KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct; Alcohol Consumption
DIGEST: Applicant's alcohol abuse has resulted in at least three alcohol-related incidents, the
last occurring in 2004. While Applicant continues to consume alcohol, he no longer consumes
alcohol to excess, nor does he drive after consuming any alcohol. Mitigation has been shown.
Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-12045.h1
DATE: 9/17/2007
DATE: September 17, 2007
In re:
-----------------------
SSN: ----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-12045
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARTIN H. MOGUL
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jennifer I. Campbell, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant's alcohol abuse has resulted in at least three alcohol-related incidents, the last
occurring in 2004. While Applicant continues to consume alcohol, he no longer consumes alcohol
2
to excess, nor does he drive after consuming any alcohol. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is
granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 23, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 (as amended) and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated
January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed reasons 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 determine whether a clearance should be denied
or revoked.
Applicant  filed a notarized response, dated May 16, 2007, to the allegations set forth in the
SOR, and requested a hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge. On June 26, 2007, the case was
assigned to this Administrative Judge to conduct a hearing. Pursuant to formal notice, dated August
6, 2007, a hearing was held on August 24, 2007. 
At the hearing, Department Counsel offered five documentary exhibits (Government’s
Exhibits 1-5) and no witnesses were called. Applicant offered one documentary exhibit (Applicant’s
Exhibit A) and offered his own testimony. The transcript (Tr) was received on September 10, 2007.
The record was left open to allow Applicant to introduce letters of reference and evaluations. A letter
from Applicant and three character letters were timely offer into evidence. No objection being raised,
the four letters are identified and entered into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit B.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In the SOR, the Government alleges that a security risk may exist under Adjudicative
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Directive. The SOR
contains five allegations, 1.a. through 1.e., under Guideline J, and two allegations, 2.a., and  2.b.,
under Guideline G. Applicant admitted all of the specific SOR allegations except 2.a.  The admitted
allegations are incorporated herein as findings of fact. 
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's
Answer to the SOR, the admitted documents, and testimony of Applicant, and upon due
consideration of that evidence, I make the additional findings of fact: 
Applicant is 53 years old. He is currently married for the fourth time, and he has three adult
children. He has worked in the aerospace industry fro almost 35 years. He is currently employed by
a defense contractor, and he seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in
the defense sector.
3
Paragraph 1 (Guideline J - Criminal Conduct)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because
he has engaged in criminal acts.
1.a.  Applicant was arrested in April 1985 for unlawful possession of a machine gun, which
is a felony. Applicant testified that the gun he fired was an M16, which he had built, himself. He
fired several rounds in his mother’s backyard to show his sons how the gun worked. He plead guilty
to discharging a firearm in the city limits, a misdemeanor, and he paid a fine and was placed on three
years summary probation. 
1.b.  Applicant was charged in November 2004 with the illegal possession of a switch blade
knife. This charge occurred at the same time that he was stopped for  1.e., as discussed below. The
knife was part of a knife collection that he owned, and it was found in the glove compartment of his
vehicle. He was not aware that the knife was considered an illegal switchblade. This charge was
ultimately dismissed (Exhibit A). 
1.c.  In March 1986, Applicant was arrested and charged with 1) Driving Under the Influence
(DUI) with bodily injury; and 2) DUI with a .08% blood alcohol level, with bodily injury; 3) DUI
with a .08% blood alcohol level. Applicant plead no contest  to Count 3 and Counts 1 and 2 were
dismissed. He was placed on thirty six months summary probation, ordered to pay a fine, attend a
90 day alcohol awareness program, and his driver’s license was restricted to driving to and from his
employment.
1.d.  In April  1987, Applicant was arrested and charged with 1) Driving Under the Influence
(DUI); and 2) DUI with a .08% blood alcohol level or more. Applicant plead guilty to Count 2, and
Count 1 was dismissed. He was placed on thirty six months summary probation, ordered to pay a
fine, attend a one year alcohol awareness program, to attend 26 meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA), and his driver’s license was restricted for one year.
1.e  In November 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with 1) Driving Under the
Influence (DUI); and 2) DUI with a .08% blood alcohol level or more. Applicant plead guilty to
Count 1, and Count 2 was dismissed. He was placed on thirty six months summary probation,
ordered to pay a fine and other costs of $2,625, which he paid, and to attend a one year alcohol
awareness program (Exhibit A).
Paragraph 2 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption). 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because
he abuses alcohol to excess.  
2.a. Applicant has consumed alcohol at times in excess and to the point of intoxication, from
approximately 1986 to at least November 2004. 
2.b.  Applicant's conduct which has been alleged in the SOR as 1.c., 1.e., and 1.d.,
4
respectively, is included  in this paragraph under alcohol consumption. 
In his  responses to interrogatories, that he signed on October 7, 2006, (Exhibit 3) Applicant
stated, “It is my desire to stop drinking alcohol all together (sic).” Applicant testified that he
continues to consume alcohol, although he claims to consume far less alcohol than he did previously,
and it is still his stated desire to eventually abstain completely from alcohol consumption.  Applicant
was adamant and credible that he does not and will not drive after he consumes any alcoholic
beverage.
Mitigation
Applicant introduced three character letters, one from his wife, the second  from a co-worker
and personal friend, and the third  from his direct supervisor (Exhibit B). All of the individuals spoke
very highly about Applicant’s character and none of the three believed that Applicant had a
continuing alcohol problem. 
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. Because each security clearance case presents
its own unique facts and circumstances, it cannot be assumed that these factors exhaust the realm
of human experience, or apply equally in every case.
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.
5
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 criminal 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
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 the 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. The 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.
In this case, the Government has met its initial burden of proving by substantial evidence that
Applicant has engaged in several criminal acts (Guideline J), that he has used and continues to use
alcohol at times to excess (Guideline G). 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.
(Guideline J -Criminal Conduct) 
The Government has established by substantial evidence that Applicant engaged in criminal
conduct, as he was arrested for, and convicted of three DUI criminal offenses. Applicant also
discharged a firearm illegally in the city. 
In reviewing the Disqualifying Conditions (DC) under Guideline J, DC 31. (a), a single
serious crime or multiple lesser offenses, applies in this case. Under Mitigation conditions (MC), I
find that MC 32. (d) applies to this Applicant, as there is evidence of successful rehabilitation;
including but not limited to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, and sincere
remorse.  Applicant has mitigated this allegation. Paragraph 1 is found for Applicant. 
6
(Guideline G -Alcohol Consumption) 
Applicant's alcohol consumption has resulted in three alcohol related arrests and convictions.
As to the amount of alcohol he now consumes, as discussed above, Applicant continues to consume
alcohol, but he consumes it far less frequently and in smaller amounts than previously.  Of his three
arrests, two occurred more than twenty years ago, 1986 and 1987, and the third happened in 2004.
The Government established, by substantial evidence, that Applicant was involved in
alcohol-related incidents away from work, driving under the influence, which is DC 22. (a), and DC
(c ) that he engaged in habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.
Applicant continues to consume alcohol on a regular basis, but he has  reformed his habit of driving
after consuming alcohol. 
I find that  MC 23. (a) applies as so much time as passed, certainly with his first two DUIs
and almost three years since his most current DUI, and the behavior was infrequent, three times in
a period of more than twenty years, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability and trustworthiness.  Paragraph 2 is found for Applicant.
        On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has overcome the Government's information
opposing his request for a security clearance. Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding for
Applicant as to the allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Government's SOR. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1. Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For  Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d.: For  Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e.: For  Applicant 
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.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 Applicant.
7
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge