DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 06-18897
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
September 29, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On March 28, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant detailing the security concerns under
Guideline G. 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 24, 2008, and requested an
Administrative Decision by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel issued a
File of Relevant Material (FORM) on June 13, 2008. Applicant did not file a response to
the FORM. The case was assigned to me on August 15, 2008. Based upon a review of
the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is
denied.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 33 years of age.
Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication,
from approximately 1987 to at least October 2003.
In 1994, he was charged with Driving Under the Influence. He was convicted of
the charge, fined, ordered to attend an alcohol highway safety class, and was placed on
probation for one year.
In September 1994, he was charged with Possession of Alcohol and fined. Later
that year he was charged with Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor and fined.
In 1995, he was charged with Minor in Possession of Alcohol and fined.
In October 2003, applicant was arrested and charged with Domestic Assault,
Risk of Injury to a Minor, and Public Disturbance. Exhibit 9 is a report of an interview
applicant had with an OPM investigator. In pertinent part, the report states:
Subject related that his most recent arrest occurred in OCT 03 in the
vicinity of his home . . . . Subject explained that he had just returned from
a business trip . . . and had subsequently consumed a 12 pack of 12 OZ
beers while watching a football game, when he lost control. When the
team he followed lost, subject became upset. Subject related that he did
not have exact recall of the incident or sequence of events, but he did
admit to having slapped his young daughter, having pushed and slapped
his wife on the top of the head, having thrown household items, having
punched a hole in the wall and having broken a drawer, while inside the
condo. Subject conveyed that the verbal and physical abuse towards his
wife continued outside the condo, when a neighbor witnessed the incident,
he immediately contacted the police. Subject related when the . . . police
arrived, he walked out the back door of his condo and hid in a densely
wooded area behind the condominium complex . . . . Sometime later that
evening subject returned to the condo where the arresting officers awaited
and took him into custody. . . . Subject stated that the charges against him
were eventually nolled in DEC 03 because his spouse did not want to
pursue further criminal action against him.
Although the charges were dropped, applicant spent about a week in custody
following his arrest and missed about two weeks of work due to the incident.
Following this last incident, applicant began treatment with a psychotherapist who
describes himself as a “Doctor of Addictive Disorders.” In an October 2007 letter, the
psychotherapist stated (1) applicant was under his clinical care from 10/25/2003 through
12/15/2003, (2) applicant’s diagnosis is “Alcohol Dependence Disorder,” and (3) in spite
of applicant’s diagnosis, he should not be of any concern as long as he remains sober
[and] attends AA meetings regularly.” 
3
Applicant abstained from the use of alcohol for three to four months following the
2003 incident. However, he eventually resumed its use, and continues to consume it
today. He states, however, that he has not consumed it to the point of intoxication since
the October 2003 incident (Exhibit 8).
Applicant attended AA meetings from the time of his arrest until February 2004.
He stopped attending AA in February 2004 because he felt it didn’t help. Although he
admits to previously perceiving himself as having an alcohol problem, he does not
believe he currently has such a problem.
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
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.
4
Analysis
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
and involvement in alcohol-related incidents requires application of the first two
disqualifying conditions. The fact he was diagnosed with “alcohol dependence disorder”
by his psychotherapist requires application of the last disqualifying condition.
Paragraph 23 of the AG sets out potentially mitigating conditions. Under
Paragraph 23.a., it may be mitigating if “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.” Although it has been over four years since applicant’s last alcohol-
related incident, given his long history of alcohol abuse, his unwillingness to participate
in an AA type program (as his psychotherapist recommended), and his continued
consumption of alcohol, I cannot conclude a recurrence of his alcohol-related poor
judgment is unlikely. Accordingly, this mitigation condition is not applicable.
“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
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
5
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. Although applicant began abusing
alcohol while a teenager, he continued to abuse it well into adulthood. The October
2003 incident should have been a wake up call for him, and for a short period of time he
acted as though it was. By abstaining from the use of alcohol, seeking counseling and
regularly attending AA, applicant seemed to have acknowledged he had a serious
problem that needed a serious solution. However, shortly after the charges against him
were dropped, he stopped attending counseling and AA, and resumed drinking. In light
of his alcohol dependence diagnosis, this conduct precludes a finding that future
alcohol-related incidents are unlikely. For this reason, Guideline G is found against
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
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