KEYWORD: Alcohol
DIGEST: Applicant's mitigated security concerns over his alcohol issues and alcohol-related arrests
from 2002 to 2004 as he has no recent incidents in the past three years and has fully complied with
all court-ordered alcohol education and probation requirements.   He voluntarily sought an alcohol
assessment from a professional in the field and additional counseling in February 2007. He was
assessed as having a “low probability of a substance dependence disorder” and has made a
commitment to abstinence. Also, he has a long history at his place of employment where he is highly
regarded as having outstanding knowledge, skills, and abilities.  Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-17541.h1
DATE: 07/30/2007
DATE:  July 30, 2007
In Re:
--------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-17541
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
KATHRYN MOEN BRAEMAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
John B. Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Damian L. Martinez, Esquire, Holt Babington Mynatt, P.C.
       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’s counsel initially object to Exhibit 7, a corporate adverse action report of 2002, as hearsay,2
but subsequently withdrew his objection. (TR 15-16)
       The record itself established that the court dismissed the 1989 charge as the person arrested was not3
Applicant.  (Exhibit 3) Also Applicant reported in an earlier 2002 Statement that in 1989 his brother had
improperly used his name when he had been arrested.  (Exhibit 4)
       Applicant’s counsel object to pages 62 and 64 of Exhibit 8 as those pages were not initialed; he asserted4
they were hearsay and also might not be authentic. (TR 16-21)
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant's mitigated security concerns over his alcohol issues and alcohol-related arrests
from 2002 to 2004 as he has no recent incidents in the past three years and has fully complied with
all court-ordered alcohol education and probation requirements.   He voluntarily sought an alcohol
assessment from a professional in the field and additional counseling in February 2007. He was
assessed as having a “low probability of a substance dependence disorder” and has made a
commitment to abstinence. Also, he has a long history at his place of employment where he is highly
regarded as having outstanding knowledge, skills, and abilities.  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 October 23, 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 alleges specific concerns over alcohol1
(Guideline G) based on the revised Adjudicative Guidelines issued on December 29, 2005, and
implemented by the Department of Defense, effective September 1, 2006.   Applicant received the
SOR in November 2, 2006. He retained counsel and responded to these SOR allegations in an
Answer dated November 15, 2006, and requested a hearing.  
Department Counsel on January 30, 2007, indicated the case was ready to proceed.  The
matter was assigned to me on February 1, 2007. Subsequently, a mutually convenient date for
hearing was agreed to.  A Notice of Hearing, issued on February 22, 2007, set the matter for March
15, 2007, at a location near where Applicant works and lives.
At the hearing the Government offered eight exhibits  (Exhibit 1-8) and called one witness,
a special agent of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to authenticate Exhibits 2 and 3. (TR
22-33)  Several exhibits were admitted without objection: Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7   (TR 13-21; 27)2
On the other hand, Applicant’s counsel did object to two pages of Exhibit 3 as he stated pages 3 and
part of page 4 reported an incident that was not identified with his client; based on that proposition3
parts of those two pages were not admitted into evidence; and the remainder of the Exhibit 3 was
admitted.  (TR 30-33)  He also objected  to two pages of Exhibit 8, a military police report from4
2002; however, I overruled his objection as Applicant had admitted that allegation; and I admitted
3
Exhibit 8 into evidence.  (TR 19-20; 30-33)  
Applicant testified and submitted Exhibits A through C. Government’s counsel made a
hearsay objection to Exhibit A, which was overruled, all the documents, Exhibits A through C,  were
admitted into evidence. (TR 43-44)  The transcript (TR) was received on March 28, 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, 46 years old, has been employed as a computer operator by a defense contractor
in State #1 since May 1981.   He completed a Security Clearance Application (SF-86) which he
signed on January 4, 2006.  He had been granted a Secret clearance in October  2003. He has not
served in the military.  (Exhibit 1; TR 47-49; Exhibit B; TR 54-55)  Earlier, he had been granted a
Secret clearance in January 1999. (Exhibit 7)  He took three semesters of computer science at a state
university.  (TR 46)
Applicant was married in October 1995 and divorced in December 2003.  (Exhibits 1, 3; TR
46-47)  He pays child support for his son born in July 1998; and he has partial custody and visitation
rights.  (Exhibit 2; TR 47, 49)  He has another child who is four; and he agreed to provide support
voluntarily. (Exhibit 1; TR 47; 50; 55-56; 81; 82-83)
Alcohol
Applicant admitted he consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication
from 2000 to July 2005.  (SOR 1.a.) (Answer)  In 2002 he reported that he began drinking 15 beers
per week in 2000 at home and became intoxicated on a weekly basis.  He reported he saw himself
as a “problem drinker.”  At that point in October 2002 he stated he did not intend to consume alcohol
in the future while he was on probation.  (Exhibit 4; TR 76-78)   Applicant stated in March 2006 that
he did not view himself as an alcoholic or problem drinker.  (Exhibit 2)  However, he did drink again
during the period of his separation and divorce.  In February 2007 he again made a decision to stop
drinking as he knows his future depends on his abstinence.   He also sought an assessment from a
clinical specialist and counseling in February 2007 as discussed further below.  (Exhibit A; TR 52;
78)  
Applicant had three alcohol-related misdemeanor arrests between 2002 and 2004:
• Applicant consumed alcohol at a friend’s home in 2004 and was stopped for failure to
maintain a lane; he refused to take a Breath Alcohol Test (BAT) which led to the arrest for
aggravated DWI; and he spent one night in the county jail.  While his refusal also put his
driver’s license at risk, his license was not removed.  (Exhibit 2; TR56-60; 84-85) He was
arrested in April 2004 and charged with aggravated driving while intoxicated, no registration,
expired plates and no insurance.  He pled guilty to a reduced DWI charge; the other charges
4
were dropped by the court.  (SOR 1.b.)  (Answer; TR 51-52; 60-63)  He was fined $350,
ordered to attend an alcohol awareness class and placed on one year probation which he
completed on May 9, 2006.  He attended educational classes at a counseling center for four
weeks.  (Exhibits 1,  2; TR 40; 50-51; 62-63)
• In July 2002 Applicant was arrested and charged with resisting, evading and obstructing an
officer.  (SOR 1.c.)  (Answer)  He was intoxicated and arguing with his wife when she called
the police; he initially hid from them in a field in an effort to avoid a confrontation with his
wife and an arrest.  Applicant plead guilty to resist, evade and obstruct an officer and paid
a fine of $51 in August 2002.  His sentence was deferred; and he was placed on unsupervised
probation for 180 days until February 2003.  As part of the probation he agreed not to drink
while he was on probation; and he complied.  His deferred sentence was dismissed in March
2003.  He and his wife were subsequently divorced.  (Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 6; TR 35-39; 49-50;
TR 70-74; 85-86)
• In June 2002 Applicant was charged with aggravated driving while intoxicated and passing
in a passing zone which was reduced to a DWI.  (SOR 1.d.)  (Answer)  That night he
admitted having had six beers at a bowling alley, feeling intoxicated, but able to drive home.
He was pulled over for passing in a no passing zone.  After he failed the field sobriety test;
he reported readings of  .16 and .17 readings on the breath alcohol test (BAT) which was
over the legal limit in that state, so he received a ticket.  Before his court date he enrolled in
a counseling program and started in November 2002 for three Saturdays.  He disclosed this
arrest in his October 2002 statement, so he did not think to report it again in his 2006 SF-86
(Exhibits 4, 8; TR 41; TR 64-69) The court ordered him to DUI school and to pay a fine; and
he complied with the court order.  Applicant immediately reported this incident to his
supervisor; and the contractor filed an adverse information report with the Defense Security
Service (DSS) about this alcohol-related arrest in July 2002 and attached the citation as
required by the NIPSOM 1-302a.  He had been previously granted a Secret clearance in
January 1999.  (Exhibit 7; TR 49-50; 53)
• Applicant voluntarily returned to the alcohol counseling center in February 2007.  The
clinical specialist did an assessment on him for a substance evaluation as Applicant planned
to be in counseling for several months.  After administering two tests and conducting a one-
hour interview, the clinical specialist concluded that Applicant has “a low probability of a
substance dependence disorder.” (Exhibit A; TR 52-53)
References
A manager who has known Applicant and his work for 24 years assessed him as taking great
pride in providing the best service required of him to support a hectic schedule.  He  received praise
not only from his supervisors and his peers but also from customers.  While Applicant had a period
of absenteeism when he reported late to work, he overcame this obstacle and has not been late or
absent in the last nine months.  His manager attributed these attendance problems to Applicant’s
divorce.  He has never been intoxicated or shown signs of a hangover at work.  He concluded
Applicant is an asset to the company.  (Exhibit B)
Applicant’s supervisor for the past year assessed his knowledge, skills and abilities as
       22. Disqualifying Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:5
(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.  (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
5
outstanding.  Applicant has earned a “very good performance evaluation during this past year.”
(Exhibit C)
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to consider in evaluating an
individual's security eligibility.  They 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.  But the mere presence or
absence of any given adjudication policy condition is not decisive.  Based on a consideration of the
evidence as a whole in evaluating this case, I weighed relevant Adjudication Guidelines as set forth
below:
Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption
21. The Concern. Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability and trustworthiness.
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.
CONCLUSIONS
Alcohol Consumption
The Government established security concerns over Applicant’s problem drinking and his
three alcohol-related arrests in 2002 and 2004.  Applicant’s conduct falls within disqualifying
conditions (DC) (a) :  Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving under the5
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) 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.  
       While not alleged in the SOR, Department Counsel raised concerns over Applicant’s failure to report6
his 2002 incidents on his 2006 SF-86. As Applicant had promptly reported his June 2002 arrest to
his supervisor; and an adverse information report had been submitted to DSS, it was reasonable for
him to conclude the incident was already included in his file.  He had no intent to falsify, and no such
allegation was made in the SOR.  After a DSS investigation he was granted a security clearance
despite these two alcohol-related 2002 arrests in October 2003. 
       23. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:  (a) so much time has passed, or the7
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
6
influence. His first two arrests occurred within one month in 2002 when he and his wife were have
marital difficulties which later led to their divorce in December 2003.  With respect to the June 2002
charge  he pleaded guilty to DWI and followed the court order to pay and fine and enroll in alcohol6
counseling which he completed.  After his guilty plea to the July 2002 incident, he paid and fine and
served probation which he successfully completed, including an agreement not to drink.  After that
charge was dismissed in March 2003, he returned intermittently to drinking to excess.  This conduct
led to a third arrest in April 2004 away from work.  He made a decision to drive home from his
friend’s home and was arrested and charged with aggravated driving while intoxicated, later reduced
to a DWI charge, to which he pleaded guilty.  His plea to a reduced charge led to a sentence of one
year’s probation which he completed in May 2006.  He attended the required alcohol education
sessions as well as paid a fine of $350. 
Applicant has never been diagnosed with an alcohol abuse problem.  After each arrest he
testified he completed the required alcohol education and has complied and abstained from drinking
while on probation.   In February 2007 he returned to a counselor for additional sessions.  This
clinical specialist at a counseling session assessed him as having “a low probability of a substance
dependence disorder.” He concluded Applicant’s problem drinking was linked to his divorce and the
period thereafter where he was adjusting to a new lifestyle.  
Significantly, he has retained the confidence of two supervisors who provided positive
assessments of his work performance and work ethics.  They have seen no evidence of alcohol at
work and he has corrected his absenteeism issues and is rated an outstanding employee.
Consequently, I conclude that Applicant mitigated these alcohol-related security concerns as he
provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he falls within mitigating conditions.   Under MC7
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.
       Specifically, an administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at8
Guidelines  ¶ 2(a):  (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding
the conduct, to include knowledgeable 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 the 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.  (AG 2. Adjudication Process)
7
(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 alcohol-awareness classes and, equally significant, in February 2007 he made
a commitment to abstinence from alcohol and again voluntarily sought alcohol counseling.  He
completed his probation for his last arrest in 2006 as he complied with the court requirements with
respect to a required alcohol-education course after his 2004 arrest and guilty plea.  He now is
voluntarily again in an alcohol education and counseling program. Thus, I conclude he established
MC (c), the individual is a current employee who is participating in a counseling or treatment
program.  While he does have a history of previous alcohol education courses and was rearrested,
he has a favorable assessment from the clinical specialist at the counseling program in 2007.  A
clinical specialist did an assessment on him for a alcohol substance evaluation as Applicant planned
to be in counseling for several months.  After administering two tests and conducting a one-hour
interview, the clinical specialist concluded that Applicant has “a low probability of a substance
dependence disorder.”  Overall, Applicant has demonstrated positive changes in behavior. 
To his credit, Applicant never demonstrated any alcohol-related concerns at work.  Two
supervisors highly praised his reliability and performance which is also viewed favorably by co-
workers and customers.  To his credit there is no evidence of any new alcohol-related problems
outside of work in the three years since his April 2004 arrest.  He has demonstrably reformed his
conduct.
Also I see favorable indicators in assessing him under the whole person  adjudicative process8
guidelines.  While the past alcohol-related conduct is serious in a mature person, the clinician sees
the recurrence of incidents as related to the situation of his separation and divorce.  After Applicant
finalized his divorce in December 2003, he had another arrest shortly thereafter in April 2004, but
he complied with the probation requirements and successfully completed his probation.  In light of
the security concerns raised over his past drinking and alcohol-related incidents, he has now made
a renewed commitment to abstinence.  He demonstrated that he now has the motivation to maintain
his abstinence and act responsibility.  I carefully observed his demeanor at the hearing. He credibly,
candidly, and sincerely stated he abstained from alcohol consumption since February 2007 and
intended to continue his abstinence.  To shore up his own commitment he returned to the counseling
center, not only for an assessment, but also to continue with additional sessions.  Significantly, he
has demonstrated his reliability at work since 1981 where he is widely viewed as a valued employee.
Thus, after appraising critically the assessment of his expert, I conclude there is little likelihood of
8
a continuing problem with alcohol and/or a recurrence of alcohol-related arrests.  He values his job
highly and has demonstrated his commitment to abstinence and rehabilitation.  Thus, after
considering the Adjudicative Process factors and the Adjudicative Guidelines, I rule for  Applicant
on subparagraphs1.a. through 1.d. under SOR Paragraph 1.
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
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