1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE   
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 ---------------------------- )     ISCR Case No. 08-03924
SSN: -------------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Jeffrey A. Denner, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Alcohol consumption concerns raised by Applicant’s drunk driving offenses in
May 2003 and March 2006, and by his July 2006 open container violation are not
mitigated. He continues to minimize his drinking history to where it cannot be concluded
that issues of alcohol abuse are safely in the past. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on November 20, 2006. On December 16, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant a statement of reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guideline G, alcohol consumption, that provided the basis for
its preliminary decision to deny him a security clearance and refer the matter to an
administrative judge. 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) effective within the Department of Defense as of September 1, 2006.
2
On April 3, 2009, Applicant answered the SOR and he requested a hearing if his
response did not lead to a favorable resolution. The case was assigned to me on May
15, 2009, to decide whether it is clearly consistent to grant or continue a security
clearance for Applicant. Scheduling the hearing was delayed on Applicant’s
representation that he planned to retain legal counsel. Having received no entry of
appearance from his attorney by August 11, 2009, I issued a notice of hearing to
Applicant scheduling his hearing for September 2, 2009.
On August 20, 2009, counsel for Applicant entered his appearance and moved
for a continuance, citing his unavailability on September 2, 2009, due to prior
commitments, and needing time to prepare because he had just been retained. The
government objected, citing Applicant’s failure to exercise due diligence in seeking
counsel. While Applicant was shown to have failed to retain counsel in a timely manner,
I granted a brief continuance due to his legal counsel’s unavailability on September 2,
2009. On September 1, 2009, I rescheduled the hearing for October 28, 2009.
I convened the hearing on October 28, 2009, as rescheduled. The government
submitted 11 exhibits (Ex. 1-11), which were admitted without any objections. Applicant
and three witnesses testified on his behalf, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on
November 9, 2009.
Findings of Fact
DOHA alleged under Guideline G, alcohol consumption, that Applicant was cited
in July 2006 for transporting alcohol, for which he was required to undergo an alcohol
assessment, and for operating a vehicle without a valid license, for which he was fined
(SOR 1.a); that he was charged in March 2006 with driving under the influence (DUI)
but convicted of a lesser charge of “wet reckless” for which he paid fines and costs of
$1,800, was placed on three years probation, and ordered to complete an alcohol
education program (SOR 1.b); and that he had been convicted previously of a May
2003 operating a vehicle under the influence (OUI) offense (SOR 1.c). Applicant denied
he was convicted of the 2003 OUI but he admitted the other offenses. After considering
the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 33-year-old electrical engineer, who has worked for his present
defense contractor employer since about October 2008 (Tr. 32). He was granted a
secret clearance in October 2003 for his work with a previous employer, which included
classified work and access to special programs (Ex. 3, Tr. 28-29).
Applicant began drinking alcohol in 1996 or 1997, when he was a 19-year-old
college student. He consumed alcohol on weekends, and at parties (Ex. 2, Tr. 39).
Applicant worked full-time while pursuing his undergraduate degree at night, initially in
the stock room, then in assembly, and eventually as a network administrator with a local
technology company (Ex. 2, Tr. 22, 25). Before his final semester, he started working for
a defense contractor in June 1999, and he was granted a secret-level security
clearance. In January 2000, he was awarded his bachelor of science degree in
electrical engineering (Ex. 1). 
Applicant told the arresting officer that he had consumed “two beers” at an establishment named1
“Margaritas” (Ex. 9). W hen he completed his e-QIP in November 2006, Applicant stated that he consumed
“three drinks” while out to a restaurant named “Margaritas” with his then girlfriend (Ex. 1). The government
investigator who interviewed him in May 2007 reported that Applicant had consumed two “Margarita” mixed
drinks when out at a restaurant with his girlfriend and some coworkers (Ex. 2). At his hearing, Applicant
testified that he went to “Margaritas” next door to his work with some coworkers for dinner and he consumed
two drinks (Tr. 36). W hether he consumed Margarita drinks or different mixed drinks, his testimony (two drinks)
varies from his e-QIP representations of having consumed three drinks.
The officer who arrested Applicant in May 2003 reported that Applicant was operating at “an2
extremely high rate of speed” (Ex. 9).
There are discrepancies in the record concerning the quantity of alcohol Applicant consumed before3
this arrest as well. Applicant told the police when he was stopped that he had consumed two beers (Ex. 4).
Applicant indicated on his e-QIP completed in November 2006 that he drank two beers at the mountain, and
3
Applicant continued working for the same company, where he applied for a
security clearance. However, he left the job in the fall of 2000 before a final decision on
his clearance eligibility, for a new job in state X with a start-up company (Tr. 27).
Applicant worked there until mid-November 2001, when the commute became too much
for him (Tr. 27). Excepting a two-week span in May 2002, Applicant was unemployed
until August 2002, when he commenced employment as an engineer with a defense
contractor in adjacent state Y (Ex. 1, Tr. 28).
While working for the defense contractor, Applicant’s alcohol consumption
averaged one or two drinks, sometimes three drinks, at the end of the day or with dinner
(Ex. 2). In May 2003, Applicant consumed at least two mixed drinks while out with a
girlfriend and coworkers at a restaurant.  He and his now former girlfriend were en route1
home in her vehicle when he was stopped for speeding.  The officer detected signs of2
alcohol on Applicant, and Applicant told the officer that he had consumed “‘a couple of
beers.’” After he failed field sobriety tests, Applicant was arrested for OUI-alcohol or
drugs. He submitted to two breathalyzers at the station, which registered .10% and
.12% blood alcohol levels. Applicant was charged with OUI, speeding, and marked
lanes violation (Ex. 1, 2, 9, 11). While those charges were pending, Applicant was cited
in late May 2003 for operating a vehicle with his license suspended, for no inspection
sticker, and for failing to wear his seatbelt (Ex. 9). He appeared in court on all the
charges in September 2003, pleading guilty to, or admitting sufficient facts for the OUI
and operating while license suspended charges, which were continued without a guilty
finding for one year. He was ordered for the OUI to complete a 24-day alcohol and drug
education program, to pay a $250 surfine, and he lost his operator’s license for 45 days
(Exs. 1, 2, 10). The remaining charges were filed (Ex. 10). Applicant attended an
alcohol education program as mandated by the court. The program consisted of a class
once weekly where he watched movies (Tr. 63). On October 9, 2003, Applicant was
granted a secret-level clearance for his duties with the defense contractor (Ex. 3).
In March 2006, while on temporary duty for his employer for over a month of
flight testing in a distant state (state Z) (Tr. 40), Applicant went skiing with a coworker on
the weekend. After skiing but before leaving the mountain, Applicant consumed at least
two alcoholic beverages.  His coworker, who felt incapable of driving, asked Applicant to3
a third beer as he headed back on the road after stopping for gasoline. Yet, he also stated that he was pulled
over shortly after opening the container (Ex. 1). W hen detailing the incident to the government investigator
in May 2007, Applicant reportedly indicated that he had consumed “2 Long Island Iced Tea mixed drinks”
before his arrest (Ex. 2). In June 2008, Applicant affirmed that the investigator’s report was accurate. At his
hearing, Applicant testified that he had “two drinks” (Tr. 60). Given his reckless driving and obvious signs of
impairment (red and watery eyes, slurred speech, failed field sobriety tests, blood alcohol content over the
legal limit about 1.5 hours after his arrest), it is simply not credible that he drank only two beers.
Applicant told the responding officer that he had consumed two beers (Ex.4). On his e-QIP, Applicant4
indicated, in part, “W e headed back on the road in the desert and I drank my 3  beer. Shortly after openingrd
the container I was pulled over” (Ex. 1). His appearance when he was stopped, his inability to pass the field
sobriety test, and the results of the chemical test would tend to indicate that he drank at least one of the beers
purchased by his companion, or he had consumed more alcohol before he started driving.
Applicant has consistently referred to the charge as “wet reckless.” Applicant denies he was legally5
impaired by alcohol, although he does not dispute the chemical test result (Tr. 43).
Section 23152(a) of state Z’s vehicle code makes it unlawful for any person under the influence of6
any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, to drive
a vehicle. Section 23152(b) specifically states that it is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more,
by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood, to drive a vehicle. Section 23103(a) provides that a person is guilty
of reckless driving if he or she drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of
persons or property. Under Section 23103.5, when the prosecution agrees to a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere to a violation of Section 23103 (reckless driving) in satisfaction of, or as a substitute for, an original
charge of driving under the influence in violation in Section 23152, the prosecution shall state for the record
a factual basis for the satisfaction or substitution, including whether any consumption of alcohol or
administration of any drug was involved. 
4
operate the vehicle the coworker had rented. Applicant did not feel intoxicated so he
agreed. They stopped for gasoline en route to their hotel, and Applicant’s companion
bought a six-pack of beer. Applicant consumed at least one of those beers  before he4
was pulled over for speeding in excess of 85 miles per hour and for reckless driving. He
was cooperative with the state highway patrolman, but he displayed objective indicators
of intoxication (eyes red and watery, speech slow and slurred). Applicant was arrested
for DUI after he failed field sobriety tests. Applicant submitted to two preliminary alcohol
screens with the results .119% and .118% blood alcohol concentrations. Almost 1.5
hours later, Applicant submitted to chemical testing at a county jail with a .09% blood
alcohol reading. He was booked into the county jail and charged with two
misdemeanors, DUI and DUI .08% or greater. In September 2006, a stipulated no
contest plea was entered on Applicant’s behalf to misdemeanor reckless driving
involving alcohol,  a lesser included charge of DUI.  Applicant was placed on summary5 6
probation for 36 months, conditioned on him paying fines and fees totaling $2,045 at
$65 monthly commencing on October 12, 2006, completing a first offender DUI
program, refraining from driving with any alcohol in his blood, submitting to any alcohol
testing at the request of any peace officer, and abiding by all laws and ordinances (Exs.
1, 2, 4, 5). Following the incident, Applicant’s assignment to special access programs at
work was limited (Ex. 3).
In early July 2006, Applicant was stopped en route to a friend’s house because
police check of his registration showed that his license had expired. In addition to three
unopened beers in a bag, Applicant had a partially consumed opened beer, which he
Applicant told the government investigator in May 2007 that he had placed the opened beer in his7
vehicle cupholder (Ex. 2), which is discrepant with the location of the open container as reported by the officer
on the scene (Ex. 6).
Applicant explained at his hearing that as a first time driver in state Y, his license was valid for only8
one year and he had not realized that his license had expired (Tr. 46).
Concerning his attendance at AA, Applicant testified that he attended around ten additional meetings,9
“either once a week or once a month” depending on his travel schedule (Tr. 67). W hen asked specifically what
it was about his participation in AA that made others so uncomfortable to tell him to not return, Applicant
responded, “It was just over many, many classes, as they came to find, you know, know me, you know, and
it was just more, you know, they just asked me, you know, the lady, you know–“ (Tr. 80). Applicant provided
no records of his counseling or his AA attendance. Applicant told the investigator in May 2007 that he had
attended three AA meetings in December 2006. He did not discuss any additional meetings. To the contrary,
he told the investigator that the LADC recommended in March 2007 that he attend counseling with an LADC
or self-help classes, which he did not attend (Ex. 2).
5
denies drinking (“I had opened the beer and I said I’m not driving with alcohol on my
breath.” Tr. 45). The officer found it wedged under the front of his driver’s seat in plain
view.  The officer noticed the open container, and he cited Applicant for transporting an7
open container of alcohol and for operating on an expired driver’s license (Exs. 1, 2, 6,
7). Applicant agreed to plead nolo contendere to the charge of operating without a valid
license, for which he was fined.  The transportation of alcohol charge was continued for8
12 months, on good behavior and completion of an evaluation with a licensed alcohol
and drug counselor within 90 days (Ex. 8, Tr. 47-48). Applicant continued to consume
alcohol after the July 2006 incident (Ex. 2, Tr. 45, 75).
In December 2006, Applicant attended twice weekly alcohol education sessions
with counselors in state Y to satisfy the alcohol program ordered by state Z (Tr. 63). He
now claims that he went to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings beyond the three
required to reinforce for himself that he had made poor decisions. Applicant maintains
that AA members eventually asked him to stop coming to meetings “because [he] was
making other people who have problems feel awkward” (Tr. 66).  He was unable to9
relate to the issues of other AA attendees (Tr. 81), but he came to realize that he could
not drive after drinking because of his body weight (Tr. 61).
In March 2007, Applicant was evaluated by a licensed alcohol and drug
counselor (LADC), who recommended that he obtain counseling or attend self-help
classes. Contrary to his recent claims that he attended about ten additional AA
meetings (Tr. 67), Applicant told a government investigator in May 2007 that he did not
follow the LADC’s recommendations because he was not required to do so (Ex. 2). He
believed his problem was not with alcohol but rather with “growing up and making the
right decisions” (Tr. 65).
Applicant, who had disclosed his alcohol-related offenses on his November 2006
e-QIP (Ex. 1), was interviewed about his alcohol consumption by a government
investigator on May 14, 2007. Applicant indicated he was drinking once a week, hard
liquor or beer, while out to dinner or at the homes of family or friends. Applicant did not
think he had a problem with alcohol, but he admitted he had a problem not caring about
His recent testimony is discrepant with his admission during his May 2008 interview when he10
indicated he was drinking once a week.
6
the consequences of his drinking. He was no longer getting behind the wheel of a car
after drinking any alcohol, and was limiting his consumption to two drinks. Applicant
expressed his intent to maintain his current usage, and not revert to his previous
behavior (Ex. 2).
In October 2008, Applicant went to work as a systems engineer for his current
employer. Applicant was actively recruited for his position by a former coworker, who
had made the switch to the company about six months before him (Tr. 32, 34, 86, 103).
Applicant’s work for his new employer has continued to take him to different military
bases (Tr. 34). While on a temporary duty assignment from which he returned in
October 2009, Applicant had to be escorted to restricted areas, which served as a
reminder to him of his past immature behavior (Tr. 35).
At his hearing, Applicant was asked to detail his alcohol consumption since the
July 2006 incident. He responded that he went out drinking once a month, one or two
drinks at dinner, until January 2009 when he received the SOR (Tr. 75-76).  He10
consumed alcohol on about eight occasions in social contexts thereafter, no more than
two beers per occasion (Tr. 78). He denied any driving after drinking alcohol (Tr. 69,
80).
Applicant owns the home that he shares with his girlfriend in state Y (Tr. 50-51).
He purchased the home in about May 2004 (Ex. 1). He hopes to marry his girlfriend in
2010 (Tr. 24).
At his present employment, Applicant’s work is directly supervised by the vice
president of advanced development programs. Applicant was hired to develop wireless
technology for the U.S. military, and he performed very well in his first year on the job
(Tr. 87). Applicant’s supervisor was unaware of Applicant’s alcohol offenses when he
hired him. He learned of those issues about ten days before Applicant’s hearing on his
clearance eligibility (Tr. 90), and has no reservations about his decision to hire
Applicant. Applicant has shown himself to be passionate about his work and he has not
exhibited any behavior at work that would lead this supervisor to consider him a liability
to the company or to the war fighter that they serve (Tr. 87-89). He has never seen
Applicant consume any alcohol (Tr. 95).
The employee who brought Applicant into the company has had a professional
relationship with Applicant since 2002 from their previous employment (Tr. 109). They
have also had a personal relationship since about 2004 (Tr. 110). Applicant informed his
coworker of the alcohol incidents shortly after they happened in 2006 (Tr. 105). This
coworker was surprised because the incidents were “out of character” from his
experience with Applicant since 2002 (Tr. 117). In this coworker’s opinion, Applicant has
continued to be technically competent, very reliable, and willing to work extra hours in
his new job (Tr. 105-08). Every couple of months, this coworker and his wife get
together with Applicant and his girlfriend for dinner at a restaurant. Through December
7
2008, this coworker had seen Applicant drink one beer or glass of wine, “maybe two,”
but nothing more than that. Over the last six months, they have gotten together mostly
in the mornings for breakfast. This coworker has not observed Applicant drink any
alcohol in the past six months (Tr. 112). Applicant spends time with this coworker’s
family. This coworker trusts Applicant with his children (Tr. 108).
 A senior engineer, with 30 years at Applicant’s prior employment, supervised
Applicant on two different projects from 2002 until Applicant left the company in 2008.
They have had a social relationship since about 2007. This supervisor learned of the
2006 incident from Applicant shortly after it occurred. Applicant also told him that he had
notified security personnel at work. Applicant’s use of alcohol never affected his work.
He considers Applicant to be a social drinker and he would rehire him (Tr. 122-28). He
last observed Applicant drinking at Applicant’s house in the summer of 2008 (Tr. 128).
Policies
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,
emphasizing “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v.
Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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
required to be considered 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 overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense 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
8
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.” 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,” is implicated. While the May 2003 OUI charge
was continued without a finding for one year, Applicant admitted to sufficient facts to
sustain a finding that he drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. His blood
alcohol level was over the legal limit. So too with the March 2006 DUI, the objective
evidence indicates he was impaired by alcohol, notwithstanding his plea to a lesser
included charge of reckless driving with alcohol. Applicant failed field sobriety tests, and
his blood alcohol level registered at .09% about 1.5 hours after his arrest. The evidence
does not show that Applicant was impaired by alcohol when he was cited for the July
2006 open container offense, although there is some evidence to suggest that he may
have consumed some of the alcohol. The police found the container partially consumed
and located under the driver’s seat. Even assuming he did not drink any alcohol in the
car, he exercised extremely poor judgment by transporting an open container only
months after his second drunk driving offense that was still pending disposition.
Despite the passage of more than three years since any evidence of abusive
drinking by Applicant, the recidivism of his drunk driving behavior, with the second DUI
occurring almost three years after his first offense, makes it difficult to mitigate the
alcohol consumption concerns under AG ¶ 23(a) (stating, “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”).
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)” applies to some extent in that Applicant acknowledges that driving after
9
drinking as few as two drinks was a problem for him. There is no evidence that he has
been diagnosed as alcohol dependent or as an alcohol abuser, or that he engaged in
habitual or binge drinking. But police observations of Applicant’s demeanor when he
was arrested for drunk driving, his failed field sobriety tests, and chemical test results,
along with the discrepant accounts of what and how much he drank (e.g., whether he
consumed Long Island Ice Tea or two beers after skiing and whether he consumed the
“third beer” before his arrest in 2006, whether he drank weekly or monthly between July
2006 and January 2009) show some minimization by Applicant about his drinking.
Despite the absence of any objective indicators of any difficulties controlling his alcohol
consumption since 2006, I am unable to conclude that his abusive drinking is safely in
the past. The LADC who evaluated Applicant in March 2007 recommended that he
obtain counseling or at least attend self-help meetings. Applicant told a government
investigator in May 2007 that he did not comply with those recommendations. Even
assuming he attended about 13 AA meetings as he now claims, the benefit of that
association is unclear, given he was told not to return. In May 2007, he indicated that he
was drinking once a week, hard liquor or beer. When asked at his hearing to detail his
consumption since July 2006, Applicant testified he drank only once a month. I cannot
make a reasonable assessment of his current drinking habits because his conflicting
accounts would render any such assessment unreliable and speculative.
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.
Applicant allowed alcohol to impair his judgment and reliability. He was operating
at excessively high rates of speed, and was clearly under the influence of alcohol, when
he was arrested in May 2003 and March 2006. He put not only himself and his
passenger, but also others on the roadway, at serious risk to life and limb. He maintains
that he no longer drives after consuming alcohol, and there is no evidence to the
contrary. His past and present supervisors, and the business manager who recruited
him for his current employment, have witnessed nothing about his behavior, on or off
the job, that would suggest Applicant is other than a social drinker who has made some
poor decisions in the past that he does not intend to repeat. But Applicant fails to
present a convincing case for why he should be granted a security clearance
notwithstanding these serious drunk driving offenses. While I do not doubt the
10
importance of his job to him, his expressed commitment to his duties and protecting the
war fighter did not prevent him from abusing alcohol when he was in state Z for work in
March 2006. He testified that as a sign of his maturity, he bought a home. Yet the
record evidence shows that he purchased that home in 2004, before his second drunk
driving offense. His relationship with his present girlfriend may provide the support he
needs, but he displayed immaturity by putting his personal interest in maintaining his job
before his obligation to provide a consistent, credible account of his drinking habits.
Under ¶ 6.2 of the Directive, Applicant is required to give full, frank, and truthful answers
to inquiries that are relevant and material to a clearance decision. Concerns about his
drinking, his maturity, and his judgment lead me to conclude that it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance at this time.
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: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of 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.
Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Administrative Judge