KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct; Alcohol
DIGEST: Applicant is 37 years old and has worked as a design engineer for a defense contractor
since 2005. In 2000 and 2003, he had convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol.
In both instances, his driver’s license was suspended. In 2004, he was convicted of driving on a
suspended license. He served 40 days in jail for that offense. He was on probation from 2004 through
January 2007 and did not consume alcohol during this period. He now has an occasional drink.
Applicant has mitigated the criminal conduct and alcohol consumption security concerns. Clearance
is granted.
CASENO: 06-26394.h1
DATE: 09/28/2007
DATE:  September 28, 2007
In re:
--------------------
SSN:  ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-26394
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JACQUELINE T. WILLIAMS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Francisco Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Joseph P. Smith, III, Esq.
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is 37 years old and has worked as a design engineer for a defense contractor since
2005. In 2000 and 2003, he had convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol. In both
instances, his driver’s license was suspended. In 2004, he was convicted of driving on a suspended
license. He served 40 days in jail for that offense. He was on probation from 2004 through January
2007 and did not consume alcohol during this period. He now has an occasional drink. Applicant has
mitigated the criminal conduct and alcohol consumption security concerns. Clearance is granted.
Ex. 1 (Security Clearance Application, signed on August 23, 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).
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 23, 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 May 2, 2007, detailing the basis for its decision–security concerns2
raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and 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.
Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and requested a hearing. Department Counsel
indicated the Government was ready to proceed on June 21, 2007. The case was assigned to me on
June 22, 2007. A Notice of Hearing was issued on July 11, 2007, scheduling the hearing for August
1, 2007. On July 19, 2007, Applicant’s attorney moved for a continuance of the hearing to a date to
be determined later. The motion was granted without objection. On July 20, 2007, an Amended
Notice of Hearing was issued, scheduling the hearing for August 8, 2007. The hearing was conducted
as scheduled. At the hearing, the Government submitted exhibits 1-3, and Applicant submitted
exhibits A-B. All exhibits were admitted into the record without objection. The transcript (Tr.) was
received on August 22, 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 37 years old and has worked as a design engineer for a defense contractor since
2005. He served in the Navy from 1993 to 1997, spending the majority of time in the Persian Gulf.
He received an honorable discharge. In September 2006, Applicant received a bachelor of science
degree in criminal justice and graduated magna cum laude. His first marriage ended in divorce. He
remarried in July 2006. He held security clearances in the past.
One evening in October 2000, upon leaving a nightclub after having numerous drinks,
Applicant was pulled over by the police for failure to turn on his headlights. Applicant was arrested
and eventually convicted for DUI. He was sentenced to five days in jail, fined $1,000, placed on
probation for one year, and his driver’s license was suspended for one year.
In November 2003, Applicant was out drinking with a friend. His friend needed a ride to the
airport. While driving a friend to the airport, he was pulled over by the police for not having a front
license plate and given a Breathalyzer test. Applicant was arrested and eventually convicted for DUI.
Tr. 66.3
Under the law in the state in which Applicant was arrested, the prosecutor requests that a case be nolle4
prosequi.
Tr. 17.5
Id. at 22.6
Id. at 33-34.7
Id. at 35.8
Id. at 34.9
Id. at 42.10
Id. at 47.11
4
He was sentenced to 90 days in jail but 88 days were suspended, fined $650, ordered to attend
counseling and alcohol support classes, and his driver’s license was suspended for three years. 
Approximately nine weeks into his court-ordered counseling, he was given a Breathalyzer
and blew a .001 or .01, which was in violation of the program’s rules. He had an alcoholic drink the
night before.  He subsequently completed the court-ordered counseling.3
In August 2004, Applicant was charged with driving after his license was suspended and
eluding the police. The charge for eluding the police was nolle prosequi,  dismissed. He was4
sentenced to 90 days in jail but served 40 days due to good behavior, fined $1,000, ordered to attend
alcohol counseling with a physician, and his driver’s license was suspended for one year. He
completed the court-ordered counseling. 
Applicant’s wife and two other witnesses testified on his behalf. All three have security
clearances and unequivocally support Applicant’s application for a security clearance. One witness
has known Applicant since 1998 and they have both a professional and personal relationship.  He5
has seen positive changes in Applicant’s lifestyle since Applicant’s incarceration. He believes that
Applicant’s incarceration “put the fear of God in him. It changed his life.”  Another witness also6
works with Applicant and has known him for a little more than two years and in fact hired
Applicant.  When Applicant was hired, this witness was aware of his arrests for DUI and driving on7
a suspended license.  Applicant was hired because he already held a security clearance.  Applicant’s8 9
wife knew him two years before they dated.  She stated that between the time he got out of jail in10
2004 and the end of his probation in January 2007, he did not drink alcohol.  He did not drink11
Id. at 48.12
Id. at 49-50.13
Id. at 50.14
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).15
Id. at 527.16
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960). 17
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).18
Id.; Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.19
5
alcohol at their wedding.  When they go out now, he is the designated driver.  She believes that his12 13
time in jail changed his perspective for the better about drinking and driving.14
Applicant abstained from alcohol from the time he got out of jail in 2004, until his probation
ended in January 2007. In his Answer, Applicant stated this about himself:
I have traveled on official business with the [government agency] to over 83 cities
through the world and never once put myself in a position to hurt my fellow
Americans and never would. I have never been an individual who would ever
jeopardize the government’s interests, my country or the individuals I work with.
Applicant has amended his drinking behavior and has the occasional drink, but he no longer
drives if he has been drinking. He is usually the designated driving when he and his wife go out.
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  As Commander in Chief, the President has15
“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 to16
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 of17
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 applicant18
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 a19
determination as to the loyalty of an applicant. It is merely an indication that the applicant has not
Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.20
6
met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a
clearance.20
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 listed
in the Directive and AG ¶ 2(a).
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all facts in evidence and the legal standards, and I reach the
following conclusions.
Criminal Conduct
Criminal conduct under Guideline J may be a security concern because “criminal activity
creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls
into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” (AG ¶
31)
In 2000, Applicant was arrested for DUI and sentenced to five days in jail, fined $1,000,
placed on probation for a year, and his driver’s license was suspended for a year. In 2003, he was
arrested for DUI. He spent two days in jail, fined $650, ordered to attend counseling and alcohol
support classes, and his driver’s license was suspended for three years. Approximately nine weeks
into his court-ordered counseling and alcohol support classes, he was given a Breathalyzer and blew
a .001 or .01, which was in violation of the program’s rules. Moreover, in 2004, he was charged and
convicted of driving after forfeiting his driver’s license. He served 40 days in jail, was fined $1,000,
ordered to attend alcohol counseling with a physician, and his driver’s license was suspended for one
year. Consequently, Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions ¶ 31(a) (a single serious crime or
multiple lesser offenses) and ¶ 32(c) (allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of
whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted) apply.
Various factors can mitigate criminal conduct. In 2000, Applicant was convicted for DUI,
jailed, fined, and placed on probation for one year. In 2003, he was again convicted for DUI, fined,
incarcerated, ordered to attend alcohol counsel, and his driver’s license was suspended for three
years. In 2004, he was charged with driving after his license was suspended. He was jailed for 40
days, fined, ordered to attend counseling, and his driver’s license was suspended. His probation ends
in October 2008. While in counseling, he violated the program’s rules by drinking alcohol the night
before. His behavior has changed because he no longer drinks. He has been alcohol-free since May
2006 and as a result, he has not participated in any other criminal activities. Criminal Conduct
Mitigating Condition ¶ 32(d) (there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited
to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution, job training
or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement) applies.
7
Alcohol Consumption
Alcohol consumption is always a security concern because “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.” (AG ¶ 21)
In 2000 and 2003, Applicant was arrested and convicted for DUI. In 2000, he served five
days in jail, was placed on probation for a year, and his driver’s license was suspended for a year.
In the 2003 DUI offense, he spent two days in jail, was ordered to attend counseling and alcohol
support classes, and his driver’s license was suspended for three years. Moreover, while attending
the court-ordered counseling and alcohol support classes, he failed a Breathalyzer test. Consequently,
Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 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 AG ¶ 22(g) (failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol
education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence) applies.
Various factors can mitigate alcohol consumption. From 2000 through 2004, Applicant was
breaking the law, getting to trouble, and drinking to excess as evidenced by his DUIs and evidenced
by driving with a suspended license. Applicant spent about 40 days in jail. His incarceration, which
to him was a lengthy period of time, changed his perspective on how alcohol could influence his life.
He remained alcohol-free while on probation. He now has an occasional drink. Based on those facts,
Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions, AG ¶ 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)) applies.
I have considered all of 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. Since his
incarceration in 2004, Applicant has modified his behavior toward alcohol consumption. Enough time
has elapsed for Applicant to show that he is unwilling to be incarcerated for any length of time. Thus,
he is no longer excessively drinking alcohol. 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 J (Criminal Conduct): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
8
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: 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