KEYWORD: Guideline G
DIGEST: The Judge’s made unchallenged findings that Applicant was arrested for DUI in 2001
and pleaded guilty, arrested again for DUI in 2004 and failed to appear.  Applicant is currently on
probation and receiving treatment.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 06-19487.a1
DATE: 06/06/2008
DATE: June 6, 2008
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-19487
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On October 29, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested the case be decided on the written record.  On March 17, 2008, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Martin H. Mogul denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s failure to mitigate the
Guideline G security concerns is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we
affirm.
Applicant elected to have his case decided on the written administrative record, but filed no
response to the government’s file of relevant material (FORM).  His appeal offers a detailed
explanation about his alcohol-related conduct, his current efforts at rehabilitation, and his job
performance.  Applicant also attaches a copy of his attendance record for his current alcohol
treatment program.  However, the Board cannot consider this new evidence on appeal.  See Directive
¶ E3.1.29.
  
In this case, the Judge made unchallenged findings as follows:  Applicant had consumed
alcohol, at times in excess and to the point of intoxication, from approximately 1999 to at least 2007.
In 2001, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) and
Driving with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .08% or more.  He pleaded guilty and was
sentenced to a one-year suspension of his driver’s license, 240 hours of community service, a fine,
and three years probation.  In 2004, Applicant was  arrested and charged with DUI and Driving with
a BAC of .08% or more.  He failed to appear, and a Bench Warrant was issued for his arrest.  He
pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 days in jail, stayed, and placed on probation for three years.
Applicant was also ordered to attend an 18-month Multiple Offender Alcohol Program, and to pay
a fine.  Decision at 2.   
Applicant is currently on probation and receiving treatment.  His program treatment manager
wrote that Applicant “admits to having a problem with alcohol dating back to his early 20's and
states there is a history of alcoholism on the fraternal side of the family.”  Id. at 3.  In reaching his
adverse clearance decision, the Judge noted that: “Since Applicant did not testify before me, nor
offer any independent evidence about his current alcohol consumption, I have no evidence to
conclude that Applicant has complied with the discharge plan of the program or that his alcohol
difficulties have been resolved.”  Id.
 The Board has examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole and concludes
that the Judge has drawn ‘a rational connection between the facts found’ under Guideline G and his
adverse decision.  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962)).  “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with
3
the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).
Accordingly, the Judge’s adverse decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Order
The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jean E. Smallin          
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields       
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody           
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board