KEYWORD: Alcohol
DIGEST: Applicant is a 25-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has three alcohol-related
incidents, including two convictions for driving while intoxicated in 2004 and 2005. Applicant
received counseling and has returned to drinking alcohol without further incident. Applicant has not
established a sufficient pattern of responsible, incident-free drinking to mitigate the security concerns
raised by his alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-23003.h1
DATE: 07/17/2007
DATE:  July 17, 2007
In re:
--------------------
SSN: ----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-23003
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
EDWARD W. LOUGHRAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a 25-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has three alcohol-related
incidents, including two convictions for driving while intoxicated in 2004 and 2005. Applicant
received counseling and has returned to drinking alcohol without further incident. Applicant has not
established a sufficient pattern of responsible, incident-free drinking to mitigate the security concerns
raised by his alcohol consumption. Clearance is denied.
Pursuant to Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as1
amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program  (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).
Tr. at 18; GE 1.2
Tr. at 15, 21, 28-30; Applicant’s response to SOR; GE 3.3
Tr. at 22-24.4
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant. On December 5, 2006, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons1
(SOR) detailing the basis for its decision–security concerns raised under 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. Applicant
answered the SOR in writing, and elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge. The case
was assigned to me on May 22, 2007. A Notice of Hearing was issued on June 1, 2007, scheduling
the hearing for June 25, 2007. The hearing was conducted as scheduled to consider whether it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
The Government offered eight exhibits that were marked as Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through
8, and admitted without objections. Applicant testified and offered three exhibits that were marked
Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through C, and admitted without objections. DOHA received the hearing
transcript (Tr.) on July 3, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant’s admissions to the allegations in the SOR are incorporated herein. In addition,
after a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 25-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He attended college for several
semesters, and attended a technical school which provides computer related certifications. He is not
married, but is in a stable relationship. Applicant has no children.2
Applicant first started drinking alcohol when he was about 17 years old. In May 2002,
Applicant was charged with unlawful possession of alcohol by a person less than 21 years of age.
He was 20 years old at the time. He received a deferred disposition, and served 50 hours of
community service, after which the charge was dismissed.3
Applicant described his alcohol consumption while in college at one to three times a week.
He drank primarily beer and occasionally liquor. He would drink five to ten, and sometimes fifteen,
beers in an evening. At the time, he did not consider it to be binge drinking. In reflection, he now
believes his drinking at that time did constitute binge drinking.4
Tr. at 25-26.5
Tr. at 30-31; GE 4. This information and other criminal activity not alleged, are not considered for6
disqualifying purposes, but may be considered in assessing Applicant’s credibility, when analyzing the “whole person,”
and the potential application of mitigating conditions.
Tr. at 31-32; GE 5.7
Tr. at 32-35; Applicant’s response to SOR; GE 6.8
Tr. at 15, 26.9
Tr. at 35; Applicant’s response to SOR; GE 7.10
3
Applicant left college in December 2001. Applicant stated his drinking declined after he left
college to about one to three times per month.5
Applicant was cited on October 2, 2002, and charged with reckless driving, a misdemeanor.
Alcohol was not a factor in this incident. Applicant was found guilty on October 21, 2002, and
sentenced to a $100 fine and $66 in costs, and his driver’s license was restricted or suspended for
a period.  6
Applicant was cited on November 10, 2002, and charged with driving without a license
endorsement, a misdemeanor. Applicant was driving a motorcycle. He had a driver’s license, but did
not have a motorcycle license endorsement. Alcohol was also not a factor in this incident. Applicant
was found guilty on January 22, 2003, and sentenced to a $25 fine and $7 in costs.  7
Applicant was arrested on about January 4, 2004, and charged with driving while intoxicated
(DWI). Applicant’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was .10%. Applicant was found guilty and
sentenced on February 3, 2004, to a suspended 30-day jail sentence, a $300 fine and $164 in costs,
48 hours community service, enroll in a 10 week alcohol safety program, attend a victim’s impact
panel, and his driver’s license was restricted for a year.  8
Applicant successfully completed the court ordered alcohol safety program. He did not drink
alcohol for the year after his conviction.9
Applicant testified he drank alcohol for the first time after his 2004 conviction on about
February 19, 2005. He once again drove after drinking alcohol. Applicant testified he believed he
drank three beers and four drinks. He was arrested, and charged with DWI, second offense within
five years. His BAC was .13%. Applicant pled guilty to the amended charge of DWI, first offense.
He was sentenced on May 17, 2005, to 90 days in jail, with 80 days suspended, a $1,000 fine and
$211 in costs, enroll in an alcohol safety program, his driver’s license was restricted for a year, and
he was required to install an interlock device on his car and pay for the monitoring.  10
Applicant started treatment with a licensed clinical psychologist on February 25, 2005. An
initial diagnostic evaluation was performed the same day. The psychologist wrote in a Treatment
Progress Report dated May 10, 2005, that Applicant “presented an alcohol abuse problem of
moderate severity that is directly related to single lifestyle socialization, identity concerns and
AE A.11
AE B.12
AE C.13
Tr. at 40-41.14
GE 8.15
Tr. at 42-44.16
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).17
4
immaturity.”  There was no finding of alcohol dependence. Applicant received court approval for11
this counseling in lieu of the traditional alcohol safety program. Applicant was seen in individual
counseling at 32 sessions, through May 1, 2006. Applicant remained abstinent during this period.
The psychologist noted Applicant displayed excellent attitude, participation, and involvement,  and12
that:
Throughout counseling [Applicant] was fully cooperative and compliant with his
treatment plan. He remained abstinent from alcohol and he achieved his treatment
goals. Specifically, [Applicant] established a non-drinking socialization and
recreational pattern with effective strategies for emotional need fulfillment and he
successfully resolved identity issues as delineated in the May 10, 2005 Treatment
Progress Report. [Applicant] successfully completed his individual therapy
intervention with good realized gains and a good longer term prognosis.  13
As part of his treatment Applicant also attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Applicant
has not attended any Alcoholics Anonymous meetings since his treatment ended.14
Applicant was charged on July 20, 2005, with driving under revocation/suspension. He was
found guilty of the amended charge of no driver’s license, a misdemeanor. Applicant was sentenced
to a $100 fine and $66 in costs.  15
Applicant has returned to drinking alcohol. He estimates his current consumption at once or
twice a month. His usually will have two to three beers. On about two occasions he drank five beers.
Applicant denies driving after drinking any amount of alcohol since his last DWI.16
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  As Commander in Chief, the President has17
“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
Id. at 527.18
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960). 19
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).20
Id.; Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.21
Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.22
5
access to such information.”  The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to18
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 of19
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 applicant20
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 a21
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.  22
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 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 discussed above.
I reach the following conclusions regarding the allegations in the SOR.
Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption
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 potential Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions (AC DC) in this case are AC
DC 22(a) (alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence,
6
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(d) (diagnosis
by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of
alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence), and AC DC 22(f) (relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse
or dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program).
Applicant’s charges of possession of alcohol by a person less than 21 years of age, and two
DWIs establish AC DC 22(a). Applicant admitted his drinking at one point constituted “binge
drinking.” AC DC 22(c) is established. I accept the report by Applicant’s licensed clinical
psychologist as a diagnosis of alcohol abuse. AC DC 22(d) is established. I do not find that
Applicant’s return to drinking in moderation constitutes a “relapse.” AC DC 22(f) has not been
established.
There are three potential Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions (AC DC) in this case,
AC DC 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 and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment), AC DC 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)), and AC DC 23(d) (the individual has successfully completed inpatient or
outpatient counseling or rehabilitation along with any required aftercare, 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).
Applicant has three alcohol-related incidents, including two DWIs. His last DWI was in
February 2005. He continues to drink alcohol. Because of his number of incidents of poor judgment,
I am unable to make an affirmative finding that Applicant’s alcohol incidents are unlikely to recur,
and do not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. AC DC 23(a)
does not apply. 
Applicant acknowledged his issues of alcohol abuse. He provided evidence of actions taken
to overcome his problem. Applicant did not drink for the year after his first DWI. He did not drink
again from February 2005 through at least May 2006. He has returned to drinking alcohol, but
without any adverse incidents. There is no evidence of irresponsible use. Applicant has established
a pattern of responsible use. I find AC DC 23(b) is applicable, but Applicant does not merit as much
consideration under this mitigating condition because of the relatively short duration of the pattern
of responsible use.
Applicant successfully completed outpatient counseling and has received a favorable
prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional. In order to receive full application of AC DC
23(d), Applicant must also demonstrate a clear and established pattern of modified consumption in
accordance with treatment recommendations. This mitigating condition would appear to require
more than AC DC 23(b), which only requires an applicant to establish a pattern of responsible use,
7
as opposed to a clear and established pattern of modified consumption. I found the former; I do not
find the latter. Based upon Applicant’s record of remaining abstinent for about a year, and then
committing another DWI, as well as his incidents of poor judgment, I do not find that Applicant’s
current period without an alcohol-related incident is sufficient to qualify as a clear and established
pattern of modified consumption. AC DC 23(d) is partially applicable.
Whole Person Analysis
The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk. Available, reliable
information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in
reaching a determination. In evaluating Applicant’s case, I have considered the adjudicative process
factors listed in the Directive and AG ¶ 2(a). I have also considered all the evidence, and every
finding of fact and conclusion discussed above. 
Applicant has three alcohol-related incidents, including two DWIs. He complied with all
court requirements, including alcohol counseling. He has abused alcohol, but is not alcohol
dependent. Applicant’s licensed clinical psychologist gave him a favorable prognosis. He has
returned to drinking alcohol without further incident. 
When I consider the evidence in light of the adjudicative process factors, I also considered
Applicant’s other involvement with the law, and specifically how they relate to the allegations in the
SOR. When Applicant committed his first DWI, his underage possession of alcohol charge had
already been dismissed, but he had two non-alcohol related misdemeanor traffic convictions. He
committed his second DWI about 13 ½ months after his first DWI, and only a few weeks after the
court restrictions were lifted. Applicant’s driver’s license was again restricted for a year after his
second DWI. Within a few months of his second DWI conviction, Applicant was charged with
driving under revocation/suspension, and ultimately convicted of the misdemeanor charge of no
driver’s license. It appears Applicant has developed a pattern of committing a criminal act,
complying with court ordered requirements, and then lapsing into unlawful behavior. Applicant has
not been incident-free long enough to show the presence of rehabilitation. Without an extended
pattern of incident-free conduct, it is too early to conclude this pattern will not continue. The
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of incidents of questionable judgment remains significant.
After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions and evaluating all the evidence
in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns
based on his alcohol consumption.
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.  Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
8
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance
is denied.
Edward W. Loughran
Administrative Judge