DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February1
20, 1990), 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 (RAG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department
of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
                                                          )           ISCR Case No. 08-01744
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 27 May 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
G.  Applicant answered the SOR 5 June 2008, and requested a hearing. DOHA1
assigned the case to me 25 June 2008, and I convened a hearing 29 July 2008. DOHA
received the transcript (Tr.) 6 August 2008.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the Guideline G allegations. She is currently a 44-year-old
bio-metrics program manager employed by a defense contractor since 1994. She seeks
to retain the clearance she has held since March 1989.
Applicant has an extensive history of excessive alcohol consumption that first
surfaced as a security concern in November 2000. During a subject interview she
disclosed that she drank 2-3 glasses of wine every day, drinking every 4-6 weeks to the
point of intoxication. She had not had any alcohol-related incidents, but claimed to be
watchful of her drinking habits because of a history of alcoholism in her extended family.
However, she considered her drinking habits European rather than American (G.E. 5).
Clearance adjudicators apparently agreed, as she continued her clearance.
Her excessive alcohol consumption again surfaced as a security concern in May
2003. During preparation for a polygraph examination at another government agency,
Applicant revealed that she was currently drinking a bottle of wine by herself everyday.
She later reported to one of her counselors that she had been drinking a bottle or more
daily from December 2002 to May 2003 (G.E. 7). Encouraged by the agency to seek
assistance for her alcohol issue, she enrolled in a 28-day inpatient treatment program in
July 2003, where she was diagnosed as alcohol dependent. She completed the
inpatient treatment successfully, and moved into the outpatient aftercare program.
Although the outpatient program required her to abstain from drinking alcohol, Applicant
relapsed twice in September 2003 (G.E. 7), a fact she disclosed to her outpatient
counselor, who in turn reported it to the other agency. According to Applicant, she was
not initially aware that attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) was a required, not
optional, part of the aftercare program. When she learned that it was, she began
attending AA as required.  Nevertheless, the other agency considered her to have not
completed the treatment program, and revoked her access to classified information in
July 2003. Applicant thought about appealing that decision, but did not.
From July 2003 to February 2005, Applicant participated in a long-term aftercare
program, where she was also diagnosed as alcohol dependent. Although she was
recommended to abstain totally from alcohol consumption, she had resumed drinking
shortly after leaving the inpatient program. In November 2003, she was arrested for
DUI, with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .15%. Part of her sentence included
attending AA meetings. In March 2004, Applicant reported to her psychiatrist that she
was working on the fourth step of AA (G.E. 6). However, she stopped attending
outpatient aftercare in January 2005. In April 2005, she told her psychiatrist that after
coming home from an evening of drinking, she got into a fight with her husband that was
so loud that her neighbor heard it, and later contacted her about it. In July 2005, she
reported that her going out drinking with her friends was causing friction with her
husband. He wanted her to at least drink at home to avoid driving while intoxicated.
Nevertheless, in February 2006, she was again arrested for DUI, with a BAC of .14%.
The resolution of these charges included probation that does not end until May 2009
(G.E. 9).
3
Applicant continues to consume a glass of wine with dinner five to seven nights
per week. She also has ongoing medical (hyperthyroidism) and psychological
(depression) issues that are largely controlled when she takes her medications properly,
but which have otherwise contributed to her alcohol problems from time to time. The
underlying factors contributing to her psychological issues include being beaten by her
baby sitter when she was three, being molested by a cousin, having date-rape
experiences, multiple affairs with married men while she was also married, and at least
one suicidal gesture.
Applicant states that she has never had a security violation, and feels like she
has been presumed guilty until proven innocent. Yet, she acknowledges that the facts of
her case meet the stated security concerns under alcohol consumption. She
acknowledges that she has been recommended to abstain from alcohol consumption. In
February 2008, she told her psychiatrist that she had not been going to AA, but was
going to resume. She did not. She last consumed alcohol the night before her hearing.
She claims that she can go without alcohol, but she does not.
Policies
The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (RAG) list factors to be considered in
evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative
Judges must assess both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly
raised by the facts and circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair
and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in RAG ¶ 2(a). The
presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or
against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a
case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the
grant or denial of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and
the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guideline is Guideline G
(Alcohol Consumption).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an Applicant’s security clearance. The government
must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access
to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant
bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).2
¶22.(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or3
spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; . . . (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; (d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g. physician, clinical psychologist, or
psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence; (e) evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence
by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member or a recognized alcohol treatment program; (f)
relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program;
(g) failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.
¶23.(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual4
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment; (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); © 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; 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,
. . . 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.
4
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.2
Analysis
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline G, by
demonstrating Applicant’s extensive history of alcohol abuse and dependence,
illustrated by alcohol-related arrests in November 2003 and February 2006, inpatient
and outpatient alcohol treatment between July 2003 and February 2005, and failure to
fully follow treatment recommendations and court orders.  Applicant failed to mitigate3
the security concerns, and meets none of the mitigating factors. Applicant’s alcohol
problems are both recent and frequent. She has not accepted her alcoholism and
remained abstinent. She is neither engaged in a program making satisfactory progress,
nor following recommended treatment recommendations with a favorable prognosis.4
While Applicant recognizes her mistakes of drunk driving, she otherwise lacks insight
into how her alcoholism has effected her life. With no rehabilitation program in place,
not only can I not conclude Applicant is unlikely to abuse alcohol in the future, I
conclude that she is at significant risk to resume abusive alcohol consumption.
Accordingly, I resolve Guideline G against Applicant.
A whole person assessment of Applicant results in the same conclusion.
Applicant notes that she has never had a security violation. But the government is not
required to wait for a security violation before it acts on its security concerns, and
Applicant provided no independent evidence of either her work or her character to
bolster her argument. I noted her medical and psychological issues not as an
5
independent basis for denying her access to classified information, but to demonstrate
that her life has additional issues in her life not immediately addressed by the SOR that
must incline any whole person assessment further against her. She should not have
access to classified information.
.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph e: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge