1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 07-07931
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                            
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on April 11,
2006. On September 24, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns for Applicant
under Guidelines H, E and F. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised
adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and
effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 1, 2007. He answered
the SOR in an undated written response, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge. DOHA received the request in October 2007. Department
Counsel was prepared to proceed on October 30, 2007. This case was initially assigned
to another judge, but was reassigned to me on December 10, 2007. DOHA issued a
notice of hearing on January 22, 2008, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on
GE 1 (Applicant’s Security Clearance Application, dated April 11, 2006) at 6, 12-13, 38.1
2
February 13, 2008. The government offered Exhibits (GE) 1 through 4, which were
received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits
(AE) A through D, without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.)
on February 22, 2008. I held the record open until February 25, 2008, for the
submission of additional matters.  On February 18, 2008, Applicant submitted AE E,
which was admitted without objection. The record closed on February 25, 2008. Based
upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is granted.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Notice
At the hearing, Applicant indicated he was not sure when he received the hearing
notice. (Tr. at 8.) File correspondence indicates he received the hearing notice on
January 31, 2008, less than 15 days before the hearing. I advised Applicant of his right
under ¶ E3.1.8 of the Directive to receive notice of the hearing 15 days before the
scheduled date. Applicant affirmatively waived his right to 15 days notice. (Tr. at 8-9) 
Motion to Amend SOR
During the hearing and in light of Applicant’s testimony, Department Counsel
moved to amend sentence two of allegation 2.a of the SOR to correctly reflect
Applicant’s sentence by the court for his driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI)
conviction. Applicant agreed to the amendment, which I granted. (Tr. at 36-37)
At the close of the testimony, Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR by
adding either a new allegation under Guideline E regarding Applicant’s alcohol
consumption or a Guideline G allegation regarding alcohol consumption. Applicant
opposed the motion. After discussion, the government withdrew its request to add a
Guideline G allegation because of due process issues. I denied the government’s
request to amend Guideline E, indicating that Applicant’s drinking patterns would be
considered in the whole person analysis of my decision. (Tr. at 63-69)
Findings of Fact
In his undated Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations
in the SOR, with explanations, except the factual allegation in ¶ 3.a of the SOR.
Applicant is 46 years old. He works as an aircraft helper for a Department of
Defense contractor, a position he has held since January 2006. He completed his
security clearance application (SF-86) in April 2006.1
Tr. at 21.2
Id. at 38-39, 58; GE 4.3
Tr. at 26, 37, 42-43, 49-57; GE 2 (Interrogatory answers) at 4. The last time he became intoxicated was in4
August 2007. Id .
GE 1, supra note 1, at 36; GE 2, supra note 4, at 3; Tr. at 24-25, 27, 43-45, 48-51.5
Tr. at 27, 29-30.6
3
Applicant and his wife divorced in 1990. The court awarded him physical custody
of his young sons, whom he raised. His oldest son is 22 and lives independently. His
younger son is 20 and lives with him. His younger son works and provides financial
support to the household. A friend of his younger son also lives in the household and
provides financial support.2
In 1989, during his divorce process, Applicant filed for bankruptcy under Chapter
7 of the Bankruptcy Code. He did so because of credit card debt. The court discharged
his debts.3
Following his divorce, he started drinking more than he thought he should drink
without elaborating on the quantity or frequency of his drinking at this time. He decided
he needed to address his drinking and began attending alcoholics anonymous (AA). He
attended AA for a year. Later in the 1990s, he again attended AA for several years.
When participating in AA, he did not drink, as it is a requirement of AA. He attended AA
again in 2004 and 2005. He likes the program. He denies that he is an alcoholic. He has
never been in an alcohol treatment program and has never been diagnosed with alcohol
abuse or alcohol dependence. He continues to drink at home on the weekends and
occasionally to intoxication. He usually drinks 4 to 6 beers. He does not drink any hard
liquor.4
In 1999 at age 37, Applicant began smoking marijuana to relax. He smoked
marijuana a couple of times a week, sometimes at home with friends and associates.
He never smoked marijuana in the presence of his sons. He purchased marijuana about
twice a month. He quit smoking marijuana in April 2003. He decided to stop smoking
marijuana after losing three jobs because of his marijuana use and because he was
going nowhere. Following this decision, he started attending narcotics anonymous (NA).
He participated in this program for a year. He has not smoked marijuana since April
2003. He did not drink during this time.5
In 1999, Applicant worked at a refinery, a job he had held since 1986. While
working with asphalt, he sustained an injury when a hose he was using to pump asphalt
into a truck split in his hand and sprayed asphalt on his face. When he sought medical
treatment for this injury, the physician performed a drug screen, in accordance with
company policy. The test revealed his marijuana use. The refinery fired him.6
Id. at 28-31.7
Id. at 31.8
The court ordered program is not an alcohol treatment program, but an alcohol education program. GE 2,9
supra note 4, at 23.
Id. at 34-36, 55, 57; GE 3 (Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal records) at 2.10
Tr. at 38, 45.11
4
From 1999 until September 2001, he worked in a manufacturing plant. He
sustained another on-the-job injury when he fell off of scaffolding and injured his arm.
The company sent him to a physician, who conducted a urinalysis test. This test
indicated his marijuana use and the company fired him. He then worked for a furniture
company in the warehouse and later as a driver. While delivering furniture in a home, he
ran into a glass door, cutting himself. Again, his employer’s physician conducted routine
tests, which showed his marijuana use. The company fired him from this job in March
2003. At this point, he decided to change his life. These companies did not routinely test
for drugs.7
Applicant enrolled in a truck driving school and obtained his trucker’s license. He
drove a truck over the road for a year. He voluntarily left this job as he did not like being
away from home 26 days out of 30 days each month.8
In November 2004, he and his cousin drove to a country western bar. During the
course of the evening, they danced and drank. He acknowledges he drank to excess
that evening. He has little memory of what happened after he left the bar. From reading
the police report, he understands that when he was driving home, he lost control of his
car and hit a parked car, got out of his car, walked a very short distance, and collapsed
on the side of the road. He woke up in jail. The police charged him with DUI, his first, hit
and run and property damage. He pled guilty to DUI. The court sentenced him to 10
days in jail and alcohol school,  directed he participate in a victim impact panel, and9
fined him $1,690. He served his jail time over five weekends on work release. As a first
offender, he attended the required alcohol program for the mandatory three months. He
also complied with the other requirements of his sentence. Since this incident, he has
not driven after drinking. He acknowledged drinking and driving on other occasions
before the accident. He uses alcohol more responsibly now.10
In 2005, Applicant decided to relocate his home from State A to State B, many
miles away, to be nearer his brother. He worked for a temporary agency until he started
his present position. After work and on weekends, he spends time with his brother,
working on cars and helping his brother remodel his house, or at home.11
Although he obtained jobs after being fired from his job at the refinery, these jobs
paid significantly lower wages than his job at the refinery. Over time, he got behind in
his bills. In 2006, he filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code. He
Id. at 39-40, GE 2, supra, at 7-9, 10-21; AE D (copies of bankruptcy payments).12
AE E (Earnings statements since December 7, 2007).13
AE A (Letter, dated January 31, 2008); AE B (Undated letter); AE C (Undated letter).14
5
developed a monthly payment plan to pay his $10,000 of debt with the bankruptcy
trustee. He began making monthly payments of $300 in November 2006. He has made
each monthly payment since this date. His payments will end in November 2009.12
Applicant currently earns approximately $3,130 a month in gross pay and $2,254
a month in net pay. His monthly expenses total approximately $1,600, including his
payment to the bankruptcy trustee. His son and son’s friend contribute to the rent and
utilities in the house.13
Applicant no longer associates with the friends he had when he lived in State A.
His new friends are not interested in drugs or drinking nights. He lives quietly. His
supervisor and co-worker describe him as an ethical man, dependable, hardworking, a
high contributor to the company’s mission, and a valuable asset. His brother states that
he has turned his life around.14
Applicant testified credibly at the hearing to the above facts. He revealed all his
negative information in his SF-86. He has made no attempt to hide the negative factors
in his life.
Policies
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on
6
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to drug involvement:
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions
about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may
impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person's ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and
include:
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and
listed in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g.,
marijuana or cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and
hallucinogens), and
(2) inhalants and other similar substances;
7
(b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.
In addition, under Guideline H, AG ¶ 25 the following disqualifying conditions
may raise a security concern in this case:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); 
(b) testing positive for illegal drug use;
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;
Applicant started smoking marijuana, an illegal substance, on a regular basis in
1999. He purchased some of the marijuana he smoked. Following routine medical
testing, he lost three jobs because of his marijuana use. The above disqualifying
conditions have been raised.
Under AG ¶ 26, the following conditions may mitigate security concerns:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt
on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; 
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and,
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation.
After he lost his third job in March 2003 because of his marijuana use, he took a
hard look at his life and his conduct. He decided to cease smoking marijuana in April
2003. He sought the assistance of NA to keep this decision. Although he stopped
attending NA after one year, he continues to abide by his decision five years ago not to
smoke marijuana. Three years ago, he moved to a new location many miles from his
former friends. His new friends and his brother are not drug users. Applicant has
mitigated the government’s concerns about his drug use because it has been nearly five
years since he last smoked marijuana, and as a result of moving, he no longer has
contact with his former drug-using associates and now lives in an environment which he
keeps drug free. I conclude AG ¶ 26 (a) applies. AG ¶ 26 (b) partially applies as all
conditions are met except for AG ¶ 26 (b)(4).
Arguably, AG ¶ 16 (d)(3) does not apply to the DUI offense in SOR ¶ 2.a because the alcohol related driving15
offense could have been alleged under Guideline G or Guideline J.
8
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 sets forth the security concern under Guideline E, Personal Conduct as: 
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.” 
In addition, under Guideline E, AG ¶ 16 the following disqualifying conditions
may raise a security concern in this case:
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of: . . .(3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule
violations; . . .
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct,
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's
personal, professional, or community standing.
The government alleges that a security concern has arisen because of
Applicant’s DUI charges in 2004, his first offense.  In November 2004, Applicant15
decided to drive home after an evening of heavy drinking with his cousin, a decision
which reflects poor judgment and violates state driving laws. His decision resulted in an
accident, but no injuries. He also admitted that he drove after drinking on other
occasions prior to November 2004. This conduct constitutes a pattern of rule violations
and credible adverse information which may result in a negative whole-person
assessment. Thus, this disqualifying condition is applies.
The government also alleges that Applicant’s past marijuana use constitutes a
pattern of rule violations under AG ¶ 16 (d)(3). This disqualifying condition concerns
credible adverse information not explicitly covered under any other guideline. The
government specifically and properly raised Applicant’s past marijuana use under
Guideline H. Thus, to raise it again under Guideline E gives the appearance that should
9
the Applicant establish the existence of mitigating conditions under Guideline H, the
government wants a second chance to deny an Applicant’s security clearance for the
same conduct.
AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following
mitigating conditions may apply:
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; and
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
 Applicant’s DUI is not a minor offense, particularly since he hit a parked car after
losing consciousness either because he fell asleep, passed out or blacked out while at
the wheel of his car. Thus, the first clause of AG ¶ 17 (c) is not raised. Applicant readily
admitted to his DUI in his SF-86 and at his criminal trial, when he pled guilty to DUI.
Subsequent to his arrest, he started attending AA meetings, which are not formal
counseling programs, but are a means to attain support for behavior changes and
modify alcohol usage. He attended AA for about one year. Since his accident, he
obtained steady work and a good paying job in a new town. He has taken control of his
finances and abstained from driving a car after drinking. He has new friends who are not
interested in drinking at bars then driving. He limits his drinking to the weekends, and
his alcoholic consumption to four to six beers over a weekend.  His actions reflect the
positive steps he has taken to reduce or eliminate his vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation or duress. His current alcohol consumption does not cast doubt on his
reliability and trustworthiness now and in the future. Likewise, since he no longer uses
marijuana, any security concerns about his past drug use have been mitiagted by the
passage of time. Mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 17 (c), 17 (d) and 17 (e) listed above
apply.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
Failure or inability to live within one=s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
10
questions about an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. During his marriage, Applicant accumulated unpaid credit card debt,
which caused him to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He started accumulating new unpaid
debt after he lost his jobs in 1999, 2001, and 2003. The evidence of delinquent debt is
sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer
examination of Applicant’s financial circumstances.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or
occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt
on the individual=s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.@ Applicant=s
1989 Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge occurred more than 18 years ago. By itself, this
event raises little concern about Applicant’s judgment, reliability or trustworthiness
today. Because the bankruptcy cannot be considered in isolation, and noting that since
his 1989 bankruptcy does not raise concerns about his current reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment, this mitigating condition has some applicability, but
does not fully apply. 
Under AG & 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe conditions that resulted in the
financial problem were largely beyond the person=s control (e.g., loss of employment, a
business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation),
and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.@ Applicant’s financial
problems arose from his loss of a well-paying job at the refinery, which resulted in his
obtaining lower paying positions. However, as he lost this job and two other jobs
because of his marijuana use, these job losses are not a result of factors beyond his
control, but because of his own conduct. This mitigating condition does not apply.
Mitigating conditions AG & 20(c) Athe person has received or is receiving
counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control@, and AG & 20(d) Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debt” apply. Although Applicant did not
seek financial counseling, his financial problems are being resolved and his finances are
under control. About two years ago, Applicant recognized that he needed to gain control
over his finances, particularly his unpaid debt. He decided to file for bankruptcy
protection under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code. With the assistance of the
bankruptcy trustee, he developed a workable repayment plan for his debts. He began
paying $300 a month in November 2006. He has made his required monthly payments
consistently for the last 16 months. He pays his other monthly expenses and lives within
11
his financial means. He is now financially sound. I conclude this potentially mitigating
condition applies. The remaining mitigating conditions are not relevant in this case.
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): “(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) 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 recurrence.”
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole person concept.       
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant decided to use marijuana
to release his stress.  This decision caused him more stress, because he lost three jobs
because of his marijuana use. Following the loss of his third job, he took a hard look at
his marijuana use and its impact on his life. He realized that his marijuana use was not
helping him, but taking his life in a direction he did not want to go. He made a decision
to give up smoking marijuana five years ago. He continues to abide by this decision. His
1989 bankruptcy is unrelated to his more recent financial problems. For at least 10
years, he managed his finances. After losing his job at the refinery, he obtained other
work at a significantly lower salary. His financial problems began to develop and
continued because of job loss and his marijuana use. Once he found a better paying
job, he took control of his finances by filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection. He is
paying his old debts and his current bills. 
Applicant first sought AA assistance shortly after his divorce in 1990, a traumatic
event, because he recognized he was drinking too much. Through his one-year
participation in AA, he received emotional support in managing his life and his use of
alcohol. As the stresses of working and raising children as a single parent increased, he
again sought the emotional assistance AA offered to help him with his use of alcohol
and his personal issues. By 1999, he had stopped drinking to relieve stress. He,
however, started smoking marijuana as a stress reliever. He eventually realized that this
decision was a poor decision and stopped his marijuana use. 
In 2003, Applicant understood he needed to make changes in his life style as he
was “going no where”. He stopped his drug use totally, initially with the help of NA and
later on his own. He, however, continued to drink alcohol at times. His DUI charges in
2004, his first and only alcohol-related incident, acted as a wake up call about his
In a number of recent cases, the Appeal Board has reversed decisions of administrative judges granting16
security clearances to Applicant’s who continue to use alcohol. In ISCR Case No. 06-17541 (App. Bd. Jan.
14, 2008) the Applicant had three alcohol related incidents in a relatively short period of time and failed to keep
his promise to abstain from drinking. In ISCR Case No. 06-08708 (App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2007), Applicant had
three alcohol-related incidents, had relapsed after completing an alcohol treatment program, and had been
diagnosed as alcohol dependent. In ISCR Case No.  06-12901 (App. Bd. Jul. 31, 2007),  the Applicant had
several significant alcohol related incidents, had been diagnosed as an alcohol abuser, had relapsed after his
treatment and diagnosis, had his driver’s license suspended for driving after consuming alcohol, and had
attended at least two substance abuse treatment programs. In ISCR Case No. 04-10799 (App. Bd. Nov. 9,
2007), the Appeal Board found the evidence insufficient to establish a “tangible track record” of responsible
use of alcohol following three DUI convictions and participation in two alcohol-related treatment programs.
These cases are distinguishable from this case in that each case involves several alcohol-related incidents,
not one, diagnoses of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependent, and relapse after treatment.  
12
drinking. Shortly after this incident, he moved to a new location and changed his
behavior. He limits his drinking to weekends and he restricts the amount of alcohol he
consumes. He took control of his finances and complies with his bankruptcy repayment
plan. He no longer associates with drug users.
In his divorce, the court found him a fit parent and awarded him custody of his
two sons. He raised his sons alone. Both are grown and working. There is no evidence
that either son has problems functioning in society. These factors are a positive
reflection of how he raised his sons. His supervisor praises him as an employee, finding
him reliable, energetic and hardworking. While he has participated in AA off and on over
the years, no medical professional has ever diagnosed him as alcohol dependent or as
an alcohol abuser. Although he continues to drink alcohol, he does so in a responsible
manner by limiting both the quantity of his consumption and the times he drinks. His
decision to not drink and drive reflects a responsible attitude. His current alcohol use is
not an automatic prohibition against him holding a security clearance. Because no
professional has ever diagnosed him as alcohol dependent or as an alcohol abuser, and
since I am not a licensed medical professional, I cannot make a finding that he is an
alcoholic based on his voluntary participation in AA. I, however, find that his attendance
at AA is evidence that he felt he needed help, at times, with his use of alcohol. 
For many years, Applicant appears to have used either alcohol of marijuana as a
stress reducer. Five years ago, he recognized that his marijuana use was creating more
problems and stress, not reducing his stress levels, so he quit. His only DUI triggered
additional recognition that he needed to change his alcohol consumption patterns and
he did. To assist himself in these decisions, he changed his social environment by
moving to another state, developing new friends who are not interested in drugs or
constant drinking, and being closer to family who can provide a support system. He
likes his job and does very well at work. His only alcohol-related offense occurred more
than three years ago. Since this incident, he consumes alcohol in a responsible manner
by drinking only on the weekends, by limiting the quantity of his use and by not driving if
he has been drinking.16
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
13
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
considerations, drug involvement and personal conduct. 
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 H: 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 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
_________________
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge