KEYWORD: Alcohol
DIGEST: Applicant is 36 years old and has been employed as a help desk manager for a defense
contractor since August 2004. Between 1988 and 2004, he had five infractions for either driving
while intoxicated or being drunk in public. At least once a year from 1989-2005, he has driven while
impaired or intoxicated from alcohol. He moderated his drinking behavior in December 2005.
Although he has taken credible and responsible steps to avoid further alcohol-related issues, he will,
more likely than not, consume alcohol to excess in the future. Applicant has not mitigated the
alcohol consumption security concerns. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-18752.h1
DATE: 04/30/2007
DATE:  April 30, 2007
In re:
---------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18752
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JACQUELINE T. WILLIAMS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Fahryn Hoffman, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is 36 years old and has been employed as a help desk manager for a defense
contractor since August 2004. Between 1988 and 2004, he had five infractions for either driving
while intoxicated or being drunk in public. At least once a year from 1989-2005, he has driven while
impaired or intoxicated from alcohol. He moderated his drinking behavior in December 2005.
Although he has taken credible and responsible steps to avoid further alcohol-related issues, he will,
more likely than not, consume alcohol to excess in the future. Applicant has not mitigated the
alcohol consumption security concerns. Clearance is denied.
Ex. 2 (Unredacted Security Clearance Application, dated August 18, 2004); Ex. 1(Redacted Security Clearance1
Application, dated August 18, 2004).
Pursuant to Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as2
amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program  (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).
Tr. 19, 20.3
Tr. 20.4
Tr. 26.5
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 18, 2004, Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SF 86).  On1
September 19, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR)  to Applicant, detailing the basis for its decision–security concerns raised under2
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on
December 29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense for SORs issued after
September 1, 2006. The revised AG  was provided to Applicant when the SOR was issued. 
In a document, dated October 18, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and
requested an in-person hearing. The case was assigned to me on February 5, 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 five exhibits, Exs. 1-5, which
were admitted into the record without objection. Applicant did not offer any exhibits. The transcript
(Tr.) was received on March 15, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the allegations under Guideline G, alcohol consumption, subparagraphs
1.a through 1.f. Applicant’s admissions to the allegations in the SOR are incorporated herein. He
denied the allegation in subparagraph 1.g. 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 36 years old, and since August 2004, has been a help desk manager for a defense
contractor.  From May to August 2004, he studied computer engineering at a university, but did not3
graduate.  Although single, he plans to marry in early 2008.  He does not have children.4 5
On August 12, 1988, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated
(DWI). He pled guilty, and was fined approximately $200. His driver’s license was suspended for
six months. This incident occurred shortly after his 18th birthday, around midnight, on his way home
Tr. 27-28.6
Tr. 28-29.7
Tr. 32.8
Tr. 41.9
Tr. 45.10
Tr. 45.11
Tr. 48.12
Tr. 47-48.13
Tr. 47-48.14
Tr. 48-49.15
4
from a high school party at a friend’s house.  During the party, he drank six or seven beers, and he6
drove home while intoxicated.7
On March 1, 1989, Applicant was arrested and charged with DWI and driving on a suspended
license. He was found guilty and was sentenced to a weekend in jail. He was ordered to attend an
Alcohol Safety Action Program for about eight weeks. He was on probation for six months, and his
driver’s license was suspended for two years. This incident occurred at a college party. He had five
or six beers before he drove himself and a friend home, in the friend’s car.  The friend was more8
intoxicated than Applicant.9
On October 8, 1993, he was charged with possession of alcoholic beverages for underage
minors. This charge was subsequently dismissed.
Applicant was arrested on January 8, 2000, and charged with being drunk in public. He was
found guilty and fined $55. He was 29 at the time of this incident.  He had four or five beers and10
one or two shots of alcohol over a period of four to five hours, while watching sports in a bar with
a friend.  Upon leaving the bar intoxicated, he was arrested for being drunk in public.11
On August 8, 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with being drunk in public. He was
found guilty and fined $92. He and former coworkers went to a picnic earlier, and he had five or six
beers.  After the picnic, he and his friends continued drinking at a bar to celebrate his birthday.  At12 13
the bar, he had “a couple beers and a bunch of shots, which turned out to be about four shots.”  He14
was intoxicated when leaving the bar, stopped by the police, and arrested for being drunk in public.15
In an interview on February 21, 2006, with an authorized investigator for the Department of
Defense, Applicant admitted driving while impaired or intoxicated from alcohol on an average of
twice yearly from about 1989 to at least the fall of 2005. At the hearing, he testified that this
Tr. 52.16
Tr. 17.17
Tr. 24.18
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).19
Id. at 527.20
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960). 21
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).22
Id.; Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.23
5
information was not accurate. He stated that he drove while impaired or intoxicated from alcohol
“maybe once a year from ‘89 to 2005.”16
Applicant’s girlfriend was pregnant in 2005. He testified that this event made him amend his
negative beer-drinking routine:
Since around December of 2005, I’ve undergone a lifestyle change, due to the fact
that I thought I was going to be a father, and started thinking about what I’ve done
with my life and the mistakes I’ve made, and I made a conscientious effort to abstain
from drinking, planning on getting married and having a kid, and realizing that my
behavior in the past would be unacceptable to raising a kid.17
His girlfriend had a miscarriage. To date, Applicant continues to have a beer every now and
then.  He does not drink to get drunk.18
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  As Commander in Chief, the President has19
“the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on national security and to determine
whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position . . . that will give that person
access to such information.”  The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to20
grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to do so.”  An applicant has the ultimate burden of21
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his or her
security clearance. The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations
should err, if they must, on the side of denials.  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant22
should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such
sensitive information.  The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a23
determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the applicant has not
Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.24
6
met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a
clearance.  24
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and
mitigating conditions (MC) under each 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 adjudicative process factors listed in listed
in the Directive and AG ¶ 2(a).
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which would mitigate security concerns, are set forth and discussed in the conclusions section below.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards, and I reach the
following conclusions.
Alcohol consumption is always a security concern because excessive alcohol consumption
often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. The Government has established a
prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline G, alcohol consumption.
Between 1988 and 2004, Applicant had five infractions for either driving while intoxicated
or being drunk in public. He had his driver’s license suspended two different times, once for six
months and then for two years. He admits driving while impaired or intoxicated from alcohol at least
once a year from 1989 to 2005. Thus, Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Condition (AC DC) 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 abuse or alcohol dependent) and AC DC 22(c) (habitual or
binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the
individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent) apply.
Various factors can mitigate alcohol consumption security concerns. The alcohol-related
arrests that occurred in 1988, 1989, and 1993 have not been mitigated by time because the behavior
is not infrequent and it recurred, casting doubt about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness and
judgment. Thus, Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition (AC MC) 23(a) (so much time has
passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that
it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness,
or good judgment) does not apply. Applicant’s alcohol-related arrests in 2000 and 2004, together
with the earlier ones, indicate a pattern of excessive drinking by Applicant over a 16-year period. His
two DWI charges occurred in 1988 and 1989. Since 1989, there is no evidence in the record that he
has had any other DWI charges. Moreover, the arrests in 2000 and 2004 were for being drunk in
public. He was intoxicated to the point of being arrested, but he was not driving. In 2005, his
girlfriend was pregnant with his child. He had an epiphany and by December 2005 or January 2006,
7
he changed his lifestyle, and drinking excessively was no longer a priority. He modified his drinking
behavior, including the quantity consumed. He continues to have a beer every now and then.
Although he has taken credible and responsible steps to avoid further alcohol-related incidents, he
will, more likely than not, consume alcohol to excess in the future since he has not abstained from
drinking alcohol. Moreover, he has driven while impaired or intoxicated from alcohol at least once
a year from 1989 to 2005. Thus, AC MC 23(b) (the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism
or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has
established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser)
does not apply. Applicant has not mitigated the Government’s case. Accordingly, allegations 1.a
through 1.g 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. At 42,
Applicant has matured and realized that his earlier behavior with arrests for drinking and driving and
being drunk in public are not favorable character traits. He seemed earnest and credible at the hearing
regarding his reformed behavior and his consumption of alcohol. He wants to get married, have a
family, and have a career that will enable him to provide for his family. He is more interested in a
future for himself and his family. He now moderates his alcohol consumption, but I cannot conclude
that he will not deviate from his moderate drinking and not become inebriated 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 G (Alcohol Consumption):  AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: 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