DATE:  December 11, 2007
In Re:
------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-01537
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
THOMAS M. CREAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Robert E. Coacher, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a quality engineer for a defense contractor.  In 2001, he was charged with and
pled guilty to two separate offenses of being a minor in possession of alcohol.  In 2004, he had two
separate offenses of having an open container of alcohol, and also had an offense of operating a
vehicle while intoxicated.  There have been no other alcohol-related instances since 2004.  He did
not deliberately omit the minor in possession offenses and the operating a vehicle while intoxicated
offense on his security clearance application.  Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 11, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of
Item 4.1
Item 5.2
Item 6.3
2
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) promulgated 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 17, 2007.  The SOR alleges security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol
Consumption), and Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) of the Directive.
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on July 19, 2007.  He admitted all allegations under
both Guidelines E and G, and provided some explanation for his actions.  He elected to have the
matter decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on October 11, 2007.
Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on October 17, 2007, and was
provided the opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
disqualifying conditions.  He provided additional information in a letter dated November 14, 2007,
received at DOHA on November 20, 2007.  On November 20, 2007, Department Counsel noted no
objection to consideration of the additional material.  The case was assigned to me on November 28,
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 24-year-old quality engineer for a defense contractor. He is single.  He started
college in 2001, receiving a bachelor degree in engineering technology in 2005.  As part of his
employment with the defense contractor, Applicant submitted a security clearance application on
September 28, 2006.1
Applicant admits that in March and November 2001, when he was 18 years old, he was
charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol.  He pled guilty both times and was fined $155
on each of the offenses.  In March and April 2004, when he was  21 years old, he was charged with
having an open container of alcohol in a car.  He pled guilty both times and was fined $147 for each
of the offenses.   In December 2004, Applicant was drinking beer with friends before driving back2
to college.  He did not believe he was intoxicated.  He fell asleep while driving and ran into a ditch.
He failed a field sobriety test and his blood alcohol level was .11.  He was charged with Operating
a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI).  He pled guilty, and was fined $30, received a one year deferred
jail sentence, and ordered to attend an alcohol awareness class.   He completed his period of3
Response to FORM, dated October 26, 2007.4
Item 4.5
Item 5.6
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).7
Directive ¶ E2.2.1.8
3
probation, and the conviction was expunged from his records.   There are no reported alcohol-related4
incidents since December 2004.
Applicant completed his security clearance application on September 28, 2006.  In response
to question 23d asking if he had ever been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to
alcohol or drugs, Applicant responded “yes” listing the two open container offenses.  He did not list
the minor in possession of alcohol offenses or the OWI offense.   Applicant stated he did not list the5
OWI offense because he completed the sentence, thought the offense had been expunged from his
record, and therefore did not need to be reported.  He now believes he should have listed the offense.
He did not intend to deliberately conceal the offense.  He also stated that his failure to list the two
minor in possession charges was an oversight.  Again, he did not intent to deliberately conceal these
arrests.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
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 or
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
AG ¶ 21.17
4
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.
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 being a minor in possession of alcohol, for possession of an17
open container of alcohol, and for OWI raise Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions (AC DC)
5
¶ 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).  The two alcohol-related incidents in 2001
and the three in 2004 are all incidents away from work.  Applicant was a minor when he was twice
arrested for possession of alcohol, and a college student in his early 20s when twice arrested for having
an open container of alcohol, and when arrested for OWI.  The two incidents in 2001 are not
considered an indication of habitual or binge drinking.  However, three alcohol-related incidents in
2004, to include OWI, can be an indication of binge or habitual consumption of alcohol.
Security concerns for excess alcohol consumption can be mitigated by consideration of 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 this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol
dependent) or responsible use (of an alcohol abuser).  Applicant’s alcohol incidents took place when
he was either a minor or a young college student.  He has matured, completed college, and earned a
degree.  There have been no alcohol-related incidents since 2004.  The security concern is for excess
alcohol consumption that leads to questionable judgment resulting in concerns for reliability and
trustworthiness.  The open container, minor in possession charges, and one OWI do not indicate
excessive alcohol consumption.  It is not unusual for a minor to experiment with alcohol consumption
or have alcohol in a car, or even drive after drinking.  These offenses do not indicate that the individual
is an excessive consumer of alcohol.  These offenses happened when Applicant was young and
immature. The absence of any alcohol-related incidents for over three years while Applicant attended
college and matured compared with offenses that happened when he was younger shows he presently
does not consume alcohol to excess.  His current consumption does not cast doubt on his current
reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment.  The absence of alcohol-related incidents for over three
years shows responsible use of alcohol, if not abstinence, and indicates Applicant has overcome his
youthful issues with alcohol.  I find Applicant mitigated security concerns for alcohol consumption.
Applicant’s failure to list his two open container offenses and the OWI offense in response to
question 23(d) on his security clearance application raises Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition
(PC DC) ¶ 16(a) (the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts
from the personal security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct
investigations . . . determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness).  Personal conduct is
always a security concern because it asks the central question does the person’s past conduct justify
confidence the person can be trusted to properly safeguard classified information.  The security
clearance system depends on an individual providing correct and accurate information.  If a person
conceals or provides false information, the security clearance process cannot function properly to
ensure that granting access to classified information is in the best interest of the United States
Government.  Every inaccurate or incomplete answer on a security clearance application is a security
concern falsification or omission.  The falsification or omission must be deliberate and material.  It
is deliberate if done knowingly and willfully.  A deliberate omission or false statement on a security
10 U.S. C. § 1001.18
6
clearance application is a criminal offense under federal law.18
Applicant’s failure to list the minor in possession offenses was an oversight.  He did not
believe he had to list the OWI offense because he competed the probation period and the offense was
expunged from his record.  These explanations are reasonable and conceivable.  Since Applicant is in
his early 20s and submitting his first security clearance application, he reasonably could believe that
he did not have to list offenses expunged from his record.  Likewise, he could reasonably not
remember the minor in possession offenses because they were committed in his youth.  Applicant has
presented sufficient information to show his failure to list the offenses was not deliberate.
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 his self-evaluation of his use of alcohol.
The absence of alcohol-related issues for over three years considered in conjunction with the
circumstances of alcohol-related issues as a minor and college student shows that any present
consumption of alcohol is not excessive and does not create a security concern.  I conclude he 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
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
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a.: 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.
7
Thomas M. Crean
Administrative Judge