KEYWORD: Alcohol
DIGEST: Applicant is 53 years old and has worked as a senior mechanical designer for a defense
contractor since 1994. On occasions between 1971 to at least 2006, he consumed alcohol to excess
and to the point of intoxication. In 1999, he was charged with operating a vehicle under the influence
of liquor. He was fined, ordered to attend alcohol counseling, and his driver’s license was suspended
for eight months. In January 2005, he was discharged from a six-week inpatient alcohol
rehabilitation treatment program and diagnosed with alcohol dependence and depression. He has
mitigated the alcohol consumption security concerns. Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-25684.h1
DATE: 09/28/2007
DATE:  September 28, 2007
In re:
---------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-25684
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JACQUELINE T. WILLIAMS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is 53 years old and has worked as a senior mechanical designer for a defense
contractor since 1994. On occasions between 1971 to at least 2006, he consumed alcohol to excess
and to the point of intoxication. In 1999, he was charged with operating a vehicle under the influence
of liquor. He was fined, ordered to attend alcohol counseling, and his driver’s license was suspended
for eight months. In January 2005, he was discharged from a six-week inpatient alcohol
rehabilitation treatment program and diagnosed with alcohol dependence and depression. He has
mitigated the alcohol consumption security concerns. Clearance is granted.
Ex. 1 (Security Clearance Application, signed on February 14, 2005).1
Pursuant to Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as2
amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program  (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).
Tr. 18.3
Id.4
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 14, 2005, Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SF 86).  The1
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant a security clearance and issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR)  on February 15, 2007, detailing the basis for its decision–security2
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. The revised guidelines were provided to Applicant when the SOR
was issued.
On March 13, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and requested a hearing.
Department Counsel indicated the Government was ready to proceed on July 11, 2007. The case was
assigned to another administrative judge on July 16, 2007. The case was reassigned to me on August
3, 2007. A Notice of Hearing was issued on August 9, 2007, scheduling the hearing for August 30,
2007. The hearing was conducted as scheduled. At the hearing, the Government submitted exhibits
1-4, and Applicant did not submit any exhibits. The record was kept open to allow Applicant to
submit documents, and Applicant’s exhibits A-E  were admitted into the record without objection.
The transcript (Tr.) was received on September 12, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted all the factual allegations. Those admissions are incorporated herein as
findings of fact. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due
consideration of same, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is 53 years old and works as a senior mechanical designer for a defense contractor
since 1994. After high school, he joined the Army and served three years in the Medical Corps. Upon
discharge, he served in the Army National Guard (E7) from 1972 to 1975. From 1976 to 1978, he
served in the Army Reserve. He retired from military service two years ago after having a heart
attack. In 1979, he received a certificate after attending a two-year program at an institute of
industrial technology. He was married in October 1979 and divorced in January 2007. He has two
adult children.
On several occasions between 1971 to at least July 2006, Applicant consumed alcohol, at
times to excess and to the point of intoxication. He first began drinking alcohol at age 17.  He3
indicated that at the time “[h]is [Applicant’s] daily consumption was then 1quart of rum.”4
Id. at 22.5
Id. at 23.6
Id. at 33.7
Id. at 42.8
Id. at 66.9
Id. at 45.10
4
On February 16, 1999, Applicant was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle
under the influence of liquor. After consuming about four ounces of brandy, he was driving home
and was stopped by the police because the car was swerving.  He pled no contest. He was fined5
$500, placed on unsupervised probation, ordered to attend alcohol counseling, and his driver’s
license was suspended for eight months. His alcohol consumption increased during 1999 because
of marital difficulties, which included his wife suffering from a serious mental illness “which
lingered for years.”6
In June 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with assault of his girlfriend. He had been
drinking prior to this arrest. This charge was dismissed.
After the death of his girlfriend in 2004, for about two weeks Applicant drank excessively
consuming alcohol to numb his pain and grief. He was treated for depression after her death. He
sought help from the Employee Assistance Office at worked and they suggested that he enroll in an
alcohol treatment program.
Applicant attended alcohol treatment at an institute from December 27, 2004, until January
24, 2005. He was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and depression. These diagnoses were made
by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment
program. He attended both individual and group counseling, which included education groups,
therapy groups, and AA/NA meetings every night. At the time of his discharge, his prognosis was
positive if he followed through with his discharge plans, including returning to his apartment and
returning to his employment, which he accomplished. At least four weeks after rehabilitation, he
continued to attend meetings to talk about his alcohol problems.7
A witness who is a retired Army chaplain and Brigadier General, with a Ph.D. in clinical
psychology, testified about posttraumatic stress syndrome as it related to the events of Applicant’s
loss of his girlfriend.  Applicant is one of his parishioners and he has been counseling him for about8
six months about the loss of his girlfriend, which led to his excessive consumption of alcohol.  The9
witness stated:
So knowing [Applicant’s] history, the loss, the depression that he went through, some
of the counseling he went through, the counseling that I’ve done with him, I would
say that this was a typical outcome [posttraumatic stress syndrome] for someone who
had had that kind of loss.10
Ex. C (Supervisor’s letter, dated August 30, 2007). 11
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).12
Id. at 527.13
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960). 14
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).15
Id.; Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.16
Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.17
5
During the last six months, Applicant has sought counseling from his pastor and he has a
better understanding of why he spun out of control after the death of his girlfriend. Although he has
not ceased drinking alcohol, he has modified his behavior to a glass or two of wine a month. He does
not believe he will drink and drive again.
Applicant’s supervisor wrote a character letter.  The witness indicated that once Applicant’s11
drinking got out of control, he sought help from the Employee Assistance Office and entered
rehabilitation. He stated that:
Since completing the program, [Applicant] has seemed to turn himself around, his
attendance has improved, he is on time he is routinely at his desk working, and the
quality and quantity of his work has improved. His physical and mental health has
improved and he seems to be happier with who he is and what he is doing.
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  As Commander in Chief, the President has12
“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
access to such information.”  The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to13
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 of14
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 applicant15
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 a16
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.  17
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and
mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline. Additionally, each security clearance decision
6
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 listed
in the Directive and AG ¶ 2(a).
CONCLUSIONS
Alcohol consumption is a security concern because “excessive 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.” (AG ¶ 21.)
Applicant has a long history of drinking alcohol that spans more than 30 years. Applicant
was arrested in 1999 and charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of liquor. He was
fined $500, placed on unsupervised probation, ordered to attend alcohol counseling, and his driver’s
license was suspended for eight months. Moreover, in June 2004, Applicant was arrested and
charged with assault of his girlfriend and had been drinking prior to this arrest. In 2004, after the
death of his girlfriend, he excessively consumed alcohol as a way of dealing with his grief. Realizing
that his drinking was out of control, he talked to the Employee Assistance Office at work and was
advised to enroll in an alcohol treatment program. Applicant enrolled in and completed a six-week
inpatient alcohol treatment program. He was diagnosed as being alcohol dependent and depressed.
Thus, Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions ¶ 22(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) and ¶ 22(e) (evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence by a
licensed clinical social worker who is a member of a recognized alcohol treatment program ) apply.
Various factors can mitigate alcohol consumption security concerns. After consuming
alcohol, Applicant was arrested and charged with assault of his girlfriend. His girlfriend died in
2004, and his drinking increased. In that same year, he completed treatment at an inpatient alcohol
treatment program and was diagnosed as alcohol dependent and depressed. During the last six
months, he has sought counseling from his pastor. Applicant has a better understanding of why he
spun out of control after the death of his girlfriend. Although he has not ceased drinking alcohol, he
has modified his behavior to a glass or two of wine a month. Moreover, he does not believe he will
drink and drive again. Consequently, Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition ¶ 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 accordant 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) apply. Applicant has mitigated the Government’s case.
I have considered all the evidence in the case. I have also considered the “whole person”
concept in evaluating Applicant’s risk and vulnerability in protecting our national interests. Applicant
has had a drinking history from 1971 to 2006. Applicant testified credibly about his remorse for his
1999 charge of operating a vehicle under the influence of liquor. In 2004, after his girlfriend’s death,
he enrolled and completed a six-week inpatient alcohol treatment program. Based on the evidence
7
of record, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. For
the reasons stated, I conclude Applicant is suitable for access to classified information.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required
by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1. Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption): 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 of the circumstances in the case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is granted.
Jacqueline T. Williams
 Administrative Judge