DATE:  October 9, 2007
In Re:
------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-05662
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
THOMAS M. CREAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Robert E. Coacher, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a 28-year-old analyst for a defense contractor.  She had four incidents with
alcohol within a two year period when she was a minor.  Afterward, she attended and graduated from
college, and had no alcohol-related incidents for over six years.  She then had a driving while
intoxicated incident in 2006 that has not yet been resolved by court action.  She acknowledges her
mistake of drinking alcohol and then driving in 2006.  In spite of the latest alcohol-related incident,
she demonstrated that she does not currently consume alcohol to such an excess as to create an
alcohol consumption security concern.  Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 27, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement
Item 4.1
See Response to FORM, dated September 3, 2007.2
Items 1 and 3.3
2
of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its decision to deny a security clearance for Applicant.  The
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
(February 20, 1990), as amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), using the
new Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued by the President on December 29, 2005, and implemented
by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR
on July 9, 2007.  The SOR alleges security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of
the Directive.
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on July 25, 2007.  She admitted five and denied one
of the allegations under Guideline G, and provided some explanation for her actions.  She elected
to have the matter decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on August 7, 2007.  Applicant
received a complete file of relevant material (FORM), and was provided the opportunity to file
objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions.  She
provided additional information in her response to the FORM on September 3, 2007.  Department
counsel, on September 17, 2007, noted no objection to consideration of the additional information.
The case was assigned to me on September 27, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I thoroughly and carefully reviewed the case file and the pleadings.  I make the following
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 28-year-old analyst for a defense contractor.  She is single.  She started college
in 2001 receiving a bachelor of arts degree in 2005.  As part of her employment with the defense
contractor, Applicant submitted a security clearance application on June 16, 2005.1
Applicant admits that in April 2000, when she was six months shy of her 21  birthday, shest
was involved in an automobile accident and arrested for driving under the influence (underage).  She
plead guilty, was fined $100, and ordered to perform community service.  Applicant noted that she
was not intoxicated at the time since her blood alcohol level was only .03.  She was charged with
driving under the influence because she was under the lawful age to drink alcohol and was driving
after drinking alcohol.   Applicant admits she was arrested for being a minor in possession of alcohol2
in April 1998, and received a fine.  She was arrested for the same offense in December 1998, and
again fined and directed to perform community service.  She was arrested a third time for the same
offense in May 1999, and again fined and directed to perform community service.   Applicant also3
admits she was arrested in July 2006 for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Her case has not yet
been resolved by the court.  It has been postponed a number of times and was last scheduled for a
See, FORM, footnote 4.4
Item 3.5
Id.6
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).7
Directive ¶ E2.2.1.8
3
hearing on August 27, 2007.  
SOR allegation 1.f is that since May 2002, Applicant drinks alcohol approximately every
week-end to the point of intoxication.  She denies drinking every weekend to the point of
intoxication.  There is no information in the case file to establish that Applicant drinks every week-
end to the point of intoxication.4
Applicant attributes her alcohol problems to youthful indiscretions and poor family life.
Except for the incident in 2006, she was underage for drinking alcohol when all of the other
incidents took place.  Her parents were alcohol and drug abusers, and her father spent time in prison.
She was mostly raised in church sponsored homes.  She admits that when she graduated from high
school, she drank alcohol to excess.  She learned how alcohol affected her life, refrained from
drinking alcohol to excess for over six years, and completed college.  Her arrest for driving under
the influence of alcohol in July 2006 after an automobile accident was a mistake, and  she stated she
will learn from that mistake.5
Applicant is highly rated as an employee by her defense contractor employer.  She has been
rated as an essential member of the contractor’s team, an asset to the organization, and a pleasure
to work with.  She has also maintained a good credit score and does not have financial problems.6
POLICIES
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.”   Eligibility for a security clearance is7
predicated upon the applicant meeting the security guidelines contained in the Directive.8
The Directive sets out the adjudicative guidelines for making decisions on security clearances.
Enclosure 2, amended by the new Administrative Guidelines, of the Directive sets forth the standards
for determining eligibility for access to classified information, listing the disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions to be considered for each guideline.  Each clearance decision must be fair,
impartial, and a commonsense decision based on the relevant and material facts and circumstances,
as well as the whole person concept.
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 security clearance.  An administrative
AG 2(a).9
See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.10
Directive ¶ E3.1.14.11
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002); see Directive ¶ E3.1.15.12
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). 13
ISCR Case No. 99-0597 (App. Bd. Dec 13, 2000).14
ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996) (quoting DISCR Case No. 92-1106 (App. Bd. Oct. 7,15
1993)).
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see Directive ¶ E2.2.2.16
4
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
information about the person.  An administrative judge should consider: (1) the nature, extent, and
seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at
the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence
of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the
potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation of
recurrence.9
A person granted access to classified information enters into a special relationship with the
government.  The government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those
individuals to whom it grants access to classified information.  The decision to deny an individual a
security clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant.   It is merely10
an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of
Defense have established for issuing a clearance.
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR that
may disqualify the Applicant from access to classified information.   Applicant is responsible for11
presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts.   An applicant “has the ultimate12
burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his
security clearance.”   The government is under no duty to present evidence to disprove any mitigating13
condition.  Administrative Judges cannot assume or infer that any particular mitigating condition is
applicable because the government does not present evidence to disprove that particular mitigating
condition.   “[T]he Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct14
under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.”   “Any doubt as to15
access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”16
CONCLUSIONS
I carefully considered all of the factors in evidence and the legal standards discussed above.
I reach the following conclusions regarding the allegations in the SOR.
AG ¶ 21.17
5
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.   Applicant’s arrests for minor in possession of alcohol, and for driving under the17
influence of alcohol raises Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions (AC DC) ¶ 22(a) (alcohol-
related incidents away from work, such as driving 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 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).  Applicant was a minor when she was arrested three times for
possession of alcohol and once for driving as a minor after drinking alcohol in a two-year time (April
1998 to April 2000).  She admits she was drinking alcohol excessively during this time.  Four arrests
in that time frame shows she was habitually drinking alcohol sometimes to the point of impairment.
Security concerns for excess alcohol consumption can be mitigated under Alcohol
Consumption Mitigating Conditions (AC MC) ¶ 23(a) (So much times has passed, or the behavior was
so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not
cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment), and AC MC ¶
23(b) (The individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome ths problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if
alcohol dependent) or responsible use (of an alcohol abuser).  Applicant acknowledges that in her
youth, she abused alcohol.  She matured and attended college and earned her degree.  From 2000 until
2006, while a college student and after starting to work, she did not have an alcohol-related incident.
However, she was arrested in 2006 for driving under the influence.  While the court action for this
offense has not been completed, she acknowledges that she did drive while intoxicated.  She realizes
her mistake and acknowledged her vow not to have it happen again.  The security concern is for excess
alcohol consumption that leads to questionable judgment resulting in concerns for reliability and
trustworthiness.  The absence of any alcohol-related incidents for over six years while Applicant
attended college and matured followed by one incident of alcohol abuse does not cast doubt on her
current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment.  She showed responsible use of alcohol, if not
abstinence, for over six years, and has overcome her youthful problem with alcohol.  The latest
incident with alcohol does not show she now consumes alcohol to such an extent as to create a security
concern.  I find Applicant mitigated security concerns for alcohol consumption.
I have considered all of the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating Applicant’s security
worthiness.  I considered Applicant’s candor and honesty in her self-evaluation of her use of alcohol.
She did not abuse alcohol for over six years and earned a college degree.  She understands the
problems associated with alcohol abuse.  The absence of alcohol abuse for over six years, even
considered in conjunction with the recent one-time use of alcohol to excess by driving under the
influence of alcohol, shows that her present alcohol consumption is not excessive and does not create
a security concern.  I conclude she is eligible for access to classified information.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required
6
by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline G: 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
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national security to grant a security clearance for Applicant.  Clearance is granted.
Thomas M. Crean
Administrative Judge