DATE:  November 27, 2007
In re:
------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-23603
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.,
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has not mitigated security concerns arising from his alcohol consumption and
criminal conduct due to the recency of the 2005 and 2006 incidents involving alcohol. Applicant's
eligibility for a security clearance is denied.
GX 1(Application of Security Clearance (SF 86), dated August 30, 2005).1
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive2
5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified (Directive).
Counsel for Applicant was not available in October for a hearing. Thus, the earliest date for both parties was3
November 1, 2007.
Applicant, through his counsel, waived the 15 day notice requirement.4
Applicant’s Answer to SOR, dated August 13, 2007.5
GX 1 (Application for Security Clearance (SF 86), dated August 30, 2005).6
Id.7
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 30, 2005, Applicant completed his security clearance (SF 86) application.   On1
July 13, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons
(SOR) to Applicant.  The SOR alleges security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)2
and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on
December 29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of  Defense effective September 1, 2006.
The revised guidelines were provided to Applicant when the SOR was issued. The SOR detailed
reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary finding under the Directive that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for him, and
recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted,
continued, denied, or revoked.
On August 13, 2007, Applicant submitted a notarized response to the SOR allegations, and
elected to have his case decided at a hearing. On September 4, 2007, the case was assigned to me.3
A Notice of Hearing was issued on October 4, 2007.  At the scheduled hearing on November 1,4
2007, the Government introduced  Government Exhibits (GX) 1-2 into evidence without objections.
Applicant testified and introduced Applicant Exhibits (AX) A-Q into evidence without objections
from Department Counsel. He also had two witnesses testify in his behalf as indicated in the
transcript. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on November 13, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted allegations in subparagraphs 1.b -g,  in his SOR response under Guideline
G.  He denied allegations in subparagraphs 1.a and 1.h and subparagraph 2.a. After a complete5
review of the evidence in the record and upon due consideration, I make the following findings of
fact:
Applicant is a 53-year-old employee of a defense contractor. After receiving his
undergraduate degree in 1978 with a bachelors in mechanical engineering, he was employed in the
field of government contracting specializing in research development.  He had a security clearance6
for a period of time in the 1990's.  He is divorced with two grown children.7
Tr. 39.8
Tr. 42.9
GX 2 (Interrogatories and attachments, dated June 15, 2007).10
Id.; Tr. 34-35.11
Tr. 43.12
3
On October 19, 1981, Applicant was arrested and charged with a DUI. He pled guilty and
was sentenced to ten days in jail suspended and fined $100. He was hang gliding on that day with
a friend. He was 25 years old at the time. On the way back from the activity, he and his friend
consumed a bottle of whiskey. He had not eaten and the alcohol had a powerful effect. When he
arrived at his friend’s apartment, he was not invited in. So he decided to drive home. He quickly
realized he was not able to drive and pulled over to the side of the road. The police found him in his
car and he was arrested for DUI.8
In December 1982, a year later, Applicant was arrested and charged with public intoxication.
He had been drinking with friends at a game and drove after that. He veered to avoid a car coming
toward him on the road and hit a curb. The police smelled alcohol and Applicant admitted he had
been drinking. He was then charged with public intoxication.9
In 1998, Applicant was drinking beer on the job. His co-worker reported that Applicant had
three to four beers. A representative of the company took Applicant for an alcohol test. He tested
positive and was suspended from work for one month. At that time he attended counseling. He
completed six sessions with a psychologist over a four-month period.  10
In March 2004, Applicant was a manager on a research program working with subcontracts
at their facilities. He returned one day from lunch after consuming three beers. His office partner
reported Applicant to Human Resources after he smelled alcohol on Applicant’s breath. Applicant
then had to report for an alcohol test which rendered a positive result. He was sent home that day and
received a termination letter approximately one month later for misconduct despite his exceptional
work record.11
On June 23, 2005, Applicant was at home where he had been drinking a few beers. A friend
called him and he decided to go out to meet her. He had an automobile accident when he swerved
to avoid hitting a vehicle. The police who investigated the accident gave Applicant a Breathalyzer
and the result initiated the charge of DUI. He pled guilty and was sentenced to 60 days in jail;
suspended, one-year probation, suspended driver’s license for 90 days and ordered to attended
Highway Intoxication School. He was also fined $600.12
On November 18, 2005, Applicant was arrested for a probation violation. He admits he was
nervous about an incident that occurred the day before and could not sleep, so he had a few drinks
to help him sleep. He arrived at the courthouse early the next morning to pay $20 for the class he had
Tr. 46.13
Tr. 47.14
GX 2 (Treatment Center Records and Applicant’s response to interrogatories, dated 2006).15
Tr. 67.16
Tr. 55-57.17
AX R (Affidavit, dated October 22, 2007).18
AX S (Affidavit, dated October 22, 2007).19
AX I (1995 Leadership Award); AX J (Letter of commendation 2005).20
AX A-G (U.S. Patent documents from 1982-2001).21
4
missed. He decided to schedule his probation visit then and when the probation officer arrived he
could smell alcohol on Applicant’s breath. 13
On March 1, 2006, Applicant was home drinking some beer with his brother. He received
a phone call from his probation officer why he had missed his visit the day before. Applicant thought
he did not have scheduled visits. His probation officer ordered him down to the office that day.
When Applicant arrived, the officer smelled alcohol on his breath and arrested him for a probation
violation. He pled guilty and was sentenced to ten days in jail.  14
From April 4, 2006 until July 26, 2006, Applicant received outpatient counseling for alcohol
dependence. He quit drinking for approximately one year.  However, at the hearing, Applicant15
acknowledged that he enjoys a social drink. He believes he is in control of his drinking. He believes
he had bad luck before, but now he will not drink and drive. He states he does not drink to excess.
He also stated he only drinks beer. 
However, one witness confirmed that he occasionally drinks a mixed drink.  Applicant did16
not acknowledge that he had received a diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence from the 2006 outpatient
counseling by the staff psychologist. However, the documents in the record clearly state the
diagnosis. Applicant, despite the recommendation from the counseling not to be around people who
drink, volunteered that all of his friends are social drinkers. He also does not follow the
recommendation to attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) after the counseling. When Applicant
completed the interrogatory in June 2007, he answered “no” to a question about current drinking.
Upon questioning, he claimed he started drinking shortly after completing the interrogatory.17
Applicant’s friends attest to his responsibility as a social drinker, using good judgment where
alcohol is involved. He is described as a good neighbor who is generous with his time.  Moreover,18
he expressed to friends how scared he became in the realization that he could have harmed innocent
people while driving drunk. He is contrite, embarrassed and humiliated.   19
Applicant has spent his entire career as an engineering scientist.  He has received seven20
patents for his inventions over the years.  Applicant has been recognized in his career for his ability21
AX H (Performance Evaluations)22
AX T (Letter from Deputy Manager of company, dated August 13, 2007).23
Id.24
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  25
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.26
 Directive, Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) 2(a)(1)-(9).27
5
and his many creative approaches to developing patents to fully develop into production.  He22
worked on the space shuttle at one point in his career. He was employed with one contractor for 19
years.  He was working on a specific program but in 2001 the program was cancelled. 
Applicant is currently an employee(Design/Engineering Manager). He loves the work and
is very excited about this position. His current supervisor recommends Applicant for a security
clearance.  He has exhibited clear judgment, reliability and trustworthiness in his work related23
activities. He was hired for his accomplishments in the field and his successful employment history.24
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.”   In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding25
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information and determining trustworthiness within the
executive branch. 
To be eligible for a security clearance or access to sensitive information, an applicant must
meet the security guidelines contained in the Directive.  The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth
potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline.
Additionally, each security 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 ¶ 6.3 of the Directive, and AG ¶ 2(a).
“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 administrative26
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
information about the person.   An administrative judge should consider the following factors: (1)27
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 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
 Id.28
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.29
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.30
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).31
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.32
6
continuation or recurrence.   28
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR that
disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information.29
Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate the facts.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent30
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt as to whether31
access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor
of the national security.32
The scope of an administrative judge’s decision is limited. Nothing in this Decision should
be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied
determinations as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards discussed above.
I reach the following conclusions regarding the allegations in the SOR.
 
Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption
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.
In this matter, the government provided substantial evidence that Applicant was arrested in
1981, 1982, and 2005 for alcohol-related incidents. His last alcohol incident was in 2006 for a
probation violation, having consumed alcohol before meeting with his probation officer. Consequently,
Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Condition (AC DC) AG ¶ 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 applies.
7
Applicant had two incidents while working involving alcohol. He drank alcohol during lunch
and later returned to work and was suspended in 1998 and ordered to attend counseling. Again, in
2004, he consumed alcohol and was terminated for misconduct (violation of prohibition against
drinking alcohol at work). AC DC AG ¶ 22(b) alcohol related incidents at work, such as reporting for
work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on the job, regardless of whether
the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol depend applies in this case.
Applicant admitted consuming alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from
approximately 1998 until at least May 2007. AC DC AG ¶ 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 applies.
Applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent in the outpatient treatment program in 2006 by
a licensed staff psychologist. Thus AC DC AG ¶ 20(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical
professional of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence and 20(e) evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol
dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol
treatment program applies.
Applicant had two parole violations for alcohol use in 2005 and 2006. Thus, 20(g) failure to
follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence applies.
With the government’s case initially established, the burden shifts to Applicant to present
evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against him. I considered the
Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition (AC MC) AG ¶ 23(a) so much time 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.
Applicant’s 1981, 1982 and 1998 drinking are remote in time. Applicant asserted that his
drinking no longer plays a necessary role in his life but an enjoyable part of his life. He does
acknowledge that he drinks on a special occasion but does not drink and drive. His driving incident
involving alcohol was in 2004 and 2005. He has since had a 2006 probation violation. Applicant’s
drinking has been a pattern over more than 20 years. Thus, 23(a) does not apply in this case.
Applicant acknowledged his mistakes with alcohol but also speaks about bad luck. His
descriptions of each incident involving alcohol are somewhat phrased as rationalizations. He has
consciously decided, against the recommendation of a treatment program, to continue to drink in
moderation, and not abstain from alcohol or remain in an aftercare program. He is inconsistent in that
his verbal statements do not match any evidence of steps to overcome his problem. He stated that he
was not aware that he had an alcohol dependence diagnosis, although it was in his signed treatment
plan.  AC DC 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 alcohol abuser) does not apply in this case.
Applicant successfully completed his 2006 outpatient treatment program but declines to follow
the recommendation of abstinence. He did refrain from drinking for a period of almost one year, but
has decided to modify his consumption. Thus 26(d) the individual has successfully completed inpatient
or outpatient counseling or rehabilitation along with required aftercare, has demonstrated a clear and
8
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendation, such as participation in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar organization
and has received a favorable diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional or a licensed clinical
social worker who is a staff member of a recognized treatment program) does not apply.
Guideline J: Criminal Conduct
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. 
Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (CC DC) AG ¶ 31(a) (a single serious crime or
multiple lesser offenses) and CC DC AG ¶ 31(c) (allegations or admission of criminal conduct,
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted) both apply.
Applicant admitted the alcohol-related driving offenses and the parole violations. 
Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition (CC MC) AG ¶ 32(a) (so much time elapsed since the
criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) does
not apply in this case. Applicant’s last alcohol-related driving incident was in 2005. He had more
difficulty in 2006 with alcohol causing a parole violation.
CC MC AG ¶ 32(b) (the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those
pressures are no longer present in the person’s life) does not apply. Although Applicant states he is
now in a great job and has good friends he states alcohol is an enjoyable part of his life.
CC MC AG ¶ 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) partially applies.
Applicant completed alcohol treatment. He has been very successful in his work and garnered
promotions and praise. He acknowledges mistakes and bad luck. However, the last criminal incident
is in 2006. This is too recent to be mitigated.
Whole Person Analysis
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the trustworthy determination process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a
person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to sensitive
duties. Indeed, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering
the “whole person” concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts,
omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis.
I have considered all the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating Applicant’s security
clearance determination. Applicant has an outstanding achievement record for more than 30 years. He
is praised for his numerous accomplishments in the field of mechanical engineering, including seven
9
patents. He is highly respected in his field. Several friends and colleagues attest to his reliability and
professionalism.
Applicant’s alcohol consumption for more than 20 years has caused problems for him at work
and in his personal life. Granted, several of his alcohol-related incidents were many years ago;
however, in 2005 and 2006, Applicant again had arrests involving alcohol. Despite his outpatient
counseling in 2006, he continues to drink. On separate occasions in 2006 and 2007 during his
investigation, he stated he intended not to drink in the future. However, he has decided that he can
responsibly modify his drinking and that his earlier mistakes will not be repeated.  He has made a
decision to not abstain from alcohol as the treatment recommended. He is adamant that the alcohol is
not a necessary part of his life, but it is an enjoyable one. There are some inconsistencies in
descriptions of what he drinks and the role of alcohol in his life. This may be true, but it is premature
to conclude that Applicant has overcome doubts as to his ability to exercise the requisite judgment and
discretion expected of one who holds a security clearance. 
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with national interest to grant Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Clearance is
denied.
10
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge