DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 07-11093 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government:  Fahryn Hoffman, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant has a 20 to 25 year history of excessive alcohol consumption. At times, 
he acknowledged he was drinking too much. He has previously acknowledged he was 
an alcoholic, but no longer believes this to be true. Applicant had an 18 month to two 
year period where he illegally used Tylox and Valium while holding a security clearance. 
I conclude Applicant has not rebutted or mitigated the government’s security concerns 
under Guideline G, alcohol consumption, or Guideline E, personal conduct. Eligibility for 
access to classified information is denied. 
 
Statement of Case 
 
 Applicant contests the Defense Department’s intent to deny or revoke his 
eligibility for an industrial security clearance. Acting under the relevant Executive Order 
and DoD Directive,1 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to 
 
 
 
1
                                                          
1 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 
 
 
 
2
                                                                                                                                                                                          
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on December 20, 2007, detailing security 
concerns under Guideline G, alcohol consumption, and Guideline E, personal conduct. 
 
 On January 14, 2008, Applicant answered the SOR, and requested a hearing. 
On December 20, 2007, I was assigned the case. On March 12, 2008, DOHA issued a 
notice of hearing scheduling the hearing held on March 27, 2008. The government 
offered Exhibits (Ex.) 1 and 2, which were admitted into evidence. Applicant testified on 
his own behalf and submitted Exhibits A and B, which were admitted into evidence. The 
record was kept open to allow Applicant to submit additional matters. On April 8, 2008, 
additional documents were received. Department Counsel did not object to the material 
and it was admitted into evidence as Ex. C. On April 17, 2008, the transcript (Tr.) was 
received.  
 
 At the hearing, Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR to add SOR 
paragraph 1.g to read, “In October 2005, Applicant was ticketed for public intoxication 
and paid a fine of approximately $90.” (Tr. 28) Applicant did not object and the motion 
was granted. (Tr. 29) 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admits the factual allegations in the SOR, 
with explanations, except for ¶ 1.f, which he denied. 
 
 Applicant is a 40-year-old scientist/engineer who has worked for a defense 
contractor since November 2002, and he is seeking to maintain a security clearance. 
Co-workers and supervisors state Applicant has worked tirelessly and reliably, to be of 
excellent character, maintained a high level of performance for extended periods of 
time, and demonstrated excellent performance. He is reliable, punctual, organized, and 
careful in his preparation. (Ex A, Tr. 30) His evaluation ending December 2004, listed 
his duty assessment between having “met some expectations” to “exceeded 
expectations.” His evaluation ending December 2005 evaluates him as having some 
“met expectations” but more “exceeded expectations.” An evaluation ended December 
2006, rates him as “exceeded expectations” and “far exceeded expectations.” 
 
 In February 1985, Applicant then age 17, drove into a ditch when driving home 
from a high school party. He was found guilty of Driving Under the Influence (DUI), 
ordered to complete an Alcohol Safety Awareness Program, and fined $50. 
 
 In June 1992, Applicant married and has five children who are between the ages 
of 2 and 13. (Ex. 1, Ex. B, Tr. 32) Six months before the wedding, Applicant, then age 
24, asked his uncle for some Antabuse because Applicant thought he was drinking too 
much and believed he might have a drinking problem. (Tr. 99) He “would drink a lot on 
the weekends at that time.” (Tr. 102) He did not drink the six months before the 
wedding.  
 
 
guidelines (AG) approved by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of 
Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
 
 
3
 
 
From April 1995 until July 1999, he illegally used the prescription drugs of Tylox 
and Valium approximately several dozen times. His abuse of prescription medications 
was coupled with alcohol use. (Ex. 2) Applicant suffered from head aches. (Tr. 85) On a 
trip to visit his in-laws, his mother-in-law offered him Tylox and Valium for which she had 
a prescription for chronic back pain the result of a car accident. (Tr. 132) After taking the 
medication, Applicant felt great. Applicant would visit his in-laws every three to six 
months.  
 
On his next trip to his in-laws, he took another pill. On following trips he would 
take one, two, or three pills. (Tr. 34) This progressed to the point where he was taking 
home handfuls of the pills. (Tr. 35) He never asked for the pills, but simply knew where 
they were stored in the medicine cabinet. (Tr. 86) Applicant possessed a security 
clearance while taking the drugs. (Tr. 48) 
 
For two years in 1997 through 1999 (Tr. 149), Applicant attended Alcoholics 
Anonymous (AA) and stop drinking for a few months at a time. He was encouraged to 
go because his wife and mother told him he was drinking too much and had an alcohol 
problem. (Tr. 36, 72, 105) He would go three months without alcohol. Then he would 
visit his in-laws, get new pills and start drinking again. (Tr. 156) When taking the pills, 
Applicant did not drink as much. (Tr. 36) His drinking increased when he ran out of the 
pills. This pattern continued for 18 months to 2 years. (Tr. 157) 
 
In 1999, at his child’s birthday party, Applicant passed out in a chair due to his 
Tylox and Valium usage and efforts to wake him failed. Applicant’s wife and her parents 
confronted him and forced him to seek help. They were concerned about his drinking 
prior the incident. (Tr. 36) At that time, Applicant believed he was an alcoholic. (Tr. 38) 
At the hearing, he no longer believes he is an alcoholic, but considers himself to have a 
lifelong “predisposition for alcohol/prescription drug dependency.” (Ex 2, page II – 3, Tr. 
95, 122) He currently believes he is not an alcoholic because he is not addicted to 
alcohol. (Tr. 122) 
 
From July 1999 through September 1999, Applicant attended alcohol and drug 
outpatient treatment for his abuse of Tylox, Valium, and alcohol. He attended outpatient 
treatment three hours a day, three times a week. Applicant found this program to be 
extremely successful. He was highly motivated because he was “sick and tired” of being 
“sick and tired.” During the first two-weeks of treatment he underwent daily urinalysis, 
which continued to be positive for drug use. (Tr. 37) Applicant claims he had stopped 
his drug usage. (Ex. 2) Applicant’s insurance refuse to pay for continued treatment so 
Applicant paid $1,500 to complete the eight week program. (Ex 2, Tr. 37) Applicant 
stopped drinking the six months he was in and following treatment. (Tr. 44) For three to 
four months following treatment, Applicant went to AA, where he would introduce 
himself as an alcoholic. (Tr. 74)  
 
For about 18 months, his job was not going well. He was getting depressed, 
eating too much, getting little exercise, and gaining weight. (Tr. 38) From August 2003 
 
 
 
4
to November 2006, he was treated for depression, insomnia, anxiety, hypertension, and 
alcoholism. (Tr. 39-40) At that time, he requested a prescription for Antabuse. It was not 
until early 2007, after he had completed his SF 86, that he learned the diagnosis 
included treatment for alcoholism. (Tr. 40) After learning he had been diagnosed as 
suffering from alcoholism he never confronted his doctor about the diagnosis. (Tr. 96, 
133) Applicant disagrees with the diagnosis of alcoholism, but says his doctor is entitled 
to his expert opinion. (Tr. 97) Applicant has seen this doctor for four and a half years. 
(Tr. 98) His doctor told him he need to cut down on his alcohol consumption. (Tr. 105)  
 
 Eight or nine years ago, in 1998 or 1999, Applicant had four beers with a late 
lunch, not intending to return to work, but then did return to turn off his computer. (Tr. 
120) He talked with a co-worker who turned him in when she smelled alcohol on him. 
(Ex. 2)  
 
In 1994, Applicant began taking Paxil for depression anxiety attacks. (Tr. 65-66) 
Applicant’s first suffered from anxiety when he was working on his senior project in 
college and thought he was going to die. (Tr. 139) He thought he was having a heart 
attack. The first attack was followed almost continuously by anxiety attacks for a six 
month period. (Tr. 141) In 2001, he had a hypermanic episode. He felt great, felt happy, 
but could not sleep. (Tr. 61) His thoughts would race. He lost 20 pounds; he suffered 
from anxiety attacks for six months that left him unable to think. From late 2001 to 
August 2003, he was treated for depression and received one week inpatient treatment. 
(Ex 1, page 29, Tr. 63, 66) In 2004, he started taking a sleep aid twice a week. (Tr. 59-
60)  
 
In 2005, Applicant felt it was safe to resume drinking. However, in October 2005, 
he was arrested for public intoxication. He was away from home performing business 
related activities. The work was done and he had a late morning flight home the next 
day. He parked his rental car at the hotel and walked to a restaurant bar near the hotel 
where he intended to have a few drinks following dinner. (Tr. 46)  
 
After eating, Applicant spent the night in the restaurant’s bar with some people 
he had just met. The evening started out well with Applicant buying rounds of drinks for 
them. During the evening, he had six to eight Long Island Iced Teas. (Tr. 113) Applicant 
acknowledged he “did have a lot to drink” that evening. (Tr. 47) Those he was with “had 
gotten pretty drunk.” (Tr. 114) The people turned hostile, got angry at him, and he left. 
(Tr. 46) He thought they were going to harm him, so he paid his bill, and quickly left the 
restaurant bar. Upon leaving, he did not return to his hotel, but saw a police officer in 
the parking lot and sought the officer’s protection. The officer noticed Applicant’s 
intoxicated state and arrested him for public intoxication and took Applicant to the police 
station. (Tr. 47) No chemical test was given to prove intoxication; however, Applicant 
freely admitted he was intoxicated. (Tr. 139) He paid a $90 fine.  
 
 Applicant maintains a prescription of Antabuse as a precautionary measure in 
case he believes his drinking is becoming excessive or should he wish to avoid drinking 
for special situations. He has used 30 tablets every two to three years. (Ex. 2) He last 
had his prescription filled a year ago. (Tr. 70, 145)  
 
 
 
5
 
 In September 2007, Applicant completed written interrogatories. (Ex. 2) He 
stated over the past month he was drinking a quart of beer every other night. He also 
stated there were several months when he consumed three to five drinks at one time. 
(Ex. 2, Tr. 119) He acknowledged there were times during the past years when he 
drank for entire weekends or had six to eight drinks every day for two or three weeks in 
a row. (Ex. 2, Tr. 119)  
 
 Applicant stated he was getting mildly intoxicated at least two or three times a 
week after having consumed two or three beers. (Ex. 2, Tr. 119) Applicant states he 
was last intoxicate a year ago. In September 2007, following the receipt of the written 
interrogatories, Applicant stopped drinking. (Tr. 43) At Thanksgiving, he resumed 
drinking. He is not sure but believes he may have gotten intoxicated during Christmas 
time 2006. (Tr. 57) In the summer of 2006, he remembers being drunk. (Tr. 56, 121) He 
knows he is drunk when the room starts spinning and he starts to feel sick. (Tr. 58) 
Applicant stated: 
 
I mean, I don’t worry about my drinking too much, but, I mean, I 
occasionally drink too much, you know. So there’s always the possibility 
that if I start to drink too much, then I’ll get myself into trouble. I worry 
about that. (Tr. 127)  
 
 Following the hearing, Applicant met with his doctor who provided a letter (Ex C) 
stating the doctor he saw no evidence of alcohol problems in recent years and thought 
Applicant should be granted a clearance. The doctor has not seen the SOR. (Tr. 125) 
Applicant did not tell his doctor about his October 2005 arrest for public intoxication, 
being intoxicated in the summer of 2006, or at Christmas time 2006. (Tr. 133) Since 
June 2007, Applicant had seen the doctor once before requesting the letter.  
 
 In January 2008, following the receipt of the SOR, Applicant renewed his 
intention to stop drinking. (Tr. 108) Applicant had been unaware of the gravity of his 
alcohol use until the hearing. (Tr. 160) 
 
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, 
 
 
 
6
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 
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 
 
Alcohol Consumption 
 
AG ¶ 21 expresses the security concern pertaining to 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.” 
 
Applicant is 40 years old and has a problem with alcohol consumption for 20 to 
25 years. In 1985, Applicant, then age 17, was found guilty of DUI. In 1999, he attended 
an alcohol and drug outpatient treatment program. Applicant has been diagnosed as an 
alcoholic. In 2005, he was arrested for public intoxication. He has frequently drunk to 
the point of intoxication. The last time he was intoxicated was Christmas time 2006. AG 
¶ 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 
 
 
 
7
concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or 
alcohol dependent,” and AG ¶ 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,” apply.  
 
Eight or nine years ago, Applicant returned to work after a late lunch to turn off 
his computer and was confronted by a co-worker when she smelled alcohol on 
Applicant. Applicant had drunk alcohol during lunch, but the record is insufficient to 
establish he reported for work intoxicated or in an impaired conditions. AG ¶ 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 individual is 
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent,” does not apply. I find for 
Applicant as to SOR ¶ 1.f. 
 
I do not find it a security concern that Applicant has a proscription for Antabuse, 
but is not currently using the medication. I find for Applicant as to SOR ¶ 1.d. 
 
At age 24, Applicant knew he was drinking too much and sought Antabuse from 
his uncle to help him with his problem. The six months before his 1992 wedding he did 
not drink. However, his sobriety did not continue. For an 18 month to 2 year period from 
April 1995 until July 1999, he illegally used the prescription drugs of Tylox and Valium 
approximately several dozen times and drank excessively, while possessing a security 
clearance. His abuse started slowly when his mother-in-law offered him Tylox and 
Valium for a head ache. His use continued to the point where he was taking home 
handfuls of the pills. His drinking increased when he ran out of pills. 
 
Applicant’s wife, in-laws, and mother told him he was drinking too much. From 
1997 through 1999, he received some help through AA and would stop drinking for a 
few months at a time. The he would return to his in-laws, obtain more drugs, and the 
cycle would start again. The matter came to a head at in 1999 at a birthday party. He 
had taken Tylox and Valium, passed out, and could not be woken up. At that time, he 
believed he was an alcoholic. He no longer believes he is an alcoholic, but considers 
himself to have a lifelong “predisposition for alcohol/prescription drug dependency.”  
 
For six months following treatment, Applicant abstained from alcohol usage. 
However, in 2005 Applicant believed it was safe to drink again. In October 2005, having 
finished his work, Applicant went to a restaurant bar with the intention of having a few 
drinks. Over the course of the evening, he drank too much and admits he was 
intoxicated. When he sought protection from a police officer he was arrested, taken to 
the police station, and later fined for public intoxication. 
 
Applicant’s doctor diagnosed Applicant as suffering from alcoholism. Since 
learning of the diagnosis, Applicant has not asked his doctor about the diagnosis. 
Applicant believes the diagnosis is wrong, but believes his doctor is entitled to his expert 
opinion. His doctor had told Applicant to reduce his drinking. Applicant supplied a letter 
from his doctor stating his doctor had seen no evidence of an alcohol problem in recent 
years and believed Applicant should receive a clearance. However, Applicant never told 
 
 
 
8
his doctor of his October 2005 arrest for public intoxication. Each time Applicant saw his 
doctor, his doctor asked him about his alcohol usage, but Applicant did not think it 
important to tell his doctor about his arrest.  
 
Applicant never told his doctor he had been intoxicated during the summer of 
2006 and during Christmas time 2006. Nor did Applicant show his doctor the SOR. 
There is no evidence his doctor ever changed his diagnosis that Applicant suffered from 
alcoholism. 
 
Even though Applicant attended an alcohol and drug outpatient treatment in 1999 
and was diagnosed by his treating doctor with alcoholism there is no diagnosis of 
alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence. Therefore, AG ¶ 22 (d) “diagnosis by a duly 
qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of 
alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence,” and AG ¶ 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,” do not apply. Without a diagnosis of alcohol 
abuse or dependence, AG ¶ 22 (f) “relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or 
dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program,” can not apply.  
 
None of the mitigating factors listed in AG ¶ 23 apply. Applicant last drank 
alcohol the end of December 2007. In his past, Applicant had frequently experienced 
periods of abstinence last from three or four months before resuming his drinking. At the 
time of the hearing, it had been three months since his last drink. It is too early to predict 
Applicant’s alcohol problem is a thing of the past. He was last intoxicated during 
Christmas time 2006. AG ¶ 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 
or does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good 
judgment,” does not apply because his usage is recent, it was not infrequent, nor did it 
happen under unusual circumstances. 
 
AG ¶ 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),” does not apply because Applicant fails to acknowledge his alcoholism. 
He once thought his was an alcoholic and for two years introduced himself at AA 
meetings as an alcoholic, he now does not think he is an alcoholic because he does not 
believe he is addicted to alcohol. He believes he suffers from a lifelong “predisposition 
for alcohol/prescription drug dependency.” He currently does not worry too much about 
his drinking.  
 
Neither AG ¶ 23 (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” nor AG ¶ (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 
 
 
 
9
by a duly qualified medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff 
member of a recognized alcohol treatment program,” apply. There is no favorable 
prognosis. His doctor’s letter is undercut by his doctor’s lack of knowledge of Applicant’s 
drinking, intoxications, and 2005 arrest for public intoxication.  
 
Personal Conduct 
 
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct, which is 
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. 
 
Applicant abused Tylox and Valium for an 18 month to 2 year period when he 
held a security clearance. Additionally, the alcohol problems listed above are alleged 
under Guideline E, personal conduct.  
 
Under AG ¶ 16 conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying include AG ¶ 16 (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,” apply to the drug abuse. None of the mitigating conditions 
set forth in AG ¶ 17 apply. I find against Applicant as to SOR ¶ 2 b. 
 
Since the alcohol problems are specifically covered by Guideline G, alcohol 
consumption, I find Guideline E, personal conduct, does not apply to the alcohol 
allegations. I find for Applicant as to SOR ¶ 2 a. 
 
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) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
 
 
 
10
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 is 40 years old and has 
had problems with excessive alcohol consumption for 20 to 25 of those years. Others 
have told him he was drinking too much. At times, Applicant believed he was drinking 
too much and took steps to stop drinking. Each time he stopped, he would eventually 
return to excessive alcohol consumption. He once thought he was an alcoholic, but now 
believes he has a lifelong “predisposition for alcohol/prescription drug dependency.” His 
doctor thinks him an alcoholic, but Applicant never questioned his doctor about the 
diagnosis and believes the doctor is entitled to his opinion even though it is wrong. If 
Applicant does not believe he had a problem he is unlikely to correct it.  
 
At that time of the hearing, Applicant had abstained from alcohol for three 
months. I give little weight to this because Applicant has abstained from alcohol in the 
past only to return to excessive alcohol consumption. I also give little weight to 
Applicant’s doctor’s most recent letter, because the doctor did not know about  
Applicant’s most recent incidents of excessive alcohol consumption and it is unclear 
what material formed the basis of the letter.  
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s 
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude 
Applicant not mitigated the security concerns. 
 
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, Alcohol : AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:   Against Applicant  
  Subparagraph 1.c:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.d:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.e:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.f:   For Applicant  
 
 Paragraph 2, Personal Conduct:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.b:   Against Applicant  
 
 
 
11
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s request for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.  
 
 
_________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge