KEYWORD: Alcohol; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant mitigated security concerns over his alcohol-related arrests and criminal conduct
based on his abstinence from alcohol since March 2006 and his total compliance with court-ordered
education and therapy.  He provided persuasive evidence that he has reformed his conduct and
demonstrated positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety.  Significantly, he has performed
well on the job and has earned accolades from his managers who uniformly recommend him for a
security clearance.   Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-18748.h1
DATE: 06/11/2007
DATE:  June 11, 2007
In Re:
--------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18748
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
KATHRYN MOEN BRAEMAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
John Bayard Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
       This procedure is required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and Department of Defense Directive1
5220.6, dated January 2, 1992 (Directive), as amended by Change 4, April 20, 1999.   
       Applicant did receive a copy of the DoD Directive 5220.6 which was sent with his Statement of Reasons2
(SOR) on September 29, 2006.  (TR 8; 14)
2
Applicant mitigated security concerns over his alcohol-related arrests and criminal conduct
based on his abstinence from alcohol since March 2006 and his total compliance with court-ordered
education and therapy.  He provided persuasive evidence that he has reformed his conduct and
demonstrated positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety.  Significantly, he has performed
well on the job and has earned accolades from his managers who uniformly recommend him for a
security clearance.   Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
to the Applicant on September 29, 2006.  The SOR detailed reasons why the Government could not
make the preliminary positive finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.   The SOR alleged specific concerns over Alcohol1
Consumption (Guideline G) in paragraph 1, and Criminal Conduct (Guideline J) in paragraph 2
based on the revised (“new”) Adjudicative Guidelines  issued on December 29, 2005, and2
implemented by the Department of Defense, effective September 1, 2006.  Applicant responded to
these SOR allegations in an Answer notarized on October 20, 2006, where he admitted all of the
allegations with explanation in paragraph 1 and in paragraph 2.  He requested a hearing. 
Department Counsel on January 3, 2007, indicated the case was ready to proceed.  The matter
was assigned to me on January 8, 2007. Subsequently, a mutually convenient date for hearing was
agreed to.  A Notice of Hearing, issued on January 17, 2007, set the matter for February 5, 2007, at
a location near where Applicant works and lives. While Applicant did not receive the notice until
January 24, 2007, he believed he had sufficient notice to prepare and waived the 15-day notice
requirement.  (TR 13)
At the hearing the Government offered one exhibit  (Exhibit 1) which was admitted into
evidence.  (TR 19-20) Applicant testified, called one witness, and submitted Exhibits A through C.
Government’s counsel indicated no objection, so the documents were admitted into evidence. (TR
20-24)  The transcript (TR) was received on February 15, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due
consideration of that evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact:
  
Applicant, 29 years old, has worked for a defense contractor in State #1 from May 2004 to
3
present.  He completed a Security Clearance Application (SF 86) in May 2004 and is seeking a top
secret clearance.  He was granted an interim security clearance.  Previously, he worked at a private
sector company in 2003 until he was terminated.  He then returned to a state agency where he had
worked earlier and worked for a state contractor from 2003 to 2004.  Initially, he had worked for the
state agency as an intern in 2002, and later was employed there in 2002 as a web applications
programmer.  He attended community college from 1997 to 1999 where he received an associate of
science degree; he then attended college in State #1 from 2000 to 2002.  He received his Bachelor
of Science (BS) degree in computer information systems  in May 2002.  (Exhibit 1; TR 8; 28-37; 49;
68-69) Applicant is not married and has no children. (Exhibit 1; TR 39)
Alcohol and Criminal Conduct
Applicant began to drink in 1994 as a minor and was arrested twice in 1997 when he was 19:
his first arrest was for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in March 1997 and his second was for
possessing alcohol as a minor in August 1997 when he accepted a beer at a state fair. He pleaded
guilty to both charges and had to pay fines and do community service; he also served six months on
probation.  The charges were dismissed when he completed the terms of probation. When he was
in college his alcohol abuse was at its peak; “since college, it has declined significantly.”
Nevertheless, he was arrested again in January 2006 after he registered .132 on the Blood Alcohol
test and was charged with DUI and Illegal Turn. Initially, he went to a game with his girlfriend and
let her drive as he had consumed liquor; he decided to have her drive as he did not want to risk
drinking and driving while he had a security clearance.  However, later that evening  they decided
to break up, so he drove home twenty miles even though he was intoxicated.  He pleaded guilty to
a reduced charge of Driving While Ability Impaired and was sentenced to one year probation, 20
hours of community service and ordered to attend an alcohol awareness program, attend a Mothers
Against Drunk Driving (MADD) meeting, and pay a fine of $528. One of the terms of probation was
no alcohol consumption.  (Answer; Exhibit C; TR 18; 26-27; 38; 41-60) 
At the time of the hearing in February 2007 Applicant was still on probation and still in
alcohol treatment which he had entered in May 2006.  While he has had no diagnosis as an alcoholic,
Applicant signed a document saying that he would abstain from drinking alcohol at the beginning
of probation. He has kept that agreement.  Also, he has completed community service and all twelve
of the required educational sessions.  He was unsure how long he would remain on probation as he
needed to complete level 2 therapy in group counseling. He has not yet attended a required
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) class.  ( Exhibit C; TR 18; 26-27; 38; 41-60) His intent is to continue
to refrain from alcohol. As he is now dating a woman with a three-year old son,  he does not go to
bars or clubs; he intends to ask her to marry him. .  (TR 63-65)
Under the terms of his current probation he is not allowed to drink and is subject to random
urine tests and Breathalyzer tests when he attends class.  If he were to fail a test, he could have his
probation revoked and serve time in jail.  Consequently, he had not had any alcohol since March
2006 when he went on probation.  He plans to refrain from drinking even after he completes
probation as he values his job.  (TR 63-65; 70-71; 73-74)  He has fourteen weeks left of therapy, so
he could remain on probation for four to six more months to June or August 2007.  (TR 73)
In August 2006, his counseling service reported that Applicant had completed all of the
requirements fo the Level II Education program but his counselor had concerns that he only shared
4
when prompted.  He started Level II therapy treatment thereafter and has completed 16 of the
required 34 sessions.  In January 2007 the same counselor stated that Applicant was “comfortable”
in the group and was open about his previous alcohol use and arrests.  She concluded that since he
“seems quiet by nature” that participating in therapy is a “struggle.” However, she noted that  he does
answer questions and provide feedback “when prompted.”  (Exhibit C)
References
Applicant’s project manager, who has a security clearance, testified and recommended
Applicant for a security clearance as he has an excellent work ethic and makes a key contribution
to the corporation. This manager has known Applicant for three years and has overseen his
evaluations since March 2006.  Last year Applicant got a level “4" rating, the top rating on a four
point scale as his work reflected  “far exceeds expectations.”  This year he is rated as a “3" as he is
in a new position and level “4" ratings are limited to 10 to 20 per cent of the employees and are very
rare.  Applicant plays two key roles in his new assignment.  This manager has traveled with
Applicant to visit a customer and has never seen him drink alcohol.  The manager was aware of
Applicant’s past alcohol-related arrests, but understands that Applicant now abstains from drinking
any alcohol.   He assessed Applicant as having good skills and has demonstrated what this manager
is looking for in a long-term employee; he, also, is effective in the current project.  (TR 76-88)
Applicant’s first supervisor, who supervised him from May 2004 to March 2006, is aware
of Applicant’s 2006 arrest as he reported it immediately.  He observed that Applicant generally
demonstrated a high regard for security and was always very conscientious on security issues.  He
recommended Applicant for a security clearance.  (Exhibit A; TR 65-66)
His current supervisor since March 2006 recommended him for a security clearance.  She
also has known him since he began work at the company in 2004 as they worked on a project
together. She also knew of the 2006 arrest.  She assessed him as “an energetic and talented engineer
that always brings a positive attitude to any task that he is assigned.”  Overall, she viewed him as “a
hard working, conscientious employee.”  She endorsed him for a security clearance.  (Exhibit B; TR
66)
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to consider in evaluating an
individual's security eligibility which  are divided into conditions that could raise a security concern
and may be disqualifying and conditions that could mitigate security concerns.  In deciding whether
to grant or continue an individual's access to classified information, the mere presence or absence
of any adjudication policy condition is not decisive.  Based on a consideration of the evidence as a
whole in evaluating this case, I weighed these relevant Revised Adjudication Guidelines:
Guideline G --Alcohol Consumption
21. The Concern. Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
     Executive Order No. 10865 § 7.3
       22. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) alcohol-4
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.   (b) alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or
duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on the job, regardless of whether the individual is
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent. (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. (D) diagnosis by a credentialed medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or
psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence; (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; (f)
5
judgment or failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability and trustworthiness.
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct
30.  The Concern: 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.
 The responsibility for producing evidence initially falls on the Government to demonstrate
that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's access to
classified information.  Then the Applicant presents evidence to refute, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate in order  to overcome the doubts raised by the Government, and to demonstrate persuasively
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the clearance.  Under the
provisions of Executive Order 10865, as amended, and the Directive, a decision to grant or continue
an applicant's security clearance may be made only after an affirmative finding that to do so is clearly
consistent with the national interest. In reaching the fair and impartial overall common sense
determination, the Administrative Judge may  draw only those inferences and conclusions that have
a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record.  
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 specifically provides 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.” The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not
necessarily a determination as to the allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism of an applicant.  It is merely3
an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of
Defense have established for issuing a security clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
Alcohol Consumption
The Government established security concerns over Applicant’s problem drinking and his
alcohol-related arrests in 1997 and 2006.  Thus, Applicant’s conduct falls within disqualifying
conditions (DC) (a) :  Alcohol-related incidents, such as driving under the influence. His first two4
relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion of  an alcohol rehabilitation program;
(g) failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.  
       23. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:  (a) so much time has passed, or the5
behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to  recur or
does not cast doubt on the individuals current’ reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgement; (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); (c) the individual is a current employee who is participating in a counseling or
treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress; (d)
the individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient counseling or rehabilitation along with any
required after-care requirements, has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption
or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, such as participation in meetings of Alcoholics
Anonymous or a similar organization, and has received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified  medical
professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment
program.
6
arrests occurred in 1997 before he was working; indeed, he was an underage drinker.  He did
community service and served probation which he successfully completed, so the charges were
dismissed. However, he continued intermittently to drink to excess, even to the point of intoxication.
This conduct led to an arrest in 2006 away from work.  He made a decision to drive home from his
girlfriend’s home even though he was intoxicated.  Making an illegal turn, he was arrested and
charged with DUI.  His plea to a reduced charge of Driving while Ability Impaired led to a sentence
of one year’s probation and required alcohol education and therapy sessions as well as a fine of $518.
Applicant has never been diagnosed with an alcohol abuse problem.  In 2006 he successfully
completed the required alcohol education and has complied with the court-ordered condition that he
could not drink. He remains in court-ordered therapy and has completed 16 of the required 34
sessions.  In January 2007 his counselor stated that Applicant was “comfortable” in the group and
was open about his previous alcohol use and arrest.  She concluded that since he “seems quiet by
nature” that participating in therapy is a “struggle.” However, she noted that he does answer
questions and provides feedback “when prompted.”  
Significantly, Applicant promptly reported his 2006 arrest to his supervisors and has retained
their confidence: three supervisors endorsed him for a security clearance and praised his work
performance and work ethics.  One manager observed that Applicant has abstained from any use of
alcohol.  Consequently, I conclude that Applicant mitigated these alcohol-related security concerns
as he provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he falls within mitigating conditions.     Under5
MC (b), while not officially diagnosed, Applicant has acknowledged issues with alcohol abuse and
provided evidence of his actions taken to overcome this problem.  He has fully complied with the
court orders to take an alcohol-awareness class and, equally significant, he established a pattern of
abstinence from alcohol for over one year since March 2006.  While at the time of the hearing he
remained on probation, he has fully complied with the court requirements with respect to a required
alcohol-education course after his 2006 arrest and guilty plea.  He now is a court-required alcohol
therapy program where the counselor reports he is cooperating. 
Equally important, his supervisors view his work performance as  good.  His supervisors
       31. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) a single6
serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; (d) individual is currently on parole or probation.
       32. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: (a) so much time has elapsed since the7
criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and
does not cast doubt on the individuals reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; (b) the person was
pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures are no longer present in the person's life;
(c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense; (d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation;
including but not limited to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution,
job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement; 
7
expressed confidence in him, and recommended him for a security clearance.  Thus, I conclude he
established MC (c), the individual is a current employee who is participating in a counseling or
treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory
progress. As noted above, he has demonstrated positive changes in behavior and has complied with
the court ordered requirement that he demonstrate sobriety by his record of abstinence from alcohol
since March 2006.  
 After considering the Adjudicative Process factors and the Adjudicative Guidelines, I rule
for  Applicant on subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.d. under SOR Paragraph 1.
Criminal Conduct
The government’s security concerns under criminal conduct  parallel the concerns over6
alcohol based on allegation 2.a. and include (a) his multiple lesser offenses and (d) his being
currently on probation as he is in the process of completing his required court-ordered therapy
treatment.
As discussed above, Applicant provided sufficient evidence of mitigation : under MC (d),7
Applicant demonstrated evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to the
passage of over a year without recurrence of any criminal activity as there has been no additional
alcohol-related arrest. Also he supplied evidence of his abstinence from alcohol which is an indicator
he will not re-offend.  In addition, there was almost a ten year gap between his youthful arrests and
his 2006 incident for which he demonstrated his remorse for this poor judgment in deciding to drive
while impaired.  Given the substantial progress he has made in completing his alcohol education
requirement and his commitment to completing the alcohol therapy requirement, I feel confident that
his commitment to being alcohol free will lead to his successfully completing his probation
requirements.  He demonstrated his willingness to change his life style in order to exhibit his
renewed commitment to responsibility and trustworthiness.  Significantly, he persuasively
established an excellent employment record with all of his three supervisors endorsing him for a
security clearance as discussed above. 
Thus, after looking at the whole person and considering the Adjudicative Process factors and
the Adjudicative Guidelines, I rule for Applicant on subparagraph 2.a. under SOR Paragraph 2.
8
FORMAL FINDINGS
After reviewing the allegations of the SOR in the context of the Adjudicative Guidelines in
Enclosure 2 and the factors set forth under the Adjudicative Process section, I make the following
formal findings:
Paragraph 1. Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.  Clearance is
granted.
Kathryn Moen Braeman
Administrative Judge