KEYWORD: Guideline G
DIGEST: Applicant’s history of alcohol abuse spans more than thirty years, which includes three
incidents of criminal behavior.  Evidence of alcohol rehabilitation spanning only three months
does not establish a sufficient track record of rehabilitation and good judgment.  Adverse
decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 06-16005.a1
DATE: 08/05/2008
DATE: August 5, 2008
In Re:
----------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-16005
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On December 3, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons 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 a hearing.  At the hearing, the SOR was amended to delete a Guideline G allegation and
to add security concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).  On April 30, 2008, after the hearing,
The Judge’s favorable decision under Guideline J is not at issue in this appeal.1
See Government Exhibit 6, Police Records, at 3: “[S]he stated that she had been beat [sic] by her father with2
2 belts and still have [sic] bruising from a week to a week and a half ago . . . She said the beatings from her father would
take place by her standing on a treadmill holding on to the bar while her father had a leather belt in each hand and would
. . . beat her.  She said that the beating will usually go on for more than 20 hits with the belts but she stated that she had
lost count.”     
Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed
a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in her application
of the Guideline G mitigating concerns; and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision
is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.   Finding no error, we affirm.  1
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact:  
Applicant is a 47 year old veteran of the United States Air Force.  He is a software engineer
for a federal contractor.  He has held a security clearance for 25 years.
Applicant began consuming alcohol while in high school.  He told a substance abuse
evaluator that he drank five or six beers on a daily basis in the mid-eighties and that after leaving the
Air Force in 1987 he would stop off after work two to four times a week and consume three or four
beers.  In February 1996, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of
Alcohol (DUI).  He pled guilty to a reduced charge of “Reckless Operation,” paying a $125 fine and
attending a two-day treatment program.  
In 2002, Applicant became involved in an altercation with his son, striking his son’s face.
He subsequently admitted that he had been drinking prior to the incident.  Applicant was charged
with Domestic Violence, but pled guilty to Attempted Assault, a lesser offense.  Applicant paid a
$185 fine, was placed on probation for a year, and was required to undergo an alcohol assessment
and attend an anger management course.  In May 2005, Applicant was charged with Child
Endangering, after having struck his daughter repeatedly with a belt.   He paid a $66 fine.  He states2
that he had not been drinking prior to this incident.  In January 2008, Applicant attended sessions
with a professional clinical counselor, who diagnosed him as having a history of alcohol abuse, in
early remission.  This report stated that Applicant had not had a drink since January 13, 2008.  In
March 2008, Applicant obtained another assessment, this time from a clinical psychologist, whose
report stated that Applicant “possesses a low risk for . . . relapse behaviors.”  Decision at 5.
Applicant has never gone to work after consuming alcohol.  His character witnesses, both at the
hearing and through documentary evidence, attest to Applicant’s good character and to their view
that he does not abuse alcohol. 
The Judge stated that Applicant’s history of excessive alcohol abuse, and his relatively recent
commitment to sobriety, prevented her from favorably applying the Guideline G mitigating factors.
Decision at 8.  Furthermore, in her whole-person analysis, she stated that Applicant’s “history of
alcohol abuse spans more than thirty years, during which time he engaged in at least three criminal
Applicant argues that it was error for the Judge to consider the May 2005 incident due to Applicant’s denial3
that alcohol was involved.  To the extent that alcohol was not involved in this incident, the Board cannot see how
Applicant’s case for being granted access to classified information is strengthened by the incident.  
incidents that were indicative of poor judgment and a lack of self-control.   His evidence of alcohol3
rehabilitation spans three months.  While he appears dedicated to his recovery program, he has not
established a sufficient track record of rehabilitation and good judgment . . . to persuade me that he
has conquered his alcohol related issues.”    Decision at 10.  
A review of the entire record demonstrates that the Judge has drawn “a rational connection
between the facts found” and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision, both as regards the
Guideline G mitigating conditions and the whole-person analysis.   See ISCR Case No. 03-22861
at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  See also 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 Judge’s decision that “it is not clearly consistent with
national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.
Decision at 11.  See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan      
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, 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