareness program. His driver's license was revoked. In 2002,
he was arrested and convicted of being drunk in public. He was fined and found guilty. Applicant
admits he continues to drink a large amount of alcohol on a weekly basis.
When the Government's initial burden has been met and a disqualifying condition raised, the
burden 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. Here Applicant offered no such
information to rebut or mitigate the allegations of the disqualifying conduct under Guideline G in the
SOR. After a review of the Guideline G mitigating conditions, I find that none apply to the facts of
this case. 
Personal Conduct
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to
provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to
cooperate with the security clearance process.
Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) AG ¶16 (a) (deliberate omission,
concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal
history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefit status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or
7
award fiduciary responsibilities) is raised. Applicant did not disclose the three DWI's on the form,
despite the fact that he answered yes to the question concerning alcohol related offenses. He did list
the 2002 charge for public drunkenness. He denied that he did this with intent to deceive.
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's explanation  was credible that he did not disclose the earlier DWIs because  he
misunderstood the question. He had already responded yes to the question. The last part of the
question (f) referred to the last 7 years for anything that was not already mentioned. I find his
explanation that he misunderstood the question reasonable. I do not find that he intentionally
falsified his security clearance application.
The issue before me is whether he has presented sufficient evidence of extenuation,  or
mitigation to warrant a favorable conclusion. I find that the Applicant has presented such information
and mitigated the government's concerns under Guideline E. 
Whole Person 
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's
life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to sensitive
duties. As noted above, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in
considering the whole person concept. It recognizes a person be viewed by the totality of his or her
acts, omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits,
taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking,
and careful analysis.
I considered both the record evidence and Applicant in light of the whole-person concept.
Applicant began consuming alcohol to excess many years ago. As a result, he has had three arrests
and convictions. In 2002, he had a public drunkenness conviction. He admits still drinking.  I must
decide whether favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable or vice versa. I have evaluated
Applicant's conduct under the whole person concept of the Directive. I conclude that Applicant has
neither rebutted nor mitigated the security concerns raised by the alcohol consumption allegations
in the SOR, and he has not demonstrated that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
him a security clearance. Clearance is denied.
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:
8
Paragraph 1, Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a:           AgainstApplicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E. FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge