KEYWORD: Drug Involvement; Criminal Conduct; Alcohol Consumption
DIGEST: This forty year old Applicant had a long history of abusing alcohol and amphetamines. 
He also committed criminal conduct during that period. Applicant has not used any illegal
substance or consumed any alcoholic beverage since May 2004, and has no intention to in the
future.   Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-18599.h1
DATE: 07/12/2007
DATE: July 12, 2007
In Re:
-----------------------
SSN: ---------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18599
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARTIN H. MOGUL
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Candace Le’i , Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
This forty year old Applicant had a long history of abusing alcohol and amphetamines.  He
also committed criminal conduct during that period. Applicant has not used any illegal substance or
2
consumed any alcoholic beverage since May 2004, and has no intention to in the future.   Mitigation
has been shown. Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 24,  2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), under
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, dated February 20,
1960, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and
modified, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant. The SOR detailed reasons under
Guideline H (Drug Involvement), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline G (Alcohol
Consumption) why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant, and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to conduct proceedings and
determine whether clearance should be granted or denied.
In a signed and sworn statement, notarized on  November 16, 2006, Applicant responded to
the SOR allegations (RSOR). He requested that his case be decided on a hearing record.
On February 7, 2007, this case was assigned to another Administrative Judge to conduct a
hearing and issue a written decision, but it was reassigned to this Administrative Judge on March
28, 2007. A Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties on May 29, 2007, and the hearing was
conducted on June 12, 2007. 
At the hearing, Department Counsel offered seven documentary exhibits (Government
Exhibits 1 through 7) and no witnesses were called. Applicant offered two documentary exhibits
(Applicant Exhibits A and B), and offered his own testimony. Exhibit A was a series of three letters
that were on a disc and he was going to submit after the hearing All of the documents have been
entered into evidence. The transcript (Tr) was received on June 21, 2007. The record was held open
until June 26, 2007, to allow Applicant to offer additional documents, which he has done. None of
these additional documents have been objected to, and they have been marked collectively as Exhibit
C and admitted into evidence. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Government opposes Applicant's request for a security clearance, based upon the
allegations set forth in the SOR.  The SOR contains two allegations, 1.a. and  1.b., under Guideline
H (Drug Involvement), two allegations, 2.a. and 2.b., under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and two
allegation, 3.a. and 3.b., under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). In the RSOR Applicant
admitted all of the SOR allegations except 2.b. The admitted allegations are incorporated herein as
findings of fact. 
3
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's
Answer to the SOR, the admitted documents, and the testimony of Applicant, and upon due
consideration of that evidence, I make the additional findings of fact: 
Applicant is 40 years old. He is employed by a defense contractor, and he seeks a DoD
security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense sector. Applicant is not married,
and he has two sons and one daughter.
Applicant was in the United States Coast Guard from November 1988 through March 1994,
when he received an Honorable Discharge. He also served in the United States Army National Guard
in 1996 and 1997, from which he also received an Honorable Discharge.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline H - Drug Involvement) 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because
he has abused illegal substances. 
1.a. Applicant used amphetamines with varying frequency from approximately 1995 until at
least October 2003. 
1.b. Applicant attended an inpatient alcohol treatment program, first from December 2003
until February 2004, and then from May 2004 until September 2004. The initial complaint of
condition was alcohol dependence and methamphetamine dependence.  
Applicant testified that he began using drugs because of problems that he was having after
he left the military. He could not find decent employment, and when he tried to reenlist in the Coast
Guard, he was turned down because he had Glaucoma. According to medical records, his history
included 20 years of alcohol abuse and eight years of methamphetamine dependence (Exhibit 3). He
tried to quit several times, but he was not able to quit, “until he was ready.”
The first time he left the in patient program early because he was attempting to reconcile with
his girlfriend, and because of other issues at the inpatient facility. He had not successfully overcome
his alcohol and drug addictions. When he entered the inpatient program on the second occasions on
May 2004, he was ready to quit.  According to his credible testimony, which has not been
controverted, Applicant has not used any illegal substance or imbibed any alcoholic beverage since
May 2004. He left the program one or two weeks early because he had received a good employment
offer, and he is still employed by that same company. 
Paragraph 2 (Guideline J - Criminal Conduct)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because
he committed three criminal acts. 
2.a. On January 31, 2004,  Applicant was arrested and charged with Battery. 
4
2.b. On September 21, 2003 Applicant was arrested and charged with Annoying Phone Calls.
2.c. On August 15, 2002, Applicant was arrested and charged with Inflicting Corporal Injury
on Spouse/Co-Habitant. He was found guilty and given 26 months probation, fined and ordered to
complete 40 hours of community service. He violated his probation and was ordered to serve 180
days in jail beginning on September 29, 2005. 
Applicant testified that the arrest on January 2004,  listed above as 2.a., actually arose from
the 2002 incident, listed above as 2.c. As a result of his 2002 arrest for Corporal Injury of his
girlfriend, he was ordered to complete an anger management course. Because he failed to complete
it, he ultimately was ordered to undergo four months of house arrest, which he did in 2005.
According to Applicant this case was finally resolved to the courts satisfaction after he completed
his house arrest. 
In both his RSOR and during his testimony, Applicant denied that he had been arrested for
making Annoying Phone Calls, although he did concede that there was a period where he did call
his girlfriend frequently and ask her for help. 
There is no evidence of any addition criminal acts by Applicant since his abstinence. 
Paragraph 3 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption) 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because
he engages in excessive alcohol consumption. 
3.a. Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from
approximately 1981 to at least 2004. 
3.b. The information that is alleged in subparagraph 1,b, above.
As stated above, Applicant testified credibly that he has not consumed any alcoholic beverage
since May 2004. No evidence has been introduced to dispute this contention. 
Mitigation
Applicant submitted three character letters, from his brother, a roommate and his former
supervisor (Exhibit A). All three acknowledged that Applicant had difficulties in his past, but that
he has turned his life around. He was described as “diligent and conscientious about his
employment” and “capable of handling any situation with maturity.” 
He also submitted Honorable Discharge forms from both the United States Coast Guard and
the Army National Guard (Exhibit C). 
Finally, Applicant submitted two positive Performance Evaluations, one from the Coast
Guard and the other from his private employment. He also enclosed two Letters of Commendation
from the Coast Guard for excellent performance (Exhibit C).   
5
POLICIES
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum. Accordingly, the Department of
Defense, in Enclosure 2 of the 1992 Directive, has set forth policy factors which must be given
"binding" consideration in making security clearance determinations. These factors should be
followed in every case according to the pertinent guideline. However, the factors are neither
automatically determinative of the decision in any case, nor can they supersede the Administrative
Judge's reliance on his own common sense, as well as his knowledge of the law, human nature and
the ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision. 
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 16-17, "In evaluating the
relevance of an individual's conduct, the [Administrative Judge] should consider the following
factors [General Factors]:
a. The nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation
c. The frequency and recency of the conduct
d. The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct
e. The voluntariness of participation
f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior changes
g. The motivation for the conduct
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress
i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
The eligibility guidelines established in the DoD Directive identify personal characteristics
and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question of whether it is "clearly consistent
with the national interest" to grant an Applicant's request for access to classified information.
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to civilian
workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information twenty-four hours a day.
The Government is therefore appropriately concerned where available information indicates that an
Applicant for clearance may be involved in acts of alcohol abuse and conduct that demonstrates poor
judgement, untrustworthiness or unreliability on the Applicant's part.
The DoD Directive states, "Each adjudication is to be an overall common sense
determination based upon consideration and assessment of all available information, both favorable
and unfavorable, with particular emphasis placed on the seriousness, recency, frequency, and
motivation for the individual's conduct; the extent to which conduct was negligent, willful,
voluntary, or undertaken with the knowledge of the circumstances or consequences involved; and,
to the extent that it can be estimated, the probability that conduct will or will not continue in the
future." The Administrative Judge can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have a
reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The Judge cannot draw inferences or
conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature. Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, "Any determination under this order...shall be
6
a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the
loyalty of the applicant concerned."
CONCLUSIONS
It is the Government's responsibility to present substantial evidence to support the finding
of a nexus, or rational connection, between Applicant's conduct and the continued holding of a
security clearance. If such a case has been established, the burden then 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. Applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that
it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal
precepts, factors, and conditions, including those described briefly above, I conclude the following
with respect to the allegations set forth in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline H - Drug Involvement) 
With respect to Guideline H, the Government has established its case. Applicant's improper
and illegal drug abuse, including the possession, and use of amphetamines, is of concern, especially
in light of his desire to have access to the nation's secrets. Applicant's overall conduct pertaining to
his illegal substance abuse clearly falls within Drug Involvement Disqualifying Condition (DC) 25.
(a) (any drug abuse), (c) (illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution), and (f) failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program.
Based on the fact that Applicant last used any illegal substance in May 2004, , I conclude that
Applicant’s conduct comes within Mitigating Condition (MC) 26. (a) (the drug involvement
happened so long ago that it does not cast doubt about individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness
and good judgement), and (b) also applies because of Applicant’s demonstrated intention not to
continue using drugs in the future.  
In this case, the Government has met its initial burden of proving by substantial evidence that
Applicant has used illegal drugs for many years under Guideline H. Applicant, on the other hand,
has introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation which is sufficient to
overcome the Government's case against him.  Accordingly, Paragraph 1 Guideline H of the SOR
is concluded for Applicant.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline J - Criminal Conduct) 
Regarding Guideline J, the Government has established Applicant’s criminal conduct,
Applicant’s physical altercation with his girlfriend in 2002. Applicant's criminal conduct falls within
Criminal Conduct DC 31. (a) a single serious crime. Based on all of the factors involved, I conclude
that MC 32. (d) applies, because there is sufficient evidence of successful rehabilitation including
the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse, and a good employment record.
I find Paragraph 2 Guideline J of the SOR is concluded for Applicant.
Paragraph 3 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption)  
7
With respect to Guideline G, the evidence establishes that Applicant consumed alcohol to
excess for many years. However, he was credible when he testified that he has not consumed any
alcohol since May 2004, nor will he consume alcohol in the future. 
In reviewing the DCs under Guideline G,  I conclude that DC 22. (c) applies because
Applicant has engaged in habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment. MC 23. (b) applies because Applicant has acknowledged his alcoholism, and he has
established a pattern of abstinence. I resolve Paragraph 3 Guideline G for Applicant.
On balance, it is concluded that Applicant has overcome the Government's information
opposing his request for a security clearance.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR are:
Paragraph 1: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c.: For Applicant
Paragraph 3: For APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b.: 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.
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge