KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline E
DIGEST: The Judge’s material findings of security concern were based on substantial record
evidence and were sustainable.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 07-01273.a1
DATE: 10/16/2008
DATE: October 16, 2008
In Re:
---------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-01273
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
Applicant’s appeal brief makes no reference to the Judge’s other adverse findings under SOR paragraph 1,1
specifically 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., and 1.e.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On October 9, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June 30, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse findings under
SOR paragraph 1.f are supported by the record evidence ; whether the Judge’s adverse conclusions1
under Guideline E are supported by the record evidence.
The Judge found that Applicant “consumed alcohol excessively . . . between 1975 and
August 2005, and often to the point of intoxication.”  Decision at 3.  Applicant was arrested for DUI
twice in 1978, once in 2003 and once in 2005 (the latter being the challenged finding on appeal).
Applicant’s drinking included periods where he would drink for days at a time and suffer blackouts.
Applicant was treated for substance abuse in 2002 but continued to drink sometimes a 1.75 liter
bottle in one sitting.  With respect to the  2005 DUI, Applicant was convicted, fined and had his
driver’s licence revoked.  He was put on probation conditioned upon his participation in an intensive
outpatient program, which he completed in 2005.  Applicant attended after-care through most of
2006.  He continues to attend AA.  Three witnesses credit Applicant with two-and-a-half years
sustained abstinence.
After reviewing the record,  the Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings of security
concern under Guideline G are based upon substantial record evidence and are sustainable.  See
Directive  ¶ E3.1.32.1.  (Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.”)
The Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the length and seriousness
of the disqualifying conditions and considered the possible application of relevant mitigating
conditions. He reasonably explained why the mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the
government’s security concerns.  Accordingly, the Judge has drawn a rational connection between
the facts found and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision.  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 or continue Applicant’s security clearance” is sustainable on this record.
Decision at 11.  See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).
3
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: Jean E. Smallin               
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board