DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 06-01495 
 SSN: ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Julie R. Edmunds, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on September 
14, 1999. (Item 4)  In September 2003, his employer filed an adverse information report 
based on arrests for driving while intoxicated. (Item 5)  On September 21, 2007, the 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 
for Applicant detailing security concerns for alcohol consumption and personal conduct 
under Guidelines G and E. (Item 1)  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 answered the SOR in writing on October 23. 2007. (Item 3)  Applicant 
admitted all factual allegations, and elected to have the matter decided on the written 
record in lieu of a hearing.  Department counsel submitted the Government’s written 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
case on December 12, 2007.  Applicant received a complete file of relevant material 
(FORM) on January 7, 2008, and was provided the opportunity to file objections, and 
submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions.  Applicant 
did not submit additional information.  The case was assigned to me on April 7, 2008.  
Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant admitted all factual allegations under both guidelines G and E.  The 
allegation under Guideline E pertains to Applicant’s consumption of alcohol at work.  
Paragraph 16 of the new adjudicative guidelines sets out the security concerns for 
Personal Conduct.  Under & 16(c), a disqualifying condition may arise where there is 
Acredible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for 
an adverse determination under any other single guideline . . . .@  Paragraph 16(d) 
applies where there is credible adverse information Athat is not sufficient to support 
action under another guideline . . . .@  In this case, the information is sufficient to raise a 
security concern for alcohol consumption under guideline G and is fully supported under 
guideline G.  The new adjudicative guidelines make allegations of personal conduct 
based solely on alcohol consumption, improper for security consideration.  Since none 
of the information raises separate security concerns under personal conduct, that 
security concern need not be discussed further in this decision.  Accordingly, the 
allegation and security concern under guideline E will not be further discussed in this 
decision. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is 52 years old and employed as a woodwright for a defense contractor 
for over 8 years.  He is divorced but has two children from his marriage. 
 
Applicant admitted that he was arrested for underage drinking and driving while 
intoxicated in 1975.  He admitted he was arrested in 1994 for driving while intoxicated, 
driving with a blood alcohol level above .10, and failure to provide proof of insurance.  
He pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, and the other charges were dismissed.  He 
was sentenced to 12 months unsupervised probation, a fine of $444.50, to attend 
alcohol counseling, and to speak at Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) events. 
(Item 8)  Applicant admitted he was arrested and found guilty of driving under the 
influence of alcohol in November 2002.  He was sentenced to a fine of $475, 
unsupervised probation, to attend alcohol evaluation, education, and treatment, 10 days 
in jail, and to speak at MADD Victim Impact Panels.  He admitted he was arrested for 
driving under the influence of alcohol and other traffic offenses in September 2003.  He 
pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and was fined $475, sentenced to 
serve 15 days in jail, 12 months unsupervised probation, to attend alcohol evaluation, 
education, and treatment, and to speak at MADD Victim Impact Panels. (Item 7) 
 
 
3 
 
 
Applicant admits he has consumed alcohol, usually beer, his entire adult life, at 
times to excess.  His present consumption of alcohol is at least two beers a day, usually 
at home or on his way home.  He admitted in an August 2004 statement, that for the 
eight days before the statement he consumed about 25 beers.  He admits that in 2002, 
his daily consumption of beer was about ten a day.  Alcohol use was an issue causing 
his divorce.  His children have commented to him about his drinking and urged him to 
stop.  He has not attempted to stop drinking alcohol and still admits to drinking alcohol 
daily, but he has moderated his consumption of alcohol. (Item 7)  He has been 
diagnosed by a licensed clinical social worker as alcohol dependent and a problem 
drinker. (Item 9) 
 
Applicant admits that in 1994, he left his position with another company after he 
fell asleep on the job.  The company claimed he was drinking alcohol on the job.  
Applicant stated he ate some bad turkey which caused him to fall asleep. (Item 7 at 4-5) 
 
Applicant states he drinks alcohol to relax after a hard day of work.  He is never 
violent and his alcohol consumption has not resulted in financial hardship.  He makes 
enough money to pay his debts and his taxes.  He has not attempted to stop drinking 
but has cut back for fear of going to jail. (Item 7 at 4) 
 
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 
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 
 
4 
 
 
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. 
 
Analysis 
 
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)   
 
Applicant’s arrests for minor in possession of alcohol, and driving while 
intoxicated, as well as drinking alcohol to excess, consuming over ten beers per day, 
and his family’s concerns about his alcohol consumption raise Alcohol Consumption 
Disqualifying Conditions (AC DC) ¶ 22(a) (alcohol-related incidents away from work, 
such as driving under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the 
peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed 
as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent), and AC DC ¶ 22(c) (habitual or binge 
consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the 
individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent).  The driving while 
intoxicated incidents are alcohol-related incidents away from work.  His consumption of 
more than ten beers a day and his family’s concerns are indications of binge or habitual 
consumption of alcohol.  Applicant leaving his employment by mutual agreement 
because he fell asleep on the job and the employer’s allegation he was drinking on the 
job raises AC DC ¶ 22(c) (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 dependent).  The 
diagnoses of alcohol dependence and problem drinking by a licensed clinical social 
worker raises (AC 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). 
 
 Security concerns for excess alcohol consumption can be mitigated by 
consideration of Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions (AC MC) ¶ 23(a) (so much 
 
5 
 
 
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).  Applicant’s most 
recent driving under the influence of alcohol incident was in 2003.  He was diagnosed 
as alcohol dependent and a problem drinker in 2004.  He admits to the continued daily 
consumption of alcohol.  He has a history of alcohol abuse.  His last alcohol-related 
incident was in 2003.  There are at least five alcohol-related incidents which show that 
his alcohol related behavior is not infrequent.  Because of his continued consumption of 
alcohol and no indications of any attempts to stop consumption, the alcohol-related 
incidents are likely to occur.   
 
Applicant does not acknowledge he has alcohol-related problems even though 
the issue was raised by his family.  He has taken no action to overcome his alcohol 
problems but merely states that he cut down his consumption.  He still continues to 
consume at least two beers a day.  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) does not apply.   
 
Applicant has not participated in or sought alcohol counseling, even though he 
participated in some alcohol education programs after two of his driving while 
intoxicated convictions.  He has not received a favorable prognosis concerning his 
alcohol consumption.  He has not participated in any alcohol rehabilitation or treatment 
programs.  AC DC 22(c) (the individual is a current employee who is participating in a 
counseling or treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse, and 
is making satisfactory progress), and AC DC 22(d) (the individual has successfully 
completed inpatient or outpatient counseling or rehabilitation along with any required 
aftercare, has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or 
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, such as participation in 
meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar organization and has received a 
favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional or a licensed clinical social 
worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program) do not apply.  
I find that Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for alcohol consumption. 
 
“Whole Person” Analysis  
 
 Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
the circumstances. An 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 
 
6 
 
 
ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall 
common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the 
whole person concept.  
 
 I have considered all of the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating 
Applicant’s security worthiness.  I considered that Applicant had alcohol-related 
incidents for many years and continues to drink alcohol.  He has not participated in any 
alcohol counseling, even though he did participate in some alcohol education programs 
after two of his driving while intoxicated events.  He has not admitted he has an alcohol 
problem even though his family has concerns about his alcohol consumption.  Applicant 
has not presented sufficient information to show that his consumption of alcohol is not a 
security concern.  I conclude he is not 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:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a. to 1.k:   Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   DISMISSED 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a.:    Dismissed 
 
DECISION 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national security to grant a security clearance for Applicant.  
Clearance is denied. 
 
 
 
__________________ 
Thomas M. Crean 
Administrative Judge