DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-01200
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
August 29, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On March 24, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant detailing the security concerns under
Guidelines G and H. 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 April 3, 2008, and requested an
Administrative Decision by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel issued a
File of Relevant Material (FORM) on April 29, 2008. Applicant filed a response to the
FORM on May 19, 2008. The case was assigned to me on June 27, 2008. Based upon
a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Exhibit 4, page 3.
1
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 34 years of age. He has worked for the same defense contractor
since 1996. He has been married since 2001 and has three children.
Applicant began consuming alcohol in college in the 1990s. While there, he drank
once or twice a week and became intoxicated once or twice a month. After he left
college, he would consume six to eight drinks at a time about once a week. From 2003
to 2006 his alcohol consumption gradually increased. By July 2006, he was consuming
six alcoholic beverages a day. This continued until March 20, 2007, when he consumed
“6 vodka drinks . . . went semi-conscious,” and then “experienced a feeling that [he] had
a problem and must stop drinking.”  Thinking that he needed professional help to stop1
drinking, he saw a psychiatrist about eight times from April to June 2007. According to
applicant, he was diagnosed with alcoholism and prescribed a drug to help him stop
drinking. He stopped the counseling and the drug because he stopped craving alcohol.
Applicant states he has not consumed any alcohol since the March 20, 2007 incident.
In 2003, applicant drove into a tractor trailer while he was under the influence of
alcohol. He was arrested and ultimately convicted of Operating Motor Vehicle Impaired
by Alcohol. He was fined $375.00 and his license was suspended for six months.
In April 2007, shortly after he last used alcohol, applicant used marijuana on
three occasions. In May 2007, he snorted a line of cocaine once and used Xanax
without a prescription once. In his SOR Response, applicant stated the following about
this drug use:
During [April and May 2007] I attended some parties and was offered the
use of these particular substances. At the time, I was new to my 12 step
recovery program (AA) and did not understand the implications of trying
other “experiments.” I quickly realized through my own interpretations and
my support group that this is not an alternative to alcohol. That my
“experimentation” should be stopped immediately, and that is what I did. I
no longer have relations with those who use illegal substances and do not
attend parties where there is use.
During an interview with an OPM investigator in November 2007, applicant stated
he attended AA meetings weekly. In a February 2008 response to interrogatories sent
to him by DOHA, and in his response to the FORM, applicant stated he attends AA
daily. He further stated in his response to the FORM that he does not intend to consume
alcohol or use illegal drugs in the future.
Policies
The President has “the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on
national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to
occupy a position that will give that person access to such information.” (Department of
the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,527 (1988).) In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
3
Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), the President set out
guidelines and procedures for safeguarding classified information within the executive
branch. The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant
applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” (Exec. Ord. 10865, Section 2.)
To be eligible for a security clearance, an applicant must meet the security
guidelines contained in the Directive. Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personnel
security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
under each guideline.
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in
the SOR that disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to
classified information. (Directive, Paragraph E3.1.14.) Thereafter, the applicant is
responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.
(Directive, Paragraph E3. 1.15.) An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.” (ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).) “Any doubt as to
whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will
be resolved in favor of the national security.” (Directive, Paragraph E2.2.2.)
A person granted access to classified information enters into a special
relationship with the government. The government must be able to repose a high
degree of trust and confidence in those individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not a
determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. (Exec. Ord. 10865, Section 7.) It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
has established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline H:  Drug Involvement
The security concern for drug involvement is set forth in Paragraph 24 of the
AG, and is as follows:
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may
impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
Paragraph 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying. Under Paragraph 25.a., “any drug abuse” may be disqualifying. This
disqualifying condition is applicable.
Paragraph 26 of the AG sets forth conditions that could mitigate security
concerns. Under Paragraph 26.a., it may be mitigating if “the behavior happened so
long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or
The diagnosis of “alcoholism” was reported by applicant. It is reasonable to assume that the psychiatrist’s
2
actual diagnosis was alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.
4
good judgment.” Under Paragraph 26.b., it may be mitigating if there is “a demonstrated
intent not to abuse any drugs in the future,” such as “disassociation from drug-using
associates and contacts,” and “an appropriate period of abstinence.” Applicant used
these drugs shortly after he stopped drinking. He realized he made a big mistake,
stopped all use, stopped attending parties where drugs are used, and stopped
associating with drug users. Given these facts, his one year of abstinence, and his
credibly stated intention not to use illegal drugs in the future, both mitigating conditions
are applicable.
Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption
The security concern for alcohol consumption is set forth in Paragraph 21 of the
AG, and is as follows:
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 AG note several conditions that could raise a security concern. Under
Paragraph 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,” may be disqualifying. Under Paragraph 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,” may be
disqualifying. Under Paragraph 22.d., “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional
(e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol
dependence” may be disqualifying. Applicant’s history of consuming alcohol to excess in
general, and his alcohol-related driving conviction in 2003 and March 20, 2007 drinking
episode in particular, require application of the first two disqualifying conditions. The fact
he was diagnosed with “alcoholism” by a psychiatrist requires application of the last
disqualifying condition.2
Paragraph 23 of the AG sets out potentially mitigating conditions. I have carefully
reviewed them and conclude the only one applicable is 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).”
“Whole Person” Analysis 
Under the whole person concept, the AJ must evaluate an applicant’s security
eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances.
An AJ should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG Paragraph
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
5
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 Paragraph 2c, the 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 considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant began abusing alcohol
while in college when he was relatively young. Had it ended when he graduated in 1998,
his alcohol consumption would have no current security significance. But it didn’t.
Applicant not only continued to abuse alcohol, he actually increased the frequency of
his excessive alcohol consumption to the point that by July 2006, he was consuming six
alcoholic beverages on a daily basis. This daily abuse occurred long after his serious
alcohol-related driving incident in 2003, and lasted for many months. These facts,
together with his diagnosis of “alcoholism,” suggest that applicant’s alcohol problem is
severe, and will require a significant period of abstinence - much longer than the
approximately 15 months of abstinence he has to date - to safely conclude his abuse of
alcohol, and the poor judgment associated with it, is unlikely to recur. Accordingly,
Guideline G is found against him.
Applicant’s illegal drug use certainly reflects poorly on his judgment. Fortunately,
he realized relatively quickly that he was making a big mistake by trying to trade one
addiction for another. He has taken credible actions to ensure he will not repeat the
conduct, and given his one year of abstinence, it appears his actions have worked.
Because I conclude he is unlikely to abuse illegal drugs in the future, Guideline H 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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Paragraph 2, Guideline H:  FOR APPLICANT
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
_________________
JOSEPH TESTAN
Administrative Judge