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. 07-18078
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) on
April 3, 2007. On July 21, 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 September 10, 2008, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on November 17,
2008, to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 2
continue a security clearance for him. On November 25, 2008, I scheduled a hearing for
December 19, 2008.
The hearing was held as scheduled. Four government exhibits (Ex. 1-4) and two
Applicant exhibits (Ex. A-B) were admitted without any objections. Applicant testified, as
reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on December 31, 2008. At Applicant’s request, the
record was held open until January 16, 2009. No additional documents were received.
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, at times to excess and to intoxication, from approximately 1986 to at least
March 2007 (SOR ¶ 1.a); that he received nonjudicial punishment in 1996 for driving
under the influence (DUI) (SOR ¶ 1.b); that his license was suspended for failure to take
a breathalyzer following an arrest for DUI between 1996 and 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.c); that he
was fined for an open container offense in about 2001 (SOR ¶ 1.d); that he pleaded
guilty to November 2006 charges of DUI and operating under suspension-alcohol and
was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended, and 18 months probation (SOR ¶ 1.e);
that he received treatment for alcohol abuse through an employee assistance program
(EAP) at a local center from November 2006 to about April 2007 (SOR ¶ 1.f); that he
received treatment for alcohol dependence at a behavioral health facility from February
2007 to about July 2007 (SOR ¶ 1.g); and that he was in treatment for alcohol abuse at
a community and family services center as of March 26, 2008 (SOR ¶ 1.h). Applicant
admitted the allegations. His admissions are incorporated as factual findings. After
considering the record evidence, I make the following additional findings.
Applicant is a 37-year-old senior quality control analyst, who has been employed
by a defense contractor since September 2001, following nine years of active duty
service in the U.S. military (Exs. 1, 2,  Tr. 24). He seeks to retain the secret-level
security clearance he has held since he was in the Navy (Ex. 1, 2).
Applicant began to drink alcohol (beer) in about 1986 when he was 14 or 15. He
drank at parties with friends (Ex. 3). After he entered the U.S. military in April 1992 (Exs.
1, 2), his drinking caused him no problems until June 1996 when he was awarded
nonjudicial punishment for DUI. He had consumed an unrecalled amount of beer at a
local bar and driven back to the base. Applicant was sitting in his vehicle listening to the
radio when base police approached about the radio’s volume. Applicant was charged
with DUI after failing a breathalyzer. At Captain’s Mast, he was awarded a reduction in
rate, 45 days extra duty, 45 days restriction, and forfeiture of one month’s pay (half pay
each month for two months). The sentence was suspended for six months and then
dismissed (Ex. 3, Tr. 28). Applicant went to a week-long alcohol education class
voluntarily (Tr. 33-34).
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 3
Applicant married in August 1998. He and his spouse (now ex-wife) had a
daughter in December 1998 (Tr. 26). He was fined $25 for an open container violation in
July 2001 while tailgating at a baseball game (Exs. 1, 2, 3, Tr. 31). That same month, he
received an honorable discharge from the military (Exs. 1, 2, Tr. 26).
In September 2001, he began working for his current employer as a quality
control analyst in support of his former military command. Needing to retain his secret
clearance for his duties on the military installation, Applicant executed a security
clearance application on March 12, 2002. He disclosed his June 1996 nonjudicial
punishment (“suspended bust”) and the July 2001 open container violation (Ex. 2).
In 2003, Applicant began drinking often to intoxication as his marital relationship
deteriorated. After he and his spouse divorced in mid-August 2004 (Ex. 1), he continued
to consume alcohol at times to excess. As of the fall of 2006, if not before, Applicant
was drinking up to a fifth bottle of liquor on a daily basis while socializing after work at a
bar with friends (Ex. 3, Tr. 50).
Applicant was arrested three times on drunk driving offenses after 2001. On the
first occasion, Applicant had been drinking at home. He let a friend borrow his car but it
ran out of gas not far from Applicant’s home. So that the car would not be towed, this
person walked Applicant back to the vehicle to wait while he went to get gas. Applicant
was sitting in the car on private property with the keys in the ignition when the police
approached and arrested him for drunk driving. The charge was dropped (Ex. 3, p. 29).
While that charge was still pending, Applicant was pulled over for drunk driving. He
refused the breathalyzer and his license was suspended. He took a required drunk
driving class after this incident (Ex. 3, Tr. 30-31).
On a Friday night in early November 2006, Applicant consumed half of a fifth
bottle of schnapps plus four beers in his home. The following morning, he was pulled
over for speeding while en route to a local store. Citing knee injuries, Applicant declined
to perform field sobriety tests, and he was arrested on suspicion of DUI. He failed a
breathalyzer at the station and was charged with two misdemeanors, illegal operation of
a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol/drugs and illegal operation of a
motor vehicle under suspension-alcohol. He was also cited for two infractions,
exceeding posted speed limit and failure to return license/registration. Detained in jail
for three days, he experienced alcohol withdrawal symptoms (visual hallucinations).
Applicant pleaded not guilty to all the charges, but in February 2007, he was convicted
of the drunk driving and operation under suspension charges. He was ordered to pay
$1,000 ($500 for each offense, which Applicant maintains was a contribution and not a
DOHA alleged, and Applicant admitted, that he was also sentenced to six months in jail, suspended.1
The only court record available for review reflects a sentence for each offense of a $500 fine and 18 months
(Ex. 4). The court record does not indicate whether the 18 months was to be spent in jail or on probation. Nor
does it indicate that the 18 month sentences were to be spent concurrently.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 4
fine, see Ex. 3), and he was placed on 18 months probation.  The motor vehicle1
infractions were nolled. (Ex. 4).
Following his November 2006 arrest for drunk driving, Applicant realized he had
a problem with alcohol. He stopped socializing with those coworkers with whom he
drank at the bar (Tr. 51), and took the opportunity to move to second shift so that he
could avoid them (Tr. 52). At the referral of an EAP program, Applicant received
counseling for alcohol abuse with a therapist from November 2006 to April 2007 (Exs. 2,
3, Tr. 35-36). The frequency of his sessions with the clinician increased from once
weekly to twice weekly and eventually three times weekly (Ex. 3). Applicant was advised
by this therapist that he should not drink alcohol (Tr. 42).
At the referral of the therapist, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation by an
osteopathic (D.O.) physician with a behavioral health practice on February 3, 2007.
Applicant admitted during the evaluation that he had consumed alcohol the previous
day; that he was drinking every third day, in quantity of 750 ml of alcohol per occasion
to deal with anxiety; and that he was experiencing alcohol-related blackouts and had
cravings for alcohol. He was given a principal diagnosis of alcohol dependence and
started on Campral for his alcohol use, Sertraline for anxiety and depressive symptoms,
and Trazodone for problems sleeping. He was advised to abstain from alcohol (Tr. 42),
to continue his sessions with his therapist, and to return for medication management in
three weeks time. Applicant cancelled appointments with the D.O. scheduled for March
2, 2007, and March 9, 2007. During a session with the D.O. on March 14, 2007,
Applicant reported that he felt better, but also that he was still drinking alcohol. His
condition was assessed as stable and his medications were continued for 30 days with
one refill. Applicant was advised to continue his therapy sessions. During a follow-up
session with the D.O. on May 9, 2007, Applicant reported he had abstained from alcohol
for the past week and a half, and that he was compliant with his medications. The D.O.
assessed Applicant’s condition as stable and improving. On May 22, 2007, Applicant
complained to the D.O. by telephone of a negative health reaction from the Trazodone.
He was advised to seek medical help immediately, which he failed to do. On July 20,
2007, Applicant failed to show for an appointment scheduled with the D.O. (Ex. 3).
Applicant attended a few Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings between January and
April 2007 (Tr. 43).
For a periodic reinvestigation of his security clearance, Applicant executed a
QNSP on April 3, 2007. He listed his 1996 nonjudicial punishment for DUI, the 2001
open container violation, and the November drunk driving offense for which he was on
Applicant testified that two counselors told him that he could drink a little (“I needed to drink because2
I could go into arrest because of the amount of alcohol I was drinking back in the time when I was drinking
heavily. And there was something to do with it had to all do with my heart.” Tr. 50).
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 5
probation. In response to inquiry into his medical record, Applicant indicated he had
been seeing a therapist since November 2006, and the D.O. for medication only since
February 2007 (Ex. 1).
On August 23, 2007, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator, in
part about his alcohol use, related offenses, and his treatment. Applicant explained that
he began to drink heavily in 2003 during his separation from his spouse and that he
often drank to intoxication. Although unable to recall the amounts consumed, Applicant
estimated that it took about a half bottle of schnapps and four to five beers for him to
become intoxicated. He indicated that he had been arrested twice for DUI, in June 1996
while in the military, and in November 2006, and that he drank until November 2006,
daily at least four beers and two shots of liquor. He denied any consumption of alcohol
since November 2006 and he expressed an intent to continue abstinence in the future
(Ex. 3).
DOHA subsequently asked Applicant to confirm the accuracy of the investigator’s
report of the August 2007 interview and to explain why his license had been suspended
at the time of his arrest in November 2006. In his response dated March 26, 2008,
Applicant related that he did not recall telling the investigator that he had not consumed
alcohol since November 2006. He provided previously undisclosed information about a
therapy consult in early 2007 wherein he had been told that he should “drink little and
not overdo it because [he] could die or go into [an] alcoholic shock.”  Applicant admitted2
that after being prescribed medications, he had “slipped up a few times,” so he was
back in treatment with a new therapist. He added that he was subject to drug testing as
a condition of his probation so it was another reason for him to abstain (Ex. 3).
Applicant saw this new therapist only once or twice (Tr. 41). He continued to
consume alcohol, including a couple of times when he was on probation knowing that
he risked jail by drinking (Tr. 44). Applicant’s probation ended in September 2008 but he
has not regained his license (Tr. 45). Applicant drank liquor, in quantities varying from
less than a pint to more than a pint, 10 or 12 times during the last six months of 2008.
Over the weekend of December 3-14, 2008, he consumed a pint of liquor that was
brought to him by a friend. He was going through a rough time with his daughter (Tr. 37-
41, 49). He tried contacting supportive friends for help but did not reach them (Tr. 53),
so he called an old friend and asked him to bring the liquor (Tr. 56). Applicant has not
taken his Campral medication since summer 2008 (Tr. 37, 44). He no longer considers
himself an alcoholic because he has his alcohol consumption under control (Tr. 42).
Applicant does not plan to drink, but family problems (ex-wife quitting her job and losing
her house and car, issues with his daughter) have led him to consume alcohol (Tr. 45-
46). He has developed new hobbies to help him deal with the stress (Tr. 47-48).
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 6
Applicant has the full confidence of the military officers who have oversight over
his work at the military base. As a quality assurance supervisor, Applicant is responsible
for the integrity of a safety program. (Exs. A, B) His work was recognized by an
inspection board as among the best in the fleet (Ex. A). 
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,
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.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 7
 
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 was punished by Captain’s Mast for DUI in June 1996. In
July 2001, he was fined for an open container violation. While in his present
employment and holding a secret clearance, Applicant was arrested three times for
drunk driving. In the first incident, he was charged with DUI after he was found sitting
behind the wheel of his vehicle with the keys in the ignition. There is no evidence that
he had driven on that occasion, and the DUI charge was dismissed. However, he does
not deny that he had been drinking. He was also not convicted of DUI in the second
incident, but he acknowledges that he was drinking and driving (Tr. 30), and his license
was suspended for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer. He was driving on that
suspended license when he was caught drunk driving in November 2006. Applicant was
convicted of both operating a motor vehicle under the influence and of operating a
motor vehicle under suspension. AG ¶ 22(a), “alcohol-related incidents away from work,
such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the
peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed
as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent,” clearly applies.
For some time before his November 2006 arrest, Applicant had been drinking up
to a fifth of liquor on a daily basis. This habitual consumption to excess, which raises
concerns under 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,” led to a serious alcohol problem. In February 2007, the
D.O. diagnosed him as alcohol dependent. 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 deserves credit for recognizing in November 2006 that he had an
alcohol problem, and for seeking help through an EAP program and counseling. Yet,
despite ongoing sessions with a therapist, he continued to consume alcohol as of mid-
March 2007, even after being placed on Campral medication by the D.O. As of an
office visit with the D.O. on May 9, 2007, Applicant had managed to abstain from
alcohol for more than one week. But he relapsed again into sporadic drinking due to
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 8
family stressors. During the last six months of 2008, he consumed alcohol on 10 to 12
occasions, up to a pint of liquor at times. This drinking was contrary to the medical
advice from the D.O. and to the clinical advice from the therapist whom he had seen
from November 2006 to April 2007. Two other counselors, whom he had seen only
briefly, apparently advised him that he could drink a little to avoid the health
consequences of total withdrawal. Applicant’s consumption of up to a pint of liquor is
clearly contrary to even that advice. Since Applicant has not completed an alcohol
rehabilitation program, AG ¶ 22(f), “relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or
dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program,” does not apply.
However, his recent drinking was a violation of his probation. Applicant admitted he
risked jail time had he been caught, so AG ¶22(g), “failure to follow any court order
regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence,” is pertinent.
Concerning the potential conditions in mitigation under AG ¶ 23, his relapse
history precludes consideration of 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.” The weekend before his hearing, Applicant drank
about a pint of liquor that a friend brought over at his request.
Applicant’s voluntary counseling from November 2006 to April 2007, aided by
medication from February 2007 to summer 2008, 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).” He elected to work second shift so that he “wouldn’t have an excuse to
go out and drink in the afternoons after work” (Tr. 51), and he developed hobbies to
alleviate some of the stress and anxiety that led him to abuse alcohol in the past. But
AG ¶ 23(b) cannot be fully applied. He has not abstained from alcohol for any significant
period. He shows insufficient insight into his alcohol problem, as evidenced by his
admission that he does not now consider himself to be an alcoholic since he is not
drinking at previous levels.
The recurrence and recency of his relapses and the absence of any present
treatment or involvement in AA or similar organization preclude consideration of 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,” and AG ¶ 23(d), “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.” Applicant stopped attending his
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 9
counseling sessions with the therapist in April 2007. He returned to counseling with a
new therapist in March 2008, but attended only one or two sessions. While he has a
prescription for Campral, he has not taken the drug since summer 2008. Although he
now has friends who attend AA, he has not shown how their involvement in AA helps
him. There is no recent prognosis from a clinician that could dispel the security
concerns raised by his ongoing abusive relationship with alcohol.
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.
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. He has not allowed his abusive use of alcohol to interfere with his work
performance. Accountable for the integrity of a very stringent quality control program,
Applicant holds a highly trusted position and he has not disappointed those military
officers who rely on him. But security is a 24-hour-per-day responsibility, and Applicant
continues to struggle with his alcohol problem. Since at least 2003, he has turned to
drinking to cope with family stress caused by the dissolution of his marriage and more
recently by his ex-wife quitting her job and losing her home. Problems with his daughter
led him to call new friends for help, but also to ask an old friend for liquor in December
2008. He is no longer on probation for his November 2006 drunk driving offense, but that
does not fully mitigate the serious alcohol consumption concerns.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies 10
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
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
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