DATE:  November 29, 2007
In re:
-----------------
SSN: ---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-00558
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARY E. HENRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Henry L. Young, Lay Representative
SYNOPSIS
Applicant drinks beer regularly. He pled guilty to a driving under the influence charge in
2004, his first alcohol-related offense. As a condition for receiving a restricted license, he attended
an alcohol and substance abuse program, which he successfully completed. The record does not
contain a credible medical report from a qualified medical professional or licensed clinical social
worker which diagnosed alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence. Applicant mitigated the government’s
security concerns about his alcohol consumption. Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon review of the hearing transcript, it appears that one government exhibit and two Applicant exhibits were1
received and marked, but not formally admitted into evidence. Since there were no objections to the admission of these
exhibits at the hearing, the exhibits are admitted into the record.
Applicant’s response to the SOR, dated August 23, 2007, at 1-2.2
Id.3
GE 1 (Security clearance application) at 1, 4-5; Tr. at 32-34.4
2
On August 2, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended and modified, and Department
of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Security Clearance Review Program (Directive),
dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified. The SOR detailed reasons why DOHA could not
make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Specifically, the SOR set
forth security concerns arising under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the revised
Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on December 29, 2005 and implemented by the Department
of Defense, effective September 1, 2006. DOHA recommended the case be referred to an
administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or
revoked. On August 23, 2007, Applicant submitted a notarized response to the allegations. He
requested a hearing. 
This matter was assigned to another administrative judge on September 19, 2007. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on September 21, 2007. Due to a personal emergency, DOHA reassigned
this case to me on October 10, 2007. I held a hearing on October 17, 2007. The government
submitted seven exhibits (GE), which were marked and admitted into evidence as GE 1-7. Applicant
submitted nine documents, which were marked and admitted into evidence as Applicant exhibits
(AE) A-I.  I held the record open until November 16, 2007 for the submission of additional evidence.1
The hearing transcript (Tr.) was received on October 31, 2007. Applicant submitted three additional
documents, which were marked and admitted into evidence as AE J-L without objection.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the allegation under Guideline G, subparagraph 1.d and admitted in part
and denied in part the allegation in subparagraph 1.b of the SOR.  Those admissions are incorporated2
as findings of fact. He denied the remaining allegations.  After a complete review of the evidence3
in the record and upon due consideration, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is 57 years old. He began working for his current employer, a Department of
Defense contractor, in August 1971. He currently works as a shipfitter foreman. He has 36 years of
continuous service with his employer. He has held a security clearance since 1984 or 1985, without
any violations for failure to follow security procedures. He completed his renewal security clearance
application (SF-86) on March 28, 2006.4
GE 1, supra note 4, at 6-9, 11-12; Tr. at 32, 34.5
AE J (Letter, dated November 11, 2007); Tr. at 58-64.6
GE 3 (Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, criminal records report, dated June 7, 2004);7
GE 4 (Court docket sheet); Tr. at 39-42, 44, 47, 68-69.
Tr. at 38, 42, 44, 67.8
3
Applicant married in 1969. He graduated high school in 1970. He and his first wife divorced
in 1984. He married his current wife in 1984. He has three children, a daughter now 37 years old and
two sons, ages 33 and 32.5
Since beginning his employment, his employer has required him to get a physical at its health
clinic as part of its program for monitoring for lead poisoning. From 1971 until 1985, these physical
examinations occurred every 90 days, and included a blood pressure check, a review of fingers and
gums (if the gums were turning purple, it was a sign of lead poisoning), a hand strength, and blood
and urine testing. After 1985, the physical examinations and testing took place twice a year, and a
complete physical examination is conducted once a year. His test results have always been negative
for any serious problems. In March 2007, his urine test showed blood in his urine, but in August
2007, his urine test results were normal. The clinic at his work site refused to provide him with a
copy of his medical records.6
Applicant began drinking beer around age 22 or 23. In June 2004, Applicant attended a
family picnic, where he drank beer from early afternoon until about an hour before his departure. On
his way home, the police arrested and charged him with driving under the influence (DUI) after his
breathalyzer results showed a 13% level of alcohol. Applicant had never received a ticket for DUI
prior to this date. He pled guilty. The court sentenced him as a first time offender to 30 days in jail,
suspended, fined him $300, $100 suspended, and restricted his driving privileges for one year,
contingent upon his participation in an alcohol and substance abuse program.  7
As directed, Applicant enrolled in an alcohol and substance abuse program. He started
attending the program in October 2004 after his initial one-on-one 45 minute interview with the
program director. He completed six months of weekly group counseling in April 2005 and attended
52 sessions of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) before he completed the program in September 2005.
During his time in this program, he did not drink alcohol. At no time did any counselor advise him
not to drink alcohol in the future. The record contains no clinical reports from this program.8
Since 2005, Applicant has continued to drink beer on the weekends. He usually consumes
three to four beers at one time, sometimes when watching a game. He does not drink wine and will
occasionally drink a mixed drink when out. In the summer, he may drink one or two beers in the
evening. He may not drink anything for a week or more. Since completing the alcohol program, he
will not drive if he drinks two beers at home. He has not experienced any blackouts as a result of his
drinking. He does not drink in the morning. His work attendance record for the last seven years
indicates that he regularly arrives at work on time and does not miss work on a regular basis because
of unexcused absences or health reasons. This record supports his statement that he has not missed
Id. at 39, 47-48, 51-52, 69-75; AE A ( Attendance record).9
Tr. at 48-49.10
GE 5 (Counseling report, dated May 12, 2007). In this report the Director stated that this test shows alcohol11
use within 80 hours of the test.
Id. According to the Director, blood in the urine maybe indicative of liver damage.12
AE H (Copy of counselor’s business card); AE I (Information sheet on counseling).13
AE K (Medical report, dated June 13, 2005); AE L (Medical report, dated November 6, 2007); Tr. at 90-91.14
4
work because of alcohol usage. He denies an alcohol problem. His supervisor has never sent him to
the clinic because of alcohol use.9
After completing his SF-86, he returned to the same alcohol and substance abuse program
for an evaluation at the request of his security office. He met with the same director in May 2007 for
approximately 45 minutes and provided her with a urine sample. At the hearing, he admitted that he
had not be truthful with her about when he last consumed alcohol. He told he had not consumed
alcohol in one month, when it had been two days.10
The Director, who is a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC), Licensed Marital and Family
Therapist (LNFT) and Licensed Substance Abuse Treatment Practioner (LSATP), prepared a written
report on this interview and the one urine test result. Based on the positive ethylglucuronide
reading,  his statement that there was blood in his urine test at work in March 2007,  treatment11 12
history (without any further information), and his lack of honesty in self-reporting his alcohol use,
the Director recommended an intensive treatment program of at least six months after a complete
medical evaluation and liver enzyme testing program. In a supplemental report, the Director stated
that Applicant’s diagnosis after the May 2007 interview was Alcohol Dependence 303.90 (with
tolerance). The supplemental report reflects that the diagnosis is based on his urine test results.
Applicant has not followed up with the recommended treatment. He, however, consulted with a
professional counselor about an evaluation. The counselor advised that it would take four or five
sessions at least to provide an evaluation.13
In August 2007, Applicant underwent his six-month lead poisoning physical examination,
with normal testing results. In June 2005 and in November 2007, his private physician examined
him, and directed routine blood and urinalysis tests. The June 2005 report does not indicate any
abnormal test results.14
The government entered into evidence pages 175-181 and 195-196 from the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), which reviews the criteria for
diagnosing substance-related disorders. The DSM-IV, page 176-179, defines substance dependence
as a cluster of three or more of the symptoms listed below occurring at any time in the same 12-
month period. The symptoms include tolerance; withdrawal; drinking beyond the limit set for
consuming alcohol; unsuccessful efforts at decreasing or discontinuing use of alcohol after persistent
expression to do so; spending a great deal of time obtaining alcohol, using alcohol or recovering
from the effects of the alcohol; daily activities resolve around alcohol use; and continued use of
GE 7.15
AE B (Letter, dated October 8, 2007; AE C (2007 Performance Feedback, dated October 1, 2007); AE G16
(Credit report, dated October 3, 2007).
AE D (Disciplinary guidelines); AE E (Copy of relevant labor agreement provisions).17
Directive, revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 2(a)(1)-(9).18
5
alcohol after recognizing the contributing role of the substance to a psychological or physical
problem. The key issue in evaluating this criterion is not the existence of a problem, but rather the
failure to abstain from using alcohol despite having evidence of the difficulties it is causing. The
DSM-IV, page 179, states that “with physiological dependence” should be used when substance
dependence is accompanied by evidence of tolerance and withdrawal. A similar statement is made
concerning alcohol dependence on page 195.15
Applicant’s most recent performance evaluation by his current supervisor rated him at 4, the
highest rating available. His supervisor from late 2004 until early 2007 describes Applicant as an a
dependable and excellent employee with excellent attendance. Applicant’s recent credit report
reflects that his bills are paid in a timely manner and his finances are well managed.16
The labor agreement between Applicant’s employer and the union representing employees
outlines the policy for alcohol use during work hours and the criteria under which the employer may
test for alcohol use. His employer’s disciplinary guidelines provide for immediate discharge if
alcohol is used on the job or an employee reports to work under the influence of alcohol, subject to
the terms of the union contract which does allow for one period of rehabilitation before discharge.17
POLICIES
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating
conditions (MC) applicable to each specific guideline. An administrative judge need not view the
revised adjudicative guidelines as inflexible ironclad rules of law. Instead, acknowledging the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines, are intended to assist the administrative judge in
reaching fair and impartial common sense decisions. Although the presence or absence of a particular
condition or factor for or against clearance is not outcome determinative, the revised AG should be
followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance. In addition, each security
clearance decision must be based on the relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole-
person concept, and the factors listed in the Directive. Specifically, these are: (1) the nature, extent,
and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct; (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 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.18
ISCR Case No. 96-0277 at 2 (App. Bd., July 11, 1997).19
ISCR Case No. 97-0016 at 3 (App. Bd., Dec. 31, 1997); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14.20
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 21
ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd., Aug. 10, 1995); Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.22
ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Decision and Reversal Order, Jan. 27, 1995); Directive, Enclosure23
3, ¶ E3.1.15.
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.24
Id.25
Id.; Directive, revised AG ¶ 2(b).26
Executive Order No. 10865 § 7.27
6
The sole purpose of a security clearance determination is to decide if it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.  The government19
has the burden of proving controverted facts.  The burden of proof is something less than a20
preponderance of the evidence.  Once the government has met its burden, the burden shifts to the21
applicant to present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against
him.  Additionally, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable22
clearance decision.23
No one has a right to a security clearance,  and “the clearly consistent standard indicates that24
security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable25
doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved
in favor of protecting such sensitive information.  Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 specifically26
provides industrial security clearance decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall
in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” The decision to deny an
individual a security clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the allegiance, loyalty, and
patriotism of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict27
guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate
adjudicative factors, I conclude the following with respect to the allegations set forth in the SOR:
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. (AG ¶ 21) In 2004, the police arrested and charged Applicant with DUI, which
resulted in a guilty plea. Disqualifying Condition (DC) ¶ 22(a) alcohol-related incidents away from
7
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 applies.
Applicant began drinking beer in his early twenties, over 30 years ago. He has received one
DUI during this period of time. He has not had any other alcohol related incidents at work or outside
of work. Given his DUI in 2004 was his only alcohol-related incident, it does not cast doubt on his
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.
Although the government argues for the application of DC ¶ 22(d) diagnosis by a duly
qualified medical professional (e.g. physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse
or alcohol dependence and DC ¶ 22(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,
I find that neither apply. In September 2007, the Director of the alcohol and substance abuse program
he attended for one year, beginning in October 2004, diagnosed Applicant as alcohol dependent,
citing to code 303.90 of the DSM-IV even though she is not a qualified medical professional or a
licensed social worker. She based her diagnosis on one urine test result, a 45-minute interview, and
a statement from Applicant he had blood in his urine on one occasion. She did not make this
diagnosis using the recommended standards and criteria set forth in the DSM-IV for such a
diagnosis. She provided no information in her report as to her understanding of Applicant’s current
alcohol use, alcohol tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, or history of alcohol use. Her report does not
reference his earlier treatment in her program, any prior diagnosis, any prior recommendations to
abstain from drinking alcohol, or any previous prognosis. Her report fails to provide a proper
analytical basis for her ultimate conclusion that Applicant is alcohol dependent. Thus, I find her
diagnosis and report lacking in credibility because it is not supported by underlying documentation
and a proper analysis.
Whole Person Analysis
Protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Security clearance decisions are
not intended to assign guilt or to impose further punishment for past transgressions. Rather, the
objective of the adjudicative process is the fair-minded, common sense assessment of a person’s
trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information. Thus, in reaching this decision, I
have considered the whole person concept in evaluating Appellant’s risk and vulnerability in
protecting our national interests. 
Applicant began drinking beer as a young man and continues to drink beer on a regular basis.
He denies drinking to excess and impairment, a denial which is support by the record evidence as
a whole. His work attendance is excellent. His most recent work evaluation is at the highest level
and his bills are paid in a timely manner. If he had a serious alcohol problem, it is most likely that
problems would occur in the workplace and his finances would be more problematic. As a condition
to obtain a restricted driver’s license, the court required him to attend an alcohol and substance abuse
safety program, which he did. When he completed the program, no further recommendations for
additional treatment or to abstain from drinking alcohol were made to him or to the court. It has been
more than three years since he received his only DUI. Because of his alcohol education, he has
decided he will not drive if he has consumed two beers at home. This decision does not indicate that
MC ¶ 23(d) does not apply because the record does not contain any evidence from a qualified professional28
or licensed social worker discussing a diagnosis or favorable prognosis.
8
he is impaired after drinking two beers, but reflects sound, rational and mature decision making
related to the use of alcohol and driving.
The record contains no evidence that Applicant consumes alcohol to excess and to
impairment since receiving his DUI ticket in 2004. He continues to drink in moderation. His overall
history indicates that he has consumed alcohol, primarily beer, in moderation for many years. The
diagnosis of alcohol dependence does not reflect an understanding of Applicant’s alcohol use, his
lifestyle, work history, or medical history. Because he works with lead on a daily basis, his employer
requires him to submit to a regular physical examination for lead poisoning. These examinations
include blood and urine tests. The record contains no evidence which indicates that these tests results
showed a problem with alcohol consumption. Because his employer has strict rules concerning the
consumption of alcohol at work and arriving at work intoxicated, I infer that these tests over the last
36 years showed no alcohol problems. Had a problem been demonstrated, Applicant’s employer
would have proceeded with disciplinary action against him under its rules and in accordance with
the terms of the union contract. I have weighed all the evidence of record and concluded that the
Applicant has mitigated any concerns about his alcohol consumption under Guideline G, Mitigating
Condition (MC) §23 (a) and the whole person.28
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:
SOR ¶ 1-Guideline G : FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-e: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is granted.
9
Mary E. Henry
Administrative Judge