FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 1
                                                           
                     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )     ISCR Case No. 07-11913
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Patrick A. Fayle, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on October 30, 2006. On June 18, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the
security concerns under Guideline G that provided the basis for its decision to deny him
a security clearance. 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 as of September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on July 10, 2008, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on July 22, 2008,
to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 2
a security clearance for him. On September 4, 2008, I scheduled a hearing for October
1, 2008. At the request of Applicant’s counsel, I granted a continuance on September
19, 2008. By notice dated October 3, 2008, I rescheduled the hearing for November 6,
2008.
The hearing was held as rescheduled. Five government exhibits (Ex. 1-5) and 13
Applicant exhibits (Ex. A-M) were admitted without any objections. Applicant and his
spouse testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on November 14, 2008.
Based on review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
DOHA alleged under Guideline G, alcohol consumption, that Applicant consumed
alcohol on a daily basis, including to intoxication at least once to twice each week, from
about 1997 to August 2005 (SOR ¶ 1.a); that he admitted himself for detoxification to a
hospital on August 8, 2005, where he was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and
following treatment discharged on August 10, 2005 (SOR ¶ 1.b); that on discharge he
was advised to continue in aftercare and he indicated he would attend Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) (SOR ¶ 1.c); that after abstaining for about one year he resumed
drinking alcohol in 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.d); and that he has continued to consume alcohol
since 2006 despite being diagnosed as alcohol dependent (SOR ¶ 1.e). Applicant
admitted the allegations but in response to SOR ¶ 1.e, he denied that he is alcohol
dependent. His admissions are incorporated as factual findings. After considering the
record evidence, I make the following additional findings.
Applicant is a 39-year-old operations analyst who has been employed by a
defense contractor since November 2005 (Ex.1, Tr. 34). He seeks a secret security
clearance (Ex. D).
After high school, Applicant worked as an automotive technician while pursuing
his associate’s degree in that trade at a local technical college (Tr. 21-22). On receiving
his degree in May 1989 (Tr. 24), he continued to work at the same automotive center for
the next nine years (Ex. 1, Ex. M). Applicant, who had his first drink at age 18 (Ex. 2,
Ex. 3, Tr. 22), consumed alcohol in a social context, primarily on weekends (Ex. H, Tr.
23). Coworkers with whom he consumed alcohol consider Applicant’s drinking to have
been social and appropriate, as he drank no more than three or four beers per occasion
(Ex. H, Ex. I).
In August 1997, Applicant began working as a bar back/bartender at a downtown
club (tavern) while maintaining his day job as an automotive mechanic (Ex. 1, Ex. M). In
February 1998, he left the auto center and became a full-time employee of the tavern
Applicant attributes his excessive drinking to his lifestyle at the time. He was working in a bar and1
up all night: 
I would get up in the afternoon, that’s when my friends would be getting together and, you
know, they had already worked all day, so they were having a couple of beers, while me,
hanging with them, it was like morning for me but it was actually evening for them, so it just
kind of progressively got away from me. (Tr. 61)
Applicant listed his employment as a painter on his e-QIP (Ex. 1) but not on his resume (Ex. M).2
W hen he was admitted for detoxification treatment in August 2005, he told the medical staff that he had been
unemployed for five months (Ex. 4).
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 3
(Ex. 1, Ex. M, Tr. 23). The work environment was conducive to drinking,  and Applicant1
began to consume alcohol on a daily basis, and to intoxication a few times each week.
His drinking increased over time to 30 beers or more per day (Ex. J). He drank during
the day before reporting to work at 6:00 p.m. and also while on the job (Tr. 24-25). His
roommate at the time, who has known him since they worked together at the automotive
center, warned Applicant that his drinking was getting out of control (Tr. H). In about
2003, Applicant was thinking about reducing his consumption. At the urging of his then
girlfriend who thought he was drinking too much, Applicant attended one AA meeting to
see what it involved (Tr. 135-36).
In spring 2004, Applicant met his spouse and they began dating shortly thereafter
(Tr. 26, 74). He was up-front with her about his drinking when she asked him, but she
did not realize the magnitude of his drinking problem at that time (Tr. 80).
Applicant was laid off from his job at the tavern in late November/early December
2004. Applicant moved in with his spouse and her then five-year-old daughter, and they
married later that month (Ex. 1, Tr. 27, 78). He worked as a painter, full-time starting in
spring 2005 (Ex. 1, Ex. M, Tr. 28, 80).  Applicant did not drink at work, but consumed2
alcohol excessively at home after work, about 20 beers on a daily basis (Tr. 29-30).
Given an ultimatum from his spouse that they would not stay together unless he
regained his sobriety (Ex. J), Applicant experienced withdrawal symptoms (“shakes,”
vomiting) as he unsuccessfully attempted to cut back on his drinking (Tr. 48-49, 81-82,
92). With his spouse expressing daily concerns about his drinking and fears that he
would have a heart attack if he stopped drinking without medical supervision (Tr. 82-83),
he voluntarily sought detoxification treatment at a hospital on August 8, 2005 (Ex. 3, Tr.
30-31). His blood alcohol level was .17%, and he was diagnosed with alcohol
dependence. Applicant appeared motivated to achieve sobriety, but he also expressed
that he may be able to drink socially some day. Initial treatment plan was a five-day
medical detoxification with group and individual sessions. He was discharged on August
10, 2005, with an aftercare appointment scheduled for August 16, 2005, and a plan to
attend AA meetings (Ex. 4). He was advised to abstain from alcohol (“They just say
abstain . . . I don’t think it was specified whether it was permanent.” Tr. 52). At
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 4
discharge, Applicant’s intent was to abstain from alcohol until he felt ready to handle
social drinking (Tr. 52-53).
Following his discharge, Applicant did not consume any alcohol for about 11
months (Ex. 3, Tr. 32, 55). He went to three or four AA meetings with a friend’s father
involved in the program (Tr. 125), but did not think AA was for him (Tr. 53-54, 70). He
did not pursue any other aftercare (Tr. 55, 131-32). On occasion, he discussed alcohol
issues with his friend’s father (Tr. 125-27, 137).  Most of these discussions took place
shortly after his detoxification treatment (Tr. 137). Applicant has not initiated contact
with him recently surrounding his alcohol use because he has not felt the need to do so
(Tr. 126).
In November 2005, Applicant started working for his present employer as an
installation mechanic/painter (Ex. 1, Ex. M, Tr. 33-34). He testified he did not require a
security clearance for that position (Tr. 34), although he completed his e-QIP on
October 30, 2006 (Ex. 1). 
Applicant drank two or three beers on July 4, 2006 (Tr. 32, 57, 99). He no longer
considered himself to have an alcohol problem, and he felt he was ready to handle
social drinking (Tr. 55-56). He and his spouse discussed the issue of him resuming
drinking beforehand, and they agreed that if either of them felt his drinking was a
problem, there would be no drinking (Tr. 85). He has continued to consume beer with
his spouse and/or friends because he enjoys it (Ex. 2). He testified he consumes usually
two or three, “just every once in awhile, maybe a couple times a week on the weekends”
(Tr. 33, 59, 64, 68), although in response to DOHA interrogatories, he related in October
2007 a frequency of “0-10 12 oz. beers weekly” (Ex. 2). He also drinks at home with
dinner on occasion, to as recently as November 2008 (Tr. 105-06). In June 2008, he
drank four beers at a friend’s bachelor party (Tr. 70). Applicant continues to socialize
with the friends with whom he drank excessively in the past (Tr. 61). On occasion, he
has gone out and purchased a six-pack of beer to bring to the neighbors or to friends
and friends have brought beer to his residence (Tr. 102). He denies drinking to
intoxication (i.e., losing control) since July 2006 (Tr. 58). The friend whose father took
Applicant to AA in 2005 has offered Applicant a beer during the work week and on
weekends. He has not seen him drink to excess (Ex. G). Applicant informed his friend’s
father that he has resumed drinking. A recovering alcoholic (Ex. G) with more than 20
years of sobriety (Tr. 120), he told Applicant to be careful, although he made no specific
recommendation as to whether Applicant should abstain (Tr. 127-28). Applicant intends
to continue to consume alcohol at his present rate (Ex. 3). He has never been arrested
on any alcohol-related charges (Ex. 3, Tr. 38).
Since resuming drinking, Applicant has not consumed alcohol on the job. Nor has
he reported for work intoxicated or impaired from alcohol (Ex. A, B, C, D, E, F, Tr. 39).
His performance evaluations show he was fully satisfactory in all factors, including
productivity and attendance, since he started working for his employer. He was
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 5
motivated to get the job done and required little supervision (Ex. L). Very dependable,
he worked overtime when asked and the quality of his work was “exemplary” (Ex. D). In
2007, Applicant was formally recognized by his employer on two separate occasions for
his contributions in improving processes (Ex. K, Tr. 45-46). In March 2008, Applicant
was promoted to the salaried position of a senior operations analyst in the paint shop at
an increase in his annual pay of between $10,000 and $15,000 depending on overtime
(Tr. 40-41). Applicant’s current supervisor requested that Applicant obtain a security
clearance so that he can perform additional duties. He has found Applicant’s reliability
and trustworthiness to be above reproach and his judgment sound (Ex. E, Ex. F). An
engineering specialist who has worked alongside Applicant since November 2005 has
observed that he works well under pressure. Applicant stays focused on his task, and
he is always punctual (Ex. A, Ex. B).
On July 1, 2008, Applicant underwent an hour long voluntary alcohol evaluation
by a licensed social worker/counselor to prove he was not alcohol dependent (Ex. J, Tr.
62). Asked to identify recent problems of concern to him, Applicant indicated he was
using alcohol to feel relaxed in social situations. The social worker deferred any
diagnosis pending further evaluation to rule out substance abuse/dependence. On July
8, 2008, Applicant met with the social worker for another hour, and he provided a
substance abuse history. He indicated he was drinking one to three beers, twice a
week, with last use on July 4, 2008. Applicant admitted he had consumed 30 beers per
day for about 18 months from 2003 to 2005 but denied being intoxicated since. After
also reviewing a statement from Applicant’s spouse in which she corroborated “the
positive changes” Applicant had made in his lifestyle, including his drinking, the social
worker diagnosed Applicant with alcohol dependence in sustained full remission (Ex. J).
In February 2008, Applicant adopted his spouse’s daughter (Tr. 86). In about
October 2008, he and his spouse purchased their first home. Currently she does not
work outside the home (Tr. 37, 87-88).
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 not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available,
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 6
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. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny 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 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
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. 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
that 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 potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
The security concern for alcohol consumption is set out in AG & 21: “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
untrustworthiness.” Applicant had his first drink at age 18. While employed as an auto
mechanic, he drank beer in moderation, including with coworkers. However, after going
to work as a bartender in 1997, he began to drink daily and eventually in excessive
amount, about 30 beers per day. As evidenced by the expressed concerns of a former
girlfriend and of his roommate, his drinking was out of control by 2003. Following his job
layoff from the tavern and his marriage in December 2004, he experienced withdrawal
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 7
symptoms when he attempted to curb his consumption, and he continued to drink to
abusive levels (about 20 beers daily after work). AG ¶ 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”) applies. Given he
was diagnosed by a physician as suffering from alcohol dependence when he sought
detoxification treatment in August 2005, disqualifying condition AG ¶ 22(d) (“diagnosis
by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or
psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence”) also applies.
Applicant offers in mitigation 11 months of abstinence from August 2005 to July
2006 followed by two plus years of controlled drinking with no negative impact on his
work or family life. Applicant has not consumed alcohol to intoxication in the past three
years. Yet I am unable to apply mitigating condition AG ¶ 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”). He drank habitually to excess for
more than seven years, including after he was laid off from his job at the tavern.
Employment in the bar environment cannot fully explain his serious alcohol problem.
Not everyone who works as a bartender develops alcohol dependency.
Applicant’s voluntary admission for detoxification in August 2005 is action taken
to overcome his problem (see AG ¶ 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)”). But AG ¶ 23(b) cannot be fully applied based
on the relatively short 11-month period of abstinence in comparison to his years of daily
excessive consumption leading to physiological dependence. Furthermore, Applicant
has shown little insight into his alcohol problem. When asked whether he felt he had a
drinking problem when he admitted himself for detoxification, Applicant responded, “At
that time, yeah” (Tr. 56). By July 2006, when he felt he was ready to drink socially,
Applicant did not think he had a drinking problem (“I mean, you now, once you’re, it
seems like once you’re labeled, you’re labeled, but I felt I really didn’t have any  kind of
drinking problem”) (Tr. 57). The medical records shed little light on any specific insights
gained by Applicant about his alcohol problem during his brief hospital stay, and his
testimony raises considerable concerns as to what he understands is required on his
part to maintain sobriety for the long term. Asked about what he learned during his
detoxification, Applicant testified, “Well, I wasn’t really there to learn anything, I was
there to get myself off the, you know, get myself off the dependency” (Tr. 51-52).
In July 2008, Applicant was evaluated by a licensed social worker to prove he is
not alcohol dependent. Based on Applicant’s self-report, including that he was drinking
one to three beers twice a week, the social worker apparently concluded that the criteria
for dependence have not been met at any time during a period of at least 12 months
(see Ex. 5), as he diagnosed Applicant with alcohol dependence, sustained full
Alcohol detoxification may include counseling, but it is primarily medical treatment to withdraw a3
person from alcohol and to relieve the symptoms of that withdrawal. By relieving the physical dependence on
alcohol, it prepares a person for rehabilitation, which includes counseling, psychological support, medical care,
and therapy to educate about alcoholism and its effects, to ensure against future alcohol use/abuse.
Rehabilitation may incorporate family and social interventions to increase its effectiveness. The evidence does
not establish that Applicant underwent any alcohol rehabilitation following his detoxification.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 8
remission. There is independent validation for this qualifier in Applicant’s excellent work
record for his employer over the past three years. It is unlikely Applicant would have
been able to sustain a high record of level if he was drinking to intoxication. At the same
time, the social worker validated the original diagnosis of alcohol dependence. He did
not offer a prognosis with respect to whether Applicant, who abused alcohol to the point
of medically diagnosed dependence in the past, risks relapse by continuing to drink
alcohol on a regular basis against medical advice to abstain.
Since Applicant is not pursuing any treatment and is not involved in AA or similar
organization, AG 23(c) (“the individual is a current employee who is participating in
counseling or a treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse,
and is making satisfactory progress”) does not apply. Even if I was to conclude that his
detoxification fulfilled the counseling requirement of AG ¶ 23(d),  he lacks the favorable3
prognosis, and compliance with aftercare and abstinence required for mitigation under
that mitigating condition (“the individual has successfully completed inpatient or
outpatient counseling or rehabilitation along with any required aftercare, has
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations, such as participation in meetings of
Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar organization 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 treatment program”). 
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the conduct
and all the circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶
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) the 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.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 9
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall common 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. Applicant bears a substantial burden of
mitigation, especially where he does not fully satisfy any of the Guideline G mitigating
conditions. With the help of a three-day detoxification in August 2005, and some informal
discussions with a friend’s father who has over 20 years of sobriety, Applicant managed
to bring his alcohol dependency problem in full remission. At the same time, he
continues to drink alcohol on a regular basis, with no appreciation that he might be
risking his sobriety by doing so. He elected not to pursue recommended aftercare
counseling, and has no formal support network in place to assist him should he find
himself drinking more in the future. His relationship with his friend’s father is too sporadic
for this person to be considered even an informal sponsor. Discussions Applicant had
with him about alcohol (how you feel after you quit drinking, how to change your lifestyle)
were close to the time he finished his detoxification. Applicant testified that he has had
little reason to initiate contact with him to discuss alcohol issues, although he did inform
him that he had resumed drinking. Regular drinking at even a reduced level of two to
three beers a couple times a week raises some doubt as to his commitment to his
sobriety, given his extensive abuse in the past. I am unable to conclude that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for him.
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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
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
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 10
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
Administrative Judge