1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-09906
SSN: ------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concern generated by his alcohol
consumption. Clearance is denied.
On April 9, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing a security concern under the alcohol
consumption guideline. 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 for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.
Applicant answered the SOR on April 23, 2009, admitting all allegations. The
case was assigned to me on June 17, 2009. On June 23, 2009, a notice of hearing was
issued scheduling the case for July 8, 2009. 
2
At the hearing, I received six government exhibits and Applicant’s testimony. The
transcript was received on July 16, 2009. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 53-year-old single man with a teenage daughter. Two prior
marriages ended in divorce. He finished high school and completed one year of college.
For the past 30 years, he has worked for a defense contractor that services nuclear
aircraft carriers (Tr. 11). During this time, Applicant has steadily earned promotions.
Currently, he is a general foreman (Tr. 18). He has held a security clearance for 30
years (Tr. 26).
Applicant began drinking alcohol at age 21. Initially, he drank three beers per
week (Exhibit 3 at 2). By age 25, his alcohol consumption had increased to 12 beers per
week. By age 35, he was drinking 18 to 24 beers per week (Tr. 31). 
In 1987, while leaving a restaurant, Applicant was stopped at a police sobriety
checkpoint and administered a breathalyzer (Exhibit 5 at 1). He failed, and was arrested
and charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (Id.). Later, he
pleaded guilty, and was ordered to pay a fine and complete an alcohol safety action
program (Id.). The course included a defensive driver’s tutorial, Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA) meetings, and group discussions. Applicant completed the course, as ordered.
In June 2006, the police stopped Applicant and administered a breathalyzer.
Applicant failed, registering a blood/alcohol content of .11. He was then arrested and
charged with DUI (Id. at 3; Tr. 35). He pleaded guilty, paid a fine, and was ordered to
take a ten-week course that the state conducted. It included AA meetings twice weekly
for the first five weeks, and once weekly for the last five weeks (Id.). Applicant
completed the course, as ordered.
One evening in June 2008, after a day of playing golf, Applicant went to a
restaurant with his friends and drank four 16-ounce glasses of beer with dinner (Tr. 40).
After dinner, while driving home, he veered across the center line of the street, and was
stopped by a police officer (Id.). Applicant was charged with DUI, found guilty, and
sentenced to 180 days in jail with 175 days suspended. His license was suspended for
60 days, and he was ordered to attend six months of outpatient treatment and AA
meetings (Tr. 41-42). 
Applicant served his jail time on consecutive weekends (Tr. 41). As for the
outpatient treatment, the plan originally included group counseling and AA attendance
once per week. The counseling center increased these meetings to two times per week
after his intake assessment revealed a level of alcohol in his system that indicated more
recent consumption than he had reported (Exhibit 6 at 2).
By March 2009, Applicant had successfully completed the treatment program,
attending all but one counseling session and passing all of the random alcohol tests (Tr.
3
42). His case manager ruled out alcohol dependence and diagnosed him with alcohol
abuse (Exhibit 6 at 3).
The court restored Applicant’s license after 60 days, as anticipated. As of the
date of the hearing, his license remained restricted (Tr. 47). Specifically, he can only
drive to and from work, medical appointments, or to exercise visitation rights with his
daughter. The restriction was set to expire on August 4, 2009.
Currently, Applicant continues to drink, but only consumes four beers per week
on weekends (Tr. 45). He no longer drinks to the point of intoxication (Tr. 46). He
contends that his alcohol consumption had begun gradually decreasing by 1999. He has
no intention of drinking and driving again (Tr. 53).
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. 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.” 
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.
Analysis
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
Under this guideline, “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” (AG ¶ 21). Applicant’s history of
4
excessive alcohol and DUIs triggers the application of AG ¶¶ 22(a), “alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence . . . regardless of
whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent,” and 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.” 
The government established that the case manager was an employee of a
substance abuse services facility. Absent record evidence of the meaning of the
acronyms “MAC, NCC” following her signature on the letter summarizing Applicant’s
treatment history, I cannot infer, however, that the case manager is either a licensed
clinician or a qualified medical professional. Consequently, I did not apply either AG ¶
22(d), “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical
psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence,” or AG ¶ 22(e),
“evaluation of alcohol abuse or dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a
staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.”
Applicant successfully completed an outpatient treatment program. He has
reduced his alcohol consumption to four beers per week, a responsible amount. He no
longer drinks alcohol before driving, and, more importantly, appears to have internalized
an understanding of the inherent danger of drinking and driving. As of the hearing date,
Applicant’s driver’s license was still restricted. Consequently, it is too soon to conclude
that 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,” applies.
However, Applicant’s reduced alcohol consumption and the insight he has gained from
his participation in alcohol counseling are sufficient to establish 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).”
The program that Applicant recently completed is the first formal, comprehensive
alcohol treatment that he has received. Past alcohol interventions were less intensive
and focused on education rather than treatment. Consequently, AG ¶ 23(c), “the
individual is a current employee who is participating in a counseling or treatment
program, has no history of previous treatment or relapse, and is making satisfactory
progress,” is inapplicable because it is not relevant to the facts of this case.
Based upon the case manager’s letter, Applicant was doing a good job of
complying with the treatment program. However, when the letter was prepared,
Applicant had six more weeks of treatment to complete before discharge. Although he
testified credibly that he completed the course satisfactorily, he produced no discharge
summary from the treatment center. Consequently, I cannot conclude that 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
5
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
alcohol treatment program,” applies.
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 applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider 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.
Applicant testified credibly, and had an impressive demeanor. He deserves credit
for holding a security clearance for 30 years. He appears to have gained a deeper
appreciation of the tenuous threshold between occasionally drinking too much beer with
friends at social outings, and having an alcohol problem. Recognizing the risk
associated with occasional overconsumption, he has chosen never to drink to the point
of intoxication.
The state court’s issuance of a restriction upon Applicant’s driving privileges is a
significant factor. Implicit in the imposition of such a restriction is the concern that
Applicant would pose a public safety risk if allowed to operate his automobile freely.
This restriction was scheduled to be released after the ISCR hearing. Also, given the
repetitive nature of the DUIs, not enough time has elapsed to conclude that he will
sustain his modified drinking pattern. Consequently, it is too soon to conclude that
Applicant’s alcohol consumption no longer poses a security concern.
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, Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a - 1.f: Against Applicant
6
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record 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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge