KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline G
DIGEST: The Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial
evidence.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-01200.a1
DATE: 11/13/2008
DATE: November 13, 2008
In Re:
------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-01200
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On March 24, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the basis
for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline G
2
(Alcohol Consumption) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On August 29, 2008, after
considering the record, Administrative Judge Joseph Testan denied Applicant’s request for a security
clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact were supported by substantial record evidence, and whether the Judge erred in his evaluation
of the Guideline G mitigating conditions.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant began consuming alcohol
in college in the 1990s, drinking once or twice a week and becoming intoxicated once or twice a
month.  Following college, his alcohol consumption increased.  By July 2006 he was consuming six
alcoholic beverages a day.  This continued until March 20, 2007, when he drank to the point of semi-
consciousness.  He consulted a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him with “alcoholism” and prescribed
a drug.  Applicant no longer takes the drug, as he states he has stopped craving alcohol.  In 2003,
Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.  He was fined $375.00 and his
license was suspended for six months.  Applicant attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings regularly.
In the Analysis portion of his decision, the Judge stated that he had considered the
disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of the entire record.  He noted that, following college
graduation, Applicant “increased the frequency of his excessive alcohol consumption to the point
that by July 2006, he was consuming six alcoholic beverages on a daily basis.  This daily abuse
occurred long after his serious alcohol-related driving incident in 2003 . . . These facts, together with
his diagnosis of ‘alcoholism,’ suggest that [A]pplicant’s alcohol problem is severe, and will require
a significant period of abstinence–much longer than the approximately 15 months of abstinence he
has to date–to safely conclude his abuse of alcohol . . . is unlikely to recur.”  Decision at 5.  
We have examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole.  The Judge’s
material findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence.  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.”)  Applicant
contends that the Judge did not assign sufficient weight to Applicant’s favorable evidence, such as
“changes in behavior supportive of sobriety” and his stated intention never to use alcohol again.
However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless he specifically
states otherwise.  See, e. g., ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008).  “An applicant’s
disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different
interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or
reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”  See  ISCR Case
No. 07-10454 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 12, 2008).  Furthermore, Applicant chose to have the case decided
upon the written record, with the result that his credibility could not be evaluated in the context of
a hearing.  See ISCR Case No. 08-00899 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 29, 2008). 
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
3
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 [A]pplicant eligibility
for a security clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 5.  See Department of the Navy
v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                 
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                  
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board