1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 07-09724 
 SSN: ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Susan G. Chappell, Esq. 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOGAN, Erin C., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP), on April 27, 2006. On November 29, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns 
under Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, for Applicant. 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.  
  
 On December 18, 2007, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on February 
21, 2008. The case was assigned to another administrative judge on February 25, 2008. 
The case was transferred to me on February 26, 2008. On March 13, 2008, a Notice of 
Hearing was issued scheduling the hearing for April 15, 2008. The hearing was held, as 
scheduled. The Government offered three exhibits which were admitted as Government 
Exhibits (Gov) 1-3 without objection. The Applicant offered three exhibits which were 
 
2 
 
 
admitted as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A - C.  Applicant and four witnesses testified. The 
transcript was received on April 23, 2008. The record closed on that date. Based upon a 
review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to 
classified information is granted. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admits to all of the allegations.  
 
Applicant is a 59-year-old employee with a Department of Defense contractor 
seeking a security clearance.  He is a senior engineer and has worked for his current 
employer since April 2006. He retired from federal employment on March 31, 2006 after 
31 years of service. He has held a security clearance for over 32 years. He served on 
active duty in the United States Army from August 1969 to August 1971. He received an 
honorable discharge. He has been married for 31 years and has a son, age 28. (Tr at 
48, 59, 81, 105, 116; Gov 1; Gov 2 at 14-16.)   
 
In 1999, Applicant’s son was arrested and charged with murdering a female 
teenage friend. He pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.  
Applicant and his wife have endured a lot of emotional pain as a result of their son’s 
actions and subsequent imprisonment. Applicant started to drink wine in the evenings in 
order to numb his feelings.  When he was drinking he became emotionally distant from 
his wife. At his heaviest intake, he drank up to two bottles of wine per night. His drinking 
did not affect his work performance. He still showed up for work and received favorable 
evaluations. (Tr at 86-88; Gov 2 at 8; AE B; Answer to SOR.) His co-workers did not 
notice that he had a drinking problem. (AE B, Federal Co-worker Interviews.) He has no 
recent arrests for driving under the influence. He was arrested on one occasion for 
driving under the influence in May 1973. (Gov 1, section 23; Gov 2 at 8.)  
 
Applicant’s wife was concerned about his drinking and realized her husband was 
starting to have a problem with alcohol.  She said her husband used alcohol to “deaden 
the pain” after their son went to prison.  His drinking cut him off from her. He drank on a 
daily basis when he got home after work.  The couple sought professional help to cope 
with their son’s situation.  She asked her husband to quit drinking after she realized he 
was drinking too much after seeing the therapist. She thought his drinking was making 
him more depressed. (Tr at 86-92.) 
 
Applicant initially denied that he had a drinking problem. Applicant’s wife 
eventually told him to stop drinking or move out of the house. He chose to move out. He 
rented an apartment.  He talked to his wife daily and saw her a couple times a week. A 
few months after he moved out, Applicant called his wife and asked her to take him to 
the doctor and to arrange to attend an inpatient alcohol treatment program. She 
arranged for him to attend an inpatient treatment program in March 2005. (Tr at 91, 93, 
94; AE B at 68-70.) 
 
 
3 
 
 
Prior to departing for the inpatient alcohol treatment program, Applicant talked to 
his supervisors and told them he had an alcohol problem.  His supervisors were very 
supportive.  He took leave to attend the inpatient treatment program from March 1, 2005         
to March 20, 2005. (Tr at 123; AE B at 48, 68-70; Answer to SOR.)   
 
When Applicant began treatment, he spent three to four days in the detoxification 
unit. During this time he did not feel well but had no major physical issues. After 
completing detox, he underwent two and a half weeks of intensive inpatient treatment. 
He learned about the disease of alcoholism while in treatment.  He went home after he 
successfully completed the program. He joined an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) group as 
part of his aftercare, obtained a sponsor and remained sober. After four months of 
sobriety, his wife invited him to move back home. (Tr at 93-96; 122-125.) He celebrated 
one year of sobriety in February 2006. (Tr at 126.) 
 
After he retired from his federal government job and moved to the location of his 
current employment, he did not stay actively engaged in the AA program.  In July 2006, 
he decided to drink a beer at the airport after a flight was canceled. He started to think 
that he could drink socially. He called his wife and told her to pick him up at the airport 
because he drank a beer.  After that, he occasionally had a beer or a glass of wine with 
dinner.  His drinking started to escalate in the summer 2007. (Tr at 96-99; 126-128, 
131.) 
 
Sometime in August 2007, Applicant called in sick to work and told his supervisor 
that he was having problems with alcohol and that he needed some time off.  He drank 
a couple bottles of wine during the time he was off. (Tr at 136.) After this incident, 
Applicant started to make some changes. He joined a local substance abuse counseling 
group. He started to attend AA again and acquired a sponsor. He had two relapses in 
November 2007 and on January 23, 2008. Each of these episodes occurred over the 
course of an evening. The last time, he drank a full bottle of wine. (Tr at 31-32, 
100,103,132-133.) He disclosed his two relapses to his counselor and his psychologist. 
(Tr at 137-138.) 
 
In early February 2008, Applicant obtained a new sponsor. He has progressed 
with his new sponsor. He is more engaged and realizes in order to stay sober he has to 
stay engaged and work the program.  He attends an AA meeting daily and meets with 
his sponsor at least once a week.  He attends his other group meeting on a weekly 
basis.  The meetings last 90 minutes. (Tr at 133-134,137.)  Applicant admits he is a 
recovering alcoholic.  He works the program on a daily basis to keep himself healthy. 
(Tr at 117, 148.)   
 
Applicant’s wife states that she believes her husband is committed to sobriety. 
She said it was very meaningful to her that he changed sponsors because he thought 
his first sponsor was not working out.  It shows her that he is serious about managing 
his disease (alcoholism). He goes to AA meetings often and is enthusiastic about what 
he learns during the meetings. Since he has obtained a new sponsor, he has done 
some really great step work.  His prior relapses made her husband realize that he can’t 
 
4 
 
 
drink again.  When he drinks casually it escalates.  She believes this realization “gives 
him a huge leg up on the disease.” (Tr at 109-114.)   
 
Mr. M., BS, LADAC, Applicant’s substance abuse counselor, evaluated Applicant 
in September 2007. He concluded that Applicant meets the criteria for alcohol 
dependence. (Gov 2 at 12.) Mr. M. provided a subsequent letter, dated April 1, 2008, 
indicating Applicant has attended his continuing care program since September 2007. 
He attends weekly group sessions for 90 minutes. He is required to attend a minimum 
of three 12-Step meetings a week and maintain a sober support network.  His counselor 
notes that Applicant has been appropriate in regards to his recovery program and has 
made some recent changes in his program that appear to be beneficial.  If Applicant 
continues in a program of recovery, his relapse potential is low. If he discontinues his 
participation in a recovery program, the potential will increase. He notes that Applicant 
appears to be motivated towards his recovery. (AE A.)  
 
Dr. L., a clinical psychologist, started to see Applicant on a weekly basis on 
January 2, 2008. During their initial meeting, Applicant disclosed that he was a 
recovering alcoholic.  Applicant had an AA sponsor but was in the process of looking for 
another sponsor when he first came to see him.  He recalls Applicant telling him that the 
last time he had a drink was one month prior to their initial visit in January 2008. 
(Applicant testified it was November 2007. The government conceded November 2007 
was the more accurate date. Tr at 151.). Since he began seeing Dr. L., Applicant drank 
alcohol on one occasion in late January or early February 2008. Applicant reported this 
relapse to Dr. L.  The last time Dr. L. saw Applicant was on April 10, 2008. (Tr at 26-45.)   
 
Applicant’s diagnosis is Alcohol Dependence in early full remission. Early full 
remission means a person is abstinent from alcohol for at least one month but less than 
12 months.  Applicant has abstained from alcohol for two and a half months.  Dr. L. 
stated that Applicant’s prognosis is favorable as long as he is involved in treatment. 
When Applicant is not involved in treatment, he tends to be more isolated and has the 
greatest tendency to relapse. Dr. L. states Applicant attends a weekly group counseling 
session, attends AA meetings daily, and has regular contact with his sponsor. He is also 
on anti-depressants which contributes to his remission.  Dr L. states Applicant has no 
denial about his disease and is confronting his alcohol dependence.  He cannot predict 
the future or whether Applicant will relapse in the future. Relapse is not atypical and is 
treated as part of the treatment. Applicant’s prognosis is good as long as he involves 
himself in treatment. (Tr at 26-45.)  
 
Applicant’s supervisor is a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel who currently 
holds a TOP SECRET clearance.  He was involved in the hiring process. Applicant was 
recommended for the position. He sees Applicant on a daily basis when the both of 
them are in town.  He was not aware that Applicant had an alcohol problem until one 
day in the fall 2007 (Applicant states it was August 2007.), Applicant called in sick for a 
few days. Applicant contacted him and told him he had a problem drinking wine and 
needed some time off to deal with personal issues. His supervisor was aware of his 
son’s situation and understood that it was a stressful period for him.  He and Applicant 
 
5 
 
 
discussed the situation when Applicant returned to work. Applicant told him that he was 
attending AA. He took no disciplinary action against Applicant.  He has no concerns 
regarding Applicant handling classified information. He finds him open, honest, and 
trustworthy.  He gave Applicant a satisfactory rating on his most recent performance 
evaluation which closed out in October 2007. (Tr at 47-65.) 
 
Applicant’s facility security officer (FSO) has worked for the company since 2005. 
She has been in the security business for 19 years. She holds a TOP SECET 
clearance. In April 2006, she conducted initial prescreening interviews with Applicant 
when he submitted an application to upgrade his security clearance to TOP SECRET. 
During the interview, Applicant disclosed his alcohol problem and that he self-admitted 
himself into an inpatient alcohol program in 2005. He also disclosed that his son was in 
prison for murder.  She also spoke with Applicant in the Fall 2007, after he missed a few 
days related to his alcohol relapse.  After talking with him, she was not concerned about 
his absence. Applicant is forthright about his alcohol issue and is seeking treatment. (Tr 
at 67-72, 74-77.)  
  
The FSO indicated that Applicant serves as the COMSEC (communications 
security) custodian.  She works with him on a daily basis. He has a good understanding 
of the sensitivity of the material and how it is controlled. He is very aware of what is 
required to protect national security information.  She believes Applicant is trustworthy. 
She is aware of his two relapses in November 2007 and January 2008 but does not 
think he is a security risk. He continues to perform his job. He pays attention to detail.  
He is aggressively seeking to manage the disease. (Tr at 72-73, 76-79.)  
 
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 
 
6 
 
 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on 
the evidence contained in the record.  
 
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 G, Alcohol Consumption 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Alcohol Consumption is set out 
in AG & 21:       
 
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.  
 
The guideline notes several disqualifying conditions that could raise security 
concerns. I find the following Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions (AC DC) 
apply: 
 
AC DC &22(a) (alcohol-related incidents away from 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) does not apply. Applicant has no recent alcohol-related 
arrests. His one arrest for driving under the influence occurred more than 35 years ago 
in 1973. There are no recent alcohol-related incidents which raise a concern.   
 
7 
 
 
AC DC &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 person is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent) does not 
apply.  Applicant had no alcohol-related incidents in his previous or current job. He 
called in sick to work for a few days in August 2007 but this cannot be considered an 
alcohol-related incident at work. His co-workers at his previous job and his current job 
were not aware of his alcohol issues until he disclosed them.  
 
AC DC &22(c) (habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired 
judgment, regardless of whether the person is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or 
alcohol dependent) applies.  Applicant was drinking a couple bottles of wine a night 
when he was drinking heavily.  
 
AC DC &22(d) (diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., 
physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence) 
applies. Dr. L., Applicant’s clinical psychologist, diagnosed Applicant as alcohol 
dependent, in early remission.  
  
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) 
does not apply. Although Mr. M., Applicant’s counselor concluded that Applicant meets 
the criteria for alcohol dependence. The record is unclear as to Mr. M.’s credentials. He 
is a substance abuse counselor but it is unclear whether he is a licensed clinical social 
worker.   
 
AC DC &22(f) (relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence 
and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program) applies. Applicant completed 
inpatient alcohol treatment on March 20, 2005. He remained sober for over a year and a 
half but started drinking alcohol again when he retired and accepted another job in 
another city.   
  
AC DC &22(g) (failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, 
evaluation, treatment, or abstinence) is not applicable to Applicant’s case. 
 
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from alcohol consumption. 
 
Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition (AC MC) ¶ 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 and does not cast doubt on the individual=s 
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) is not applicable at this point. At 
the time of the hearing, Applicant had been sober for approximately two and a half 
months. Not enough time has passed for AC MC ¶ 23(a) to apply. However, it is noted 
that Applicant sought treatment on his own. Since returning to AA in August 2007, his 
two relapses were brief, each occurring during the course of one evening, and Applicant 
 
8 
 
 
fully disclosed his relapses to his alcohol treatment providers. There is no issue 
pertaining to his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  
 
 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 (if an 
alcohol abuser) applies.  Applicant acknowledges that he is a recovering alcoholic.  He 
has taken steps to deal with his alcoholism since March 2005. He was sober for a year 
and a half. Although, he started to drink alcohol because he thought he could do so 
socially, he came to the realization that he could not drink alcohol in August 2007 and 
began to attend AA meetings again.  He attends AA meetings daily. He attends a 
weekly group meeting with a substance abuse counselor, and is being treated by a 
clinical psychologist. He has been proactive in his alcohol treatment, recognizing the 
need to change his sponsor.  He has been sober since January 23, 2008.    
 
AC MC ¶23(c) (the individual is a current employee who is participating in a 
counseling or a treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse, 
and is making satisfactory progress) is not applicable because Applicant returned to 
drinking alcohol after his inpatient treatment in March 2005.  He is making satisfactory 
progress in his current program. 
 
FC MC &23(d) (the individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient 
counseling or rehabilitation along with 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) applies.  Although he has relapsed in the past, Applicant 
has demonstrated that he is proactive in his fight to remain sober.  He attends daily AA 
meetings, has a sponsor, and acknowledges his alcoholism.  Dr. L., a licensed clinical 
psychologist, gives him a favorable prognosis as long as he remains involved in 
treatment. Applicant is actively involved in treatment, as verified by his substance abuse 
counselor, and his wife. His wife has noticed a positive change in Applicant since 
August 2007. Although Dr. L.’s diagnosis states that Applicant is in early full remission 
from his alcohol dependence, Applicant has not tried to hide his disease including his 
two relapses.  He voluntarily sought treatment. He has established that he is serious 
about remaining abstinent.     
 
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 
 
9 
 
 
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 common sense 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. I considered the impact that 
Applicant’s son’s crime and incarceration had on him. I considered the favorable 
comments of Applicant’s co-workers and friends. I considered his 31 years of service as 
a federal government employee. I considered the comments from his clinical 
psychologist and substance abuse counselor who verify that he has actively worked the 
program since September 2007. Although he had two incidents of relapse in November 
2007 and January 2008, he did not hide these incidents which indicate his inclination to 
deal with his alcohol problem.  Applicant has been sober for two and a half months.  It is 
noted that he identified that he was having trouble with alcohol again in August 2007 
and took steps to achieve sobriety since that date. He has mitigated the concerns raised 
under alcohol consumption based on his honesty about his alcoholism and the steps he 
has taken to control his sobriety.  Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, is found for 
Applicant.   
 
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 
  
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. 
 
                                                
_________________ 
ERIN C. HOGAN 
Administrative Judge