KEYWORD: Alcohol; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is a senior analyst for a defense contractor since 1996. He consumed alcohol,
at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from approximately 1976 to at least  August 2006.
He was arrested, charged, and found guilty of public intoxication. He was diagnosed with alcohol
abuse. He was charged with aggravated sexual battery, a felony. He entered a plea to the reduced
misdemeanor charge of assault and battery. He did not complete a court-ordered alcohol counseling
program. Applicant has not mitigated the alcohol consumption and criminal conduct security
concerns. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 04-11145.h1
DATE: 06/22/2007
DATE:  June 22, 2007
In re:
----------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 04-11145
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JACQUELINE T. WILLIAMS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a senior analyst for a defense contractor since 1996. He consumed alcohol, at
times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from approximately 1976 to at least  August 2006.
He was arrested, charged, and found guilty of public intoxication. He was diagnosed with alcohol
abuse. He was charged with aggravated sexual battery, a felony. He entered a plea to the reduced
misdemeanor charge of assault and battery. He did not complete a court-ordered alcohol counseling
program. Applicant has not mitigated the alcohol consumption and criminal conduct security
concerns. Clearance is denied.
Ex. 1 (Security Clearance Applicant, signed on August 12, 2003. Resigned on April 18, 2006).1
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. 15, 20.3
Tr. 15, 17.4
Tr. 21.5
Tr. 22.6
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 12, 2003, Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SF 86). He
resigned the SF 86 on April 18, 2006.  On November 28, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and1
Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant a security clearance, and issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)2
detailing the basis for its decision–security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol
Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) 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 guidelines were provided to Applicant when the SOR was issued.
On January 11, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and requested a hearing.
The Government indicated the case was ready to proceed on March 16, 2007. The case was assigned
to me on March 19, 2007. A Notice of Hearing was issued on March 21, 2007, scheduling the
hearing for April 11, 2007. The hearing was conducted as scheduled. At the hearing, the Government
submitted 12 exhibits, Exs. 1-12, and one administrative exhibit, Admin. Ex. 1. Applicant did not
submit any exhibits. All of the exhibits were admitted into the record without objection. The
transcript (Tr.) was received on April 19, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted all the factual allegations under Guideline G, subparagraphs 1.a through
1.d. He also admitted the factual allegations under Guideline J, subparagraph 2.a. Those admissions
are incorporated herein as findings of fact. 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 49 years old. He graduated from a well-known university in 1980 with a
bachelor’s degree in business administration. In 1980, he joined the Army and retired as a major in
1996.  He held a security clearance while in the military. As a civilian, he was employed by a defense3
contractor in 1996, and is still employed there as a senior analyst.  He is now divorced, but he was4
married 18 years. He has seven children, aged 17 through 10.5
Applicant was 18 years old and had started college when he began drinking alcohol.  He6
continued drinking during his military career. He consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the
point of intoxication, from approximately 1976 to at least August 2006. To date, he continues
Tr. 27.7
Tr. 64.8
Ex. 8 (Substance Abuse Evaluation, dated April 1, 2004).9
Tr. 30-32. See also, Ex. 5 (Counseling Group Discharge Summary, dated October 31, 2005). See also, Admin10
Ex. 1 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), Axis I, 305.00 Alcohol Abuse).
Tr. 32, 43.11
Tr. 44.12
Tr. 32.13
Tr. 46.14
Tr. 41.15
Tr. 33, 40.16
4
drinking alcohol. The night before the hearing, he had an alcoholic drink, which was a combination
of bourbon and ginger ale.7
In October 2003, Applicant’s 12-year-old daughter reported that he had sexually molested
her on several occasions between January 2000 and December 2000.  On December 5, 2003,8
Applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated sexual battery, a felony. He entered a plea of
nolo contendere to the reduced charge of assault and battery of a family member. He was ordered
to complete a substance abuse program and given 18 months’ probation. He denied the allegations.
He presented himself for a substance abuse evaluation on April 1, 2004. He  was recommended to
complete an outpatient therapy program consisting of at least 12 sessions of individual therapy and
to remain abstinent from alcohol during the length of the program.
As part of the offer to dismiss the felony charge, he had to attend alcohol counseling. He was
diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse.  This diagnosis was made by a licensed clinical social worker,9
working at a local counseling group. Based on Applicant’s alcohol use history, he met the DSM-IV-
TR criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse.  Applicant was shocked when this assessment was10
made because he was told that the evaluator was not going to recommend that he attend any alcohol
abuse counseling.  It was recommended that he attend four months of counseling.  He does not11 12
believe that he abuses alcohol.  In November 2004, he entered into treatment with a counseling13
group. He then went to Iraq from June 2004 to the end of August 2004.  He returned to counseling14
for a short period. Applicant continued to drink during the program, as evidenced by positive
Breathalyzer tests on January 31, 2005 and February 22, 2005. He did not complete the alcohol
counseling program.  He was required to restart the treatment process from the beginning because15
he failed to meet the graduation criteria of continuous sobriety for four months.
On January 20, 2006, Applicant returned home from an eight-month deployment to Iraq. His
friend picked him up at the airport and took Applicant to his apartment to stay.  During the course16
Tr. 34.17
Tr. 35, 36.18
Tr. 38.19
Tr. 88.20
Tr. 87.21
Tr. 88, 90, 94.22
Tr. 92.23
Tr. 87-89.24
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).25
Id. at 527.26
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960). 27
5
of the day, they both consumed alcohol. Applicant had about six drinks.  Applicant called his 16-17
year-old son to pick him up so he could visit his other children at his ex-wife’s house.  Once he got18
to her house, she called the police because she did not want him there. The police asked him for two
pieces of identification and he provided his military and employment identification cards.  When19
asked for his driver’s license, he balked, and was arrested and charged with public intoxication. He
was found guilty and fined $25 with court costs of $66. He notified his facility security officer of the
incident immediately upon return to work.
Applicant’s supervisor testified at the hearing.  He has known Applicant for 10 years, since20
they started working in the same company about the same time.  Applicant told him about the21
sexual allegation reported by his daughter.  He sees Applicant on a daily basis at work and they22
socialize outside of work about once or twice a month.  He believes Applicant is trustworthy and23
reliable and endorses him for a security clearance.24
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  As Commander in Chief, the President has25
“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 to26
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 of27
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
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).28
Id.; Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.29
Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.30
6
should err, if they must, on the side of denials.  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant28
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 a29
determination as to the loyalty of an applicant. It is merely an indication that the applicant has not
met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a
clearance.  30
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).
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards, and I reach the
following conclusions.
Alcohol Consumption
Alcohol consumption is a security concern because excessive 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.
Applicant visited his ex-wife’s home after consuming at least six alcoholic drinks and was
arrested for not providing police the appropriate identification. Applicant’s arrest after consuming
alcohol is evidence of an alcohol incident away from work. He was back from eight months in Iraq
and wanted to celebrate. However, he knew that he would also see his children that day, and
continued to consume alcohol to the point that he was too impaired to drive and had his son pick him
up. Moreover, Applicant did not have 12 consecutive weeks of abstinence and meetings without
consuming alcohol. He never successfully completed his alcohol treatment program that was
mandated by the court. He has also been diagnosed twice with alcohol abuse. Thus, Alcohol
Consumption Disqualifying Conditions (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 abuser
or alcohol dependent), 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), AC DC ¶ 22(e) (evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence by a
licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program),
and AC DC ¶ 22(g) (failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation,
7
treatment, or abstinence) apply. I have considered all of the Alcohol Consumption Mitigating
Conditions, and I find that none apply. The Government has established a prima facie case for
disqualification under Guideline G. Applicant has not mitigated the Government’s case. Allegations
1.a through 1.d of the SOR are found against Applicant. 
Criminal Conduct
Criminal conduct under Guideline J is always a security concern because criminal activity
creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls
into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
Applicant was charged with a felony, a serious crime, for sexually abusing his daughter, but
the prosecution allowed him to plead to a lesser included offense. Nevertheless, while the court
ordered him into an alcohol counseling program, he failed to complete that program as indicated
above. Thus, Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions (CC DC) ¶ 31(a) (a single serious crime
or multiple lesser offenses), CC DC ¶ 31(c) (allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless
of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted), and CC DC ¶ 31(e)
(violation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-mandated rehabilitation program)
apply. I have considered all of the Criminal Conduct Mitigating Conditions, and I find that none
apply. The Government has established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline J.
Applicant has not mitigated the Government’s case. Allegation 2.a of the SOR is found 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
has had a progressive drinking history since 1976. He has been drinking daily since then, with the
exception of periods when he was overseas. He did not complete order court-ordered alcohol
counseling. While he disagrees with his diagnosis for Alcohol Abuse, professionals made the
diagnosis. Based on the evidence of record, it is clearly not consistent with the national interest to
grant Applicant a security clearance. 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
8
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline J (Criminal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances in the 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