1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 06-19225
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Francisco Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SCA), on January 31,
2007. On June 30, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under alcohol consumption
(Guideline G) and personal conduct (Guideline E). The action was taken pursuant to
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 adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on
December 29, 2005, and made effective within the Department of Defense for SORs
issued on or after September 1, 2006. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings,
exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted his answer to the SOR on July 22, 2008, and requested a
decision be made on the record in lieu of a hearing. A copy of the government’s File of
Relevant Material (FORM, the government’s evidence in support of the allegations of
the SOR) was sent to Applicant on September 19, 2008. Applicant received the FORM
2
on October 6, 2008. His undated response to the FORM has been received in evidence.
The case file was assigned to me on November 5, 2008. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR contains 11 allegations under the alcohol consumption guideline and
seven allegations under the personal conduct guideline. Applicant admitted all
allegations except for SOR 2.a., which he denied. In support of his denial of SOR 2.a.,
Applicant explained that the investigator, who took his statement in April 2000,
misunderstood information he provided about being present during a drug transaction in
June 1994, leading to his indictment.
Applicant is 42 years old, divorced and has seven children. He has been
employed as a security guard by a defense contractor since December 1998. He seeks
a security clearance. 
Alcohol Consumption
According to Item 15 (sworn statement dated April 14, 2000) Applicant began
drinking about six beers a week when he was 17, and often drank to the point of
intoxication until he stopped in April 2008 (SOR 1.j.). After joining the United States
(U.S.) Army at the age of 18, his consumption increased to a case of beer each
weekend. At age 20 (1986), he got married, and his drinking increased to about a fifth of
whiskey and a 1½ cases of beer a week. The pattern continued into his early 20s. He
asserted he reduced his drinking in the past 10 years by discontinuing use of hard
liquor, and drinking only about a case of beer generally on the weekends. When under
the influence of alcohol, Applicant is generally sociable, but can become mean and
violent if provoked. In 1990, Applicant did not think he had an alcohol problem, but the
U.S. Army required that he complete an inpatient, substance abuse program in the Fall
of 1990. No military records were provided concerning the inpatient treatment. 
In May 2003, Applicant responded to questions (Item 17) about the scope of his
alcohol use. He claimed he stopped drinking alcohol in May 2002, and began attending
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) shortly after completing the counseling conditions of his
sentence in May 2002 for DWI (SOR 1.g.). 
According to his interview November 15, 2007 (Item 29), Applicant reduced his
drinking after his conviction for DWI in December 2001, but no mention was made of
abstinence for any period. Instead, he just drank beer on his two days off every week.
The amount of consumption was just enough for him to feel under the influence, with
consumption to the point of intoxication occurring about once a month. Applicant felt he
had an alcohol problem, but he thought he could control his consumption. If his use
worsened, he would seek help through counseling or AA. Significantly, Applicant denied
observing his friend conduct a drug transaction in June 1994, as he had described in
detail in his April 14, 2000 statement (Item 15). See, SOR 2.a.
3
On March 12, 2008 (Item 30), a licensed substance-abuse treatment practitioner
(LSATP) from a substance abuse services center, submitted a report to DOHA
regarding an evaluation of Applicant. Her report was based on an interview of Applicant,
his government interview on November 15, 2007 (Item 15), and a urine screen.
Applicant did not appear to understand his alcohol addiction, prompting the LSATP to
opine the initial treatment experience was not effective in increasing Applicant’s
knowledge of substance abuse. The practitioner opined he should enroll in a relapse
prevention program, including a 12-step component and random drug testing. Based on
an evaluation of her interview with Applicant and his government interview in November
2007, she determined that alcohol dependence would be an appropriate, preliminary
diagnosis (Item 32).
Alcohol Related Incidents
While in the Army in April 1990 (SOR 1.a.), Applicant was arrested and charged
with driving while under the influence (DWI), a violation of Article 111 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). In August 1990 (SOR 1.b.), Applicant was arrested
and charged with DWI and using a false visitor’s pass in violation of Article 111 of the
UCMJ. He received an Article 15, resulting in a reduction in rank and a requirement to
attend inpatient alcohol treatment. In March 1991 (SOR 1.c.), Applicant violated Article
92 of the UCMJ after he was found to unfit for duty (sleeping on duty) due to having
consumed too much alcohol. As a result of the three above alcohol-related offenses,
Applicant’s security clearance was revoked by the U.S. Army (SOR 1.d.), yet he
continued to drink alcohol. 
As set forth in SOR 1.e., Applicant was found guilty of drinking in public on
school grounds in November 1992. In October 1999 (SOR 1.f.), Applicant consumed
alcohol before he was arrested and charged with assault and battery. The charges were
dismissed. 
On December 22, 2001 (SOR 1.g.), Applicant was arrested for DWI and other
charges. The other charges were dismissed, and Applicant was found guilty of DWI. He
was sentenced to 5 months in jail, his license was suspended, and he was ordered to
complete alcohol awareness counseling. He completed counseling in May 2002. 
In May 2003, Applicant stated he had stopped alcohol consumption in May 2002
(SOR 1.h.), and had no plans for alcohol use in the future. However, he resumed
drinking. In September 2004, Applicant was denied a security clearance (SOR 1.i.) by
another DOHA Administrative Judge, based on alcohol use, criminal conduct, and
personal conduct. 
In May 2008, Applicant was diagnosed alcohol dependent (SOR 1.i.) by an
LSATP, who recommended treatment, random urine testing, and breath testing for
alcohol. 
4
Personal Conduct
On April 14, 2000 (Item 15, sworn statement), Applicant indicated he witnessed a
drug sale in June 1994. On March 3, 2008 (SOR 2.a.), Applicant affirmed his November
15, 2007 interview by providing false information when he stated he had never seen his
friend selling drugs in June 1994 (Item 29). Given Applicant’s detailed description of the
drug transaction and his recall of the course the case took in the court system, I choose
to believe that Applicant observed the drug deal. 
In May 1990 (SOR 2.g.), Applicant was charged with assault on his spouse. In
the same month(SOR 2.f.), Applicant received an Article 15 for driving on the base with
privileges revoked. He was found guilty for carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) (SOR
2.e.) in September 1992. In June 1994, Applicant was charged with felony conspiracy to
distribute cocaine (SOR 2.d.), but was acquitted. In July 1996 and August 2003,
Applicant was charged with assault and battery. (SORs 2.c. and 2.d.) He could recall
neither incident because there were about six similar incidents which began with him
arriving home late after drinking and/or being with another woman, and his girlfriend
accusing him of infidelity (Item 29).
Character Evidence
Applicant provided no evidence of his job performance or of his lifestyle away
from the job. He provided no independent evidence of AA contact, or participation in any
kind of therapy. He has been employed at his job for almost 10 years. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are flexible rules of law. Recognizing the complexities of human
behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s ultimate adjudicative goal is a fair,
impartial and common sense decision. According to the AG, the entire process is a
careful, thorough evaluation of a number of variables known as the “whole person
concept.” The Administrative Judge must consider all available, reliable information
about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.
Reasonable doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified
information will be resolved in favor of national security. In reaching this decision, I have
drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on the evidence
5
contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere
speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship
is not restricted to normal duty hours. Rather, the relationship is an-around-the-clock
responsibility between an applicant and the federal government. The government
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation
as to the potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
Analysis
Alcohol Consumption (AC)
21. The Concern. “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.”
Applicant’s lengthy alcohol abuse and alcohol-related conduct activates AC
disqualifying condition (DC) 22.a. (alcohol-related conduct away from work); AC DC
22.b. (alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an
intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on the job, regardless of whether the
individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent); AC DC 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); and
AC DC 22.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).
Applicant’s habitual alcohol consumption led to alcohol-related incidents, both outside
and inside the workplace, an also led to Applicant’s repeated punishment under the
UCMJ, and finally revocation of his security clearance on December 30,1991. 
Applicant’s drinking continued at abusive levels after his discharge from the
service in (circa) 1992. Following a public intoxication conviction on school grounds in
November 1992, and an arrest (no conviction) in October 1999 for assault after he had
been drinking, Applicant was convicted of DWI in December 2001. Though he claims he
quit drinking and joined AA following the completion of the alcohol awareness program
6
in May 2002, because there is no mention of this year-long period of sobriety in any of
the more recent exhibits, I do not consider his claim credible. A lack of supporting
evidence for Applicant’s more recent claim in his response to the FORM that he has
been sober since April 2008 is not believable either. 
The LSATP, director of the community substance abuse center, conducted an
evaluation of Applicant in March 2008 pursuant to a request by DOHA. After the
LSATP’s clinical interview of Applicant, her review of his November 2007 interview (Item
29) and examination of his urine sample, she determined (Item 32) that Applicant
should be diagnosed as alcohol dependent. 
Though there are four mitigating conditions under the AC guideline that
potentially could apply, none do apply because Applicant’s drinking history
demonstrates he is not committed to abstinence or recovery from his alcohol
dependence. AC MC 23.a. (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) does not apply. Even if I assume he stopped drinking in April 2008, Applicant
has only seven months of abstinence. This brief period of abstinence pales in
comparison to his 22-year period of alcohol abuse or dependence. 
AC MC 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) does not apply, because as the LSATP indicated in March 2008 (Item
30), Applicant does not comprehend his alcohol addiction. His lack of understanding of
his alcohol problem makes it more difficult for him to take credible action to overcome
the problem. Finally, the short period of abstinence, though encouraging, does not
convince me Applicant is firmly on the road of recovery. The other two mitigating
conditions are inapplicable. 
Personal Conduct (PC)
15. The Concern. “Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty,
or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Of
special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security
clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance
process.”
PC DC 16.b. (deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning
relevant facts to an investigator or other official government representative) applies. In
April 2000, Applicant provided a detailed description of observing a drug transaction
between his friend and a female in June 1994. He provided a detailed description that
tracked the case through the criminal justice system and ultimately resulted in his
acquittal. His denial of this drug transaction in his November 2007 interview, and
7
affirmation of that denial in his March 3, 2008 interrogatory answers (Item 29) is not
credible, is not credible either. Item 15 is a sworn statement (whereas Item 29 is only an
interview) that Applicant provided to the government in April 2000. Unlike the interview,
Applicant’s initials throughout the statement indicate he had a full opportunity to review
the statement and make changes. Before Applicant signed the statement, he
acknowledged that the statement was true as written. As between Item 15 and Item 29,
I determine Item 15 is more reliable in supporting my conclusion that Applicant did
observe a drug transaction in June 1994. 
Applying to Applicant’s conduct that occurred between May 1990 and August
2003 (SOR 2.g. through 2.b.) is disqualifying condition PC DC 16.c. (credible adverse
information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse
determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole,
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability , lack of candor, unwilling to comply with rules and regulations, or other
characteristics indicating the person may not properly safeguard classified information).
In April 1990, Applicant received Article 15 punishment for DWI, and his driving
privileges on the base were suspended. One month later, he violated his suspension
(rules violation) by driving on the base with his privileges suspended. 
In September 1992, at age 26, Applicant was arrested and convicted for carrying
a concealed weapon. In June 1994, Applicant was arrested for conspiracy to distribute
cocaine and distribution of cocaine. Although he was acquitted of the charges, he
exercised poor judgment by associating with drug users. In June 1996 and August
2003, Applicant was arrested for assault and battery. Applicant recalled that both
incidents were started after he came home late after drinking or being with another
woman.
There are four mitigating conditions (MC) that are potentially applicable to the
circumstances of this case. Those conditions are: PC MC 17.a. (the individual made
prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment or falsification, before
being confronted with the facts); PC MC 17.c. (the offense was so minor, or so much
time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment); and, PC MC 17.d. (the individual has
acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken
other positive steps to alleviate stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused
untrustworthy, unreliable or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely
to recur). PC MC 17.a. is not applicable as Applicant continues to deny he falsified his
interview in November 2007 regarding his observation of a drug transaction in June
1994. PC MC 17.c. is inapplicable because Applicant’s ongoing belief he did not falsify
the interview continues to cast doubt on his judgment and reliability. The second
element of the condition cannot be applied as the most recent falsification occurred less
than nine months before the hearing. The remaining mitigating conditions are
inapplicable. Applicant’s intentional attempt to conceal the drug transaction in June
1994, and his misrepresentations about his alcohol abstinence for a year or more,
8
coupled with the instances of poor judgment between 1990 and August 2003, have not
been mitigated. 
Whole Person Concept (WPC)
The AG indicates 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 whole person concept. The WPC is made of nine
general policy factors:
(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
the participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation
and other 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.
Factor 6 (the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other behavior changes)
and factor 9 (the likelihood of continuation or recurrence) are critical factors in this case.
Applicant presented no independent evidence which shows rehabilitation or behavioral
changes from his 22-year history of alcohol abuse or dependence. Applicant was
convicted of four alcohol-related offenses between April 1990 and March 1991. Then,
Applicant, at age 25, had his security clearance revoked in December 1991 because of
his alcohol problem. After his discharge in 2002, Applicant continued to drink, and got
involved in alcohol-related incidents.
On September 10, 2004, Applicant was denied a security clearance by an
Administrative Judge of DOHA. The reason for the denial was Applicant’s drinking
pattern and alcohol-related conduct. Rather than discontinue his drinking and/or seek
treatment Applicant has continued to consume alcohol. After reading Applicant’s
interview with a government investigator in November 2007, and conducting an
interview with him in March 2008, the LSATP believed that, based on the lack of insight
into his illness, he should be diagnosed with alcohol dependence and was in need of a
treatment program. Based on the totality of the evidence, the AC and PC guidelines are
found against Applicant.  
9
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 (Alcohol Consumption, Guideline G): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j. Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Personal Conduct, Guideline E): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.f. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.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. 
                       
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge