DATE: October 18, 2007
In re:
---------------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for a Public Trust Position
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADP Case No. 06-25938
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PHILIP S. HOWE
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is 27 years old, unmarried, and works for a defense contractor in the health
insurance business as a claims resolution processor.  She has two disorderly conduct arrests, and two
driving while intoxicated arrests. Applicant did not mitigate the alcohol consumption trustworthiness
concern.  She did mitigate the personal conduct trustworthiness concern.  Eligibility for a public trust
position is denied.
Adjudication of trustworthiness cases for ADP I, II, and III positions are resolved using the provisions of DoD1
Directive 5220.6 (Directive), pursuant to the memorandum from Carol A. Haave, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Counterintelligence and Security to DOHA Director, Adjudication of Trustworthiness Cases (Nov. 19, 2004).
Pursuant to Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended2
and modified, and the Directive.
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
position of trustworthiness for Applicant .  On February 28, 2007, DOHA issued a Statement of1
Reasons  (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline2
G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the revised Adjudicative
Guidelines of the Directive issued on December 29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of
Defense, effective September 1, 2006.  Applicant answered the SOR in writing on March 16, 2007,
and elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge.  The case was assigned to me on June
20, 2007.  On August 7, 2007, I convened a hearing to consider whether it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue a trustworthiness determination for Applicant.  The
Government submitted exhibits that were admitted into evidence.  Applicant did not submit any
exhibits at the hearing.  The record was kept open until August 21, 2007, to allow Applicant to
submit exhibits concerning her alcohol evaluation program in 2006, but no additional exhibits were
received.  DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on August 20, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted all the SOR allegations, and they are incorporated as findings of fact.
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and full consideration of that
evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is 27 years old, unmarried, and works for a defense contractor in the health
insurance business.  She has worked there for three and a half years as a claims resolution processor.
She graduated from high school and attended college for two semesters. (Tr. 26, 28; Exhibit 1)
Applicant was arrested on December 27, 2003, on charges of battery and disorderly conduct.
She and another woman were involved in an argument at a local nightclub.  Applicant hit the other
woman with her hand in the club parking lot.  Applicant was drinking alcohol before the incident.
Applicant claims she only had two or three beers.  She pled “no contest” to the charges, and was
fined $243, and completed a nine-month “Values, Influences, and Peers” program, an Alcohol and
Other Drug program over nine weeks, and some follow-up counseling.  After completion of these
requirements, Applicant resumed drinking “socially,” consuming “a couple of beers here and there.”
Applicant claims she was told if she completed these requirements, the arrest would not appear on
her record.  She did not disclose this arrest on her trustworthiness application of November 3, 2005.
(Tr. 22, 29-34, 61, 62; Exhibits 1-3)
Applicant was arrested on October 3, 2004, for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated
and with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC).  She drove a friend’s car away from the bar at
3
4 p.m. that afternoon.  She had been drinking at another bar earlier in the day.  She collided with
another car in the parking lot of the first bar after she drove back there from the second bar.  She
claims she was drinking beer and shots, having had only two or three beers.  Her blood alcohol
content (BAC) was .23%.  The legal limit in her state is .08%.  She drove the car because she thought
she was the soberest person in her group of friends.  She pled “no contest” to the driving while
intoxicated charge, was fined $725, ordered to undergo an alcohol assessment and group dynamics
classes which she did from November 2004 to August 2005, and her driver’s license was revoked
for eight months.  Applicant does not remember any diagnosis of an alcohol condition after her
assessment.  Applicant rode to work with a friend while her license was revoked, and did not drink
too often during that time period, she claims.  However, she admitted she did drive occasionally. (Tr.
37-43, 57; Exhibits 1-3)
Applicant was arrested on September 5, 2005, for disorderly conduct at a bar.  She needed
to use the bathroom, but it was occupied, so she urinated in the alley behind the bar.  She was fined,
but the fine was returned when the charges were dropped because the arresting police officer did not
appear in court.  Applicant understood that because the charges were dropped this arrest would not
be on her record.  Consequently, she did not disclose it on her trustworthiness application of
November 3, 2005.  Applicant claims she only drank one or two beers. (Tr. 24, 43, 44; Exhibits 1-3)
Applicant was arrested on March 3, 2006, for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated,
2  offense, and PAC.  She was arrested less than four miles from the bar she attended.  Her BACnd
was .25%.  Again, she pled “no contest.”  She was sentenced to eight days in jail, and allowed
release during the day to go to work, fined $1,375, had her driver’s license revoked for 14 months
(it remains revoked), and was ordered to take multiple offender classes at a local college.  The
assessment at the college in June 2006, resulted in a diagnosis of “irresponsible use of alcohol.” (Tr.
45-50, 58; Exhibits 1-3)
Applicant started drinking alcohol in high school at age 17.  She characterizes her drinking
as “social”, and the maximum she drinks at any one occasion is three beers, according to her
recollection, but never considered herself or felt like she was drunk an any occasion.  Applicant’s
listed weight on her trustworthiness application is 125 pounds.  She admitted she drank and drove
a few more times than those when she was arrested, and that occasionally she drove to the store and
gas station while her driving privileges were revoked.  Applicant does not consider herself as having
a problem with alcohol.  She considers her arrests as bad luck and being at the wrong place at the
wrong time.  She disputes the December 2003, disorderly conduct incident as reported by the
arresting police officer. (Tr. 27-29, 31, 34, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 50-52, 63)
Applicant completed her trustworthiness application on November 3, 2005.  In answering
Question 20 (in the last seven years, have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any
offenses?), she stated, “Yes,” listing her October 2004, operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated
offense.  She did not list her December 2003, and September 2005, disorderly conduct arrests in
answer to Question 20.  She understood these arrests were not on her record, and therefore, she
claims she made a decision not to list them.  No one helped her complete the application or told her
not to list the arrests. (Tr. 22-24, 53-55; Exhibit 1-3) 
POLICIES
4
As Commander in Chief, the President has “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.” Department of the Navy
v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his
designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that
it is clearly consistent the national interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information with Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960).  By direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Counterintelligence and Security, adjudications of cases forwarded to DOHA by the Defense
Security Service or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for a trustworthiness determination
shall be conducted under the provisions of the Directive.  Eligibility for a position of trust is
predicated upon the applicant meeting the guidelines contained in the Directive and a finding it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so. See Directive ¶ 2.3.  An applicant “has the
ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
continue his trustworthiness determination.” See Directive ¶ E3.1.15
The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept.  Enclosure 2 of the Directive
sets forth personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating
conditions (MC) under each guideline that must be carefully considered in making the overall
common sense determination required.  The decision to deny an individual eligibility to occupy a
position of trust is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant.  See Exec. Or.
10865 § 7.  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 such a determination.
In evaluating the trustworthiness of an applicant, the administrative judge must also assess
the adjudicative process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive, and the revised Guidelines, effective
September 1, 2006.  Those assessments include:  (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the
conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, and the extent of knowledgeable
participation; (3) how recent and frequent the behavior was; (4) the individual’s age and maturity
at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the
potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence (See revised Guidelines ¶2.a., effective September 1, 2006).  Because each case presents
its own unique facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed that the factors exhaust the realm
of human experience or that the factors apply equally in every case.  Moreover, although adverse
information concerning a single condition may not be sufficient for an unfavorable determination,
the individual may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of
questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or other behavior specified in the Guidelines.
Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal
or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being
eligible to occupy a position of trust.  The Directive presumes a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed in the guidelines and an
applicant’s trustworthiness suitability.  See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).
All that is required is proof of facts and circumstances that indicate an applicant is at risk for
mishandling classified information, or that an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree of
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons handling classified information.  ISCR
Case No. 00-0277, 2001 DOHA LEXIS 335 at **6-8 (App. Bd. 2001).  Once the Government has
5
established a prima facie case by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut,
explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  An applicant “has the ultimate
burden of demonstrating that is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his
trustworthiness determination. ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. 2002).  “Any doubt as to
whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved
in favor of the national security.” Directive ¶ E2.2.2
Based upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole, I find the following adjudicative
guidelines most pertinent to an evaluation of the facts of this case:
Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption: The Concern: 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. ¶21
Guideline E: Personal Conduct: The Concern: Conduct involving questionable judgment,
lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.  Of
special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance
process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process. ¶15
“The standard that must be met for . . . assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all
available information, the person’s loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that  . . .
assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”
(Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1)  The revised Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006, set forth the
adjudicative policy, as well as the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC)
associated with each guideline.  DoD contractor personnel are afforded the adjudication procedures
contained in the Directive. (Regulation ¶ C8.2.1)
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline G: Applicant has a ten-year history of drinking.  She has two disorderly conduct
arrests resulting from her drinking.  She has two operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated arrests,
with the latest arrest occurring in March 2006.  She participated in two assessment programs, and
was diagnosed in the second program as being an irresponsible user of alcohol.  Her two operating
arrests were based on property damage, and a BAC of .23% in the first one, and a BAC of .25% in
the second one.  In neither case did Applicant consider herself drunk.  She consistently characterized
her drinking as “social” and never more than three beers.  Yet, at 125 pounds of weight, to achieve
a BAC of .23% and .25% she must have consumed more than she remembers, or is deliberately
minimizing her alcohol use and consumption.  
The Disqualifying Conditions (DC) that are applicable are ¶22.a (alcohol-related incidents
away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, disturbing the peace, or other
incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or
alcohol dependent), and ¶22.c (habitual consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent).
Applicant’s alcohol consumption patterns caused her legal difficulties.  Two drunk driving incidents
6
in two years, plus her admission she drove drunk on other occasions, shows questionable judgment
and a continuing failure to control her impulses.  Couple these incidents with her continued
statements that all she ever drinks is two or three beers socially, demonstrates a lack of recognition
of her alcohol problem.  I do not find her explanations credible or persuasive.
The Mitigating Conditions (MC) in ¶23 of the revised Guideline G do not apply to the pattern
of conduct and habitual use of alcohol demonstrated by Applicant.  It is her burden of proof to
persuade me the MC should be applied in her favor.  She has done nothing to accomplish that goal
and meet her burden.  She did not submit any alcohol assessment from the two court-ordered
programs she attended in 2004 and 2006, nor did she present any current alcohol assessment she
might have obtained at her own expense to counter the Government’s evidence.  She denies she has
a problem with alcohol.  She had no persuasive evidence to explain how her drinking habits resulted
in BAC three times her state’s legal limits.  Obviously, she was minimizing her consumption and
has a more serious problem with alcohol than she realizes.
Guideline E: Applicant did not list two disorderly conduct arrests on her trustworthiness
application because she thought that the first would not appear on her record after she completed the
court-ordered community service and education programs based on what she was told in court, and
the second charge was dismissed when the arresting officer did not appear in court and her fine was
returned.  That is a reasonable understanding by someone inexperienced in the legal system, and who
failed to think through fully Question 20 on the application.
The DC which might apply is ¶16.(a) involving deliberate omission, concealment, or
falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement,
or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, or determine
trustworthiness.  However, I find Applicant’s explanation credible as to why she did not list the two
arrests.  She listed the one driving and alcohol offense because it was on her record.  These two
offense were comparatively minor, particularly the public urination, in contrast to the driving
offenses.  Therefore, I do not consider Applicant’s failure to disclose them as a deliberate omission
designed to mislead the Government.  On the basis of that conclusion, this DC does not apply.  No
MC need be applied if no DC apply.
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" eligible for a
trustworthiness decision. (Revised Guidelines ¶2.a)  "Eligibility for access to classified information
is predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudication
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept.
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 factors listed in the revised Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006, contained in ¶2.a.
Applicant is a mature person who is responsible for her actions.  She engages in a pattern of
drinking that in three years resulted in four arrests.  Two arrests were serious driving and drinking
offenses.  Her driving privileges were revoked twice, and currently remain revoked.  Her voluntary
drinking in bars with friends, the continuous pattern of it over the past four years, her minimizing
of its extent and effect on her behavior, coupled with her lack of responsibility for her drunk driving
offenses, and her attitude that the incidents were merely “bad luck,’ all demonstrate a serious lack
7
of good judgment and responsible behavior.  Because Applicant does not consider herself as having
an alcohol problem, it is likely the behavior will continue, resulting in more arrests.  She has not
changed her behavior or developed other interests to replace the need to drink alcohol.  Applicant
has not comprehended and incorporated the lessons she learned at two assessment programs to
change her behavior.  Applicant displayed a consistent lack of good judgment in these actions and
attitudes.  These actions demonstrate Applicant is not reliable and trustworthy.
Accordingly, I conclude the alcohol consumption trustworthiness concern against Applicant.
I conclude the personal conduct trustworthiness concern for Applicant.  I conclude the “whole person
concept” against Applicant on the alcohol issue.
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.  Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a to 1.g.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2.  Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For 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 Applicant eligibility for assignment to sensitive duties.
Her application for eligibility for an public trust position is denied.
Philip S. Howe
Administrative Judge