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. 08-02233
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: John B. Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 17 June 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines
G, H, and J.  Applicant answered the SOR 7 July 2008, and requested a hearing.1
DOHA assigned the case to me 28 July 2008, and I convened a hearing 26 August
2008. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 4 September 2008.
 
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations, except for SOR 1.b. He is a 23-year-old
systems administrator employed by a defense contractor since July 2008. He has not
previously held a clearance.
Applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption, punctuated by three
alcohol-related incidents between October 2003 and October 2007. The most recent
incident, an October 2007 DUI (.10 % B.A.C.) arrest that was still pending when the
SOR was drafted, was resolved 27 June 2008. Two charges of DUI were dismissed
before trial. A third DUI charge and an unsafe lane change charge were nolle prossed
the day of trial. Applicant pleaded to, and was found guilty of, negligent driving. He paid
fines and court costs of $160. The judge’s findings of fact specifically found Applicant to
have not refused a proffered blood alcohol content test. A breathalyzer test given at the
scene of the accident caused by Applicant registered .10 % B.A.C. He was observed by
witnesses in the other two cars involved in the accident to be throwing beer cans out of
his car before the police arrived.
Applicant’s other alcohol incidents include an October 2003 (age 18) drunk in
public/underage possession of alcohol offense in which he had a .16 % B.A.C., and a
June 2006 DUI offense in which he tested .15 % and .16 % B.A.C. The pertinent portion
of this latter offense was a period of alcohol abstention and probation that expired in
August 2007.
As a result of his October 2007 arrest, in early January 2008, Applicant was
evaluated at a recognized alcohol treatment program recommended to him by his
attorney. He was diagnosed with alcohol abuse, and recommended to attend a 48-week
aftercare program, two AA/NA meetings per week, and obtain a sponsor and
homegroup within 90 days.  Later in January 2008, he was evaluated at a recognized
alcohol treatment program closer to where he lived, and again diagnosed with alcohol
abuse. However, he was not recommended for further counseling as the counselor was
satisfied that he had learned his lesson about drinking and driving. Applicant claims that
he now drinks 1-3 drinks at a sitting no more than five times per month. He never drinks
and drives.
Applicant also has a history of drug abuse. He use marijuana frequently from
January 2000 to June 2006, and used prescription painkillers about ten times between
January 2000 and May 2004. After his drunk in public arrest in October 2003, a body
search produced a marijuana pipe and a container with marijuana residue. Applicant’s
drug abuse occurred while he was at college. He stopped using marijuana in June 2006
because he knew that he would eventually want to apply for a security clearance.
Applicant’s employer considers him an honest, hard worker, and he has good
work evaluations. He has not been observed to be under the influence of alcohol or
drugs at work. He is engaged to be married, and he and his fiancé are trying to buy a
home.
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; (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;
3
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 guidelines are Guideline
G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement),  and Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct).
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.
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 history of alcohol abuse, punctuated by three alcohol-related
arrests between October 2003 and October 2007, and his subsequent diagnoses with
alcohol abuse in January 2008.  Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns.3
¶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;
¶23.(b) the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of5
actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent)
or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser);
¶23.(c) the individual is a current employee who is participating in a counseling or treatment program, has6
no history of previous treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress;
¶23.(d) the individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient counseling or rehabilitation along7
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.
¶25.(a) any drug abuse. . .; (c) illegal drug possession, including. . . purchase. . . ;8
¶26.(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that9
it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment;
¶26.(b). a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as; . . . (3) an appropriate period10
of abstinence;
4
Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions under Guideline G. His alcohol
abuse was recent, frequent, and not under unusual circumstances.  Beyond the vaguest4
acknowledgment of past mistakes with alcohol, Applicant has not acknowledged his
obvious alcohol abuse. Although he was not recommended for further counseling,
Applicant is unable to point to any other actions taken to overcome the problem. On this
record, Applicant is unable to establish either a pattern of abstinence or responsible use
given that his most recent charges were only resolved in June 2008.  Without some kind5
of program, he cannot demonstrate progress in ensuring responsible drinking in the
future.  Finally, Applicant lacks the kind of program, track record, and prognosis that6
would demonstrate that his alcohol problems are behind him.  It is too early to conclude7
Applicant is unlikely to abuse alcohol in the future. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline G
against Applicant.
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline H.8
However, Applicant mitigated the security concerns. Although Applicant’s drug abuse
was frequent during the periods he used drugs, the circumstances of that use and his
two years abstinence from drug use, suggest he is unlikely to use drugs in the future.9
With no indication of any psychological or physical dependence on drugs, his two year
abstinence from drug use is adequate to demonstrate an intent to refrain from drug use
in the future.  I conclude Applicant is unlikely to use illegal drugs in the future.10
Accordingly, I resolve Guideline H for Applicant.
¶31.(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; (c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct,11
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted;
5
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline J by
establishing Applicant’s alcohol-related criminal conduct and his illegal use of drugs.11
However, the gravamen of the security concerns in this case revolve around Applicant’s
alcohol abuse issues. Separate allegation of the criminal nature of his conduct, whether
alcohol abuse or drug abuse, adds nothing of substance to the analysis of Applicant’s
fitness for access to classified information. I resolve Guideline J for Applicant.
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
Paragraph 2. Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Subparagraph b: For Applicant
Subparagraph c: For Applicant
Paragraph 3. Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For 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