DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-04144
SSN: ------------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 3, 2010
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on October 20, 2005.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On September 11, 2009, the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
detailing the security concerns under Guidelines G and E for Applicant. 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 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 in writing on September 26, 2009, and requested a
hearing before an Administrative Judge. The case was assigned to the undersigned
Administrative Judge on November 2, 2009.  A notice of hearing was issued on January
12, 2010, scheduling the hearing for March 2, 2010.  The Government offered nine
exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 9, which were received without
objection. Applicant offered three exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s Exhibits A through
C, which were admitted without objection.  He also testified on his own behalf.  The
2
record remained open until close of business on March 8, 2010, for receipt of additional
documentation.  The Applicant submitted one Post-Hearing Exhibit, referred to a
Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A, which was received without objection.  The
transcript of the hearing (Tr.) was received on March 12, 2010.  Based upon a review of
the case file, pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is
denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 51 years old, and has a Master’s Degree in Mechanical
Engineering.  He is employed by a defense contractor as a Mechanical Engineer and is
applying for a security clearance in connection with his employment.  
Paragraph 1 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he abuses intoxicants.
The Applicant admitted to each of the allegations set forth in the SOR under this
guideline. He has been working for his current employer since 1978, about thirty two
years.  He has held a security clearance since then.  Over his career, he has completed
a number of security clearance applications.  
He is an admitted alcoholic, who has consumed alcohol to excess and the point
of intoxication for over thirty-five years, from 1972 to at least April 2009.  For the past
five years, he has received alcohol counseling to help him with his disease.  At first, the
Applicant had difficulty coming to grips with his problem and did not take it seriously.
He had not really committed to not drinking and was unable to maintain sobriety.  From
April 2005 to at least June 2009, he received counseling from his Employer’s
Assistance Program.  He also received outpatient treatment from May 2005 to June
2005, for his alcohol addiction.  From June 2, 2005, to June 16, 2005, he received
inpatient treatment for a condition diagnosed as “Alcohol Dependence.”    
In August 2006, he was detained by the police for being Drunk in Public.  He
explained that had taken off work that day and was doing projects around the house,
while consuming alcohol.  He went to get his hair cut, and on the way back to his car, he
tripped on the sidewalk and knocked himself out.  He was detained by the police over
night and released the next morning.  He was not cited or charged and the matter was
forgotten.  (Government Exhibit 8).  He discussed the situation with the Employee
Assistance Counselor at work, who told him that it was unlikely that the situation would
ever come up, but that it was his obligation to self-report any adverse information such
as this.  The Applicant did self-report the incident that he believes set in motion the
chain of events that led to his hearing.  This incident was an eye-opener for the
Applicant.      
By April 2009, the Applicant had changed his attitude and was committed to an
alcohol rehabilitation program.  He realized how seriously his alcoholism had negatively
effected his life.  From April 2009 to June 2009 he received inpatient  treatment, which
3
was followed by outpatient treatment from May 2009 to June 2009.  This time the
Applicant approached the situation differently.  He began working an Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) program.  He obtained a sponsor.  He made a one year service
commitment to AA, as Secretary/Treasurer of his meeting group. 
A letter from the Applicant’s Employee Assistance Counselor dated February 3,
2010, states that in his opinion the Applicant’s prognosis is excellent.  He has solid
stability factors that include a stable family who are aware of his problems and support
his recovery.  He attends three or four AA meetings per week and is working the 12
steps of AA.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.)  
A letter from his alcohol counselor dated February 10, 2010, states that the
Applicant successfully completed alcohol rehabilitation treatment.  It states, “He
followed all treatment recommendations and displayed consistent behavior that is
indicative of one who is truly motivated to maintain ongoing recovery.  All random
alcohol and drug tests were negative.”  (Applicant’s Exhibit B.) 
A letter from the Applicant’s sponsor indicates that the Applicant has completed
all twelve steps of the Alcoholic Anonymous program, and he continues to meet with his
sponsor once a week for a book study.  (Applicant’s Exhibit C.) 
The Applicant indicates that he is now committed to an alcohol free lifestyle.  He
has been completely sober for 319 days.  He indicates that his father died from
alcoholism, and his grandfather managed to stay sober the last 17 years of his life
through AA.    
Paragraph 3 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in conduct involving
questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or an unwillingness to comply with
rules and regulations.  
 The Applicant completed a security clearance application dated January 8,
2000.  Question 27 asked if since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, whichever is
shorter, had he illegally used any controlled substance.  The Applicant answered, “NO.”
(Government Exhibit 3.)  This was a false response.  The Applicant failed to list his use
of marijuana from 1993 to at least January 2000.
The Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) dated October 20, 2005.  Question 24(a) asked the Applicant if
since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, whichever is shorter, had he illegally used any
controlled substance.  The Applicant answered, “NO.”  (Government Exhibit 1.)  This
was a false response.  The Applicant failed to list his marijuana use form 1999 to about
May 2001.
Question 24(b) of the same questionnaire asked the Applicant if he has ever
illegally used a controlled substance while employed as a law enforcement officer,
prosecutor, or courtroom official, while possessing a security clearance; or while in a
 Allegation 2(e) of the SOR reflects the date of the security clearance application as September 25, 2006.  This is1
obviously a typographical error.  The correct date should reflect September 5, 2006.
4
position directly and immediately affecting the public safety.  The Applicant answered,
“NO.”  (Government Exhibit 1.)  This was a false response.  The Applicant failed to list
his marijuana use in May 2001 after having been granted a Department of Defense
Industrial Security Clearance in about January 2001.   
Question 25 of the same application asked the Applicant if in the last 7 years has
his use of alcoholic beverages resulted in any alcohol related treatment or counseling.
The Applicant answered, “NO.”  (Government Exhibit 1.)  This was a false response.
The Applicant failed to list the fact that he received treatment and or counseling for his
use of alcohol at three different facilities from April 2005 to June 2009, from May 2005
to June 2005 and from June 2, 2005 to June 16, 2005.
The Applicant completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions dated
September 5, 2006.   Question 24(a) asked the Applicant if since the age of 16 or in the1
last 7 years, whichever is shorter, has he illegally used any controlled substance.  The
Applicant answered, “NO.”  (Government Exhibit 2.)  This was a false response.  The
Applicant failed to list his marijuana use from 1999 to about May 2001.
 
Question 24(b) of the same application asked the Applicant if he has ever
illegally used a controlled substance while employed as a law enforcement officer,
prosecutor, or courtroom official, while possessing a security clearance; or while in a
position directly and immediately affecting the public safety.  The Applicant answered,
“NO.”  (Government Exhibit 2.)  This was a false response.  The Applicant failed to list
his marijuana use in May 2001, after having been granted a Department of Defense
Industrial Security Clearance in about January 2001.   
Applicant completed interrogatories issued to him by the Department of Defense
dated June 2, 2009.  Question 1 asked him to state the date that he last used
marijuana.  The Applicant answered, “N/A.”  (Government Exhibit 7.)  This was a false
response.  The Applicant failed to list that he had used marijuana in May 2001.
Question 4 of the same interrogatories asked the Applicant to explain why he did
not list his illegal drug use in response to question 24(a), on his security clearance
application dated September 5, 2006.  The Applicant answered, “The correct answer to
24A is NO.”  (Government Exhibit 7.)  This was a false response.  The Applicant failed
to disclose his marijuana use from at least 1999 to a about May 2001.
Question 5 of the same interrogatories asked the Applicant to explain why he did
not list his illegal drug use while possessing a security clearance, in response to
question 24(b), on his security clearance application dated September 5, 2006.  The
Applicant answered, “The correct answer to 24B is NO.”  (Government Exhibit 7).  This
was a false response.  The Applicant failed to disclose that he had used marijuana to
about May 2001, after having been granted a security clearance in January 2001.
   
5
The Applicant admits that he has used marijuana, cocaine and mushrooms while
holding a security clearance, realizing that it was against the law, against company
policy and against DoD policy.  (Tr. pp. 43-44.)  On every subsequent security
clearance application, he falsified the fact that he was using marijuana.  The last time he
used marijuana was in 2001.  He has no intention of ever using any illegal drug again.
(Tr. p. 45.) 
Applicant’s performance appraisal dated February 25, 2010, indicates that he
“meets requirements”.  It also indicates that the Applicant had issues outside of work
that adversely impacted his ability to perform in his role and in April 2009, he took a
medical leave of absence.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit.)
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies
divided into "Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying
Factors and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
21.  The Concern.  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.  
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
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;
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;
22.  (d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical
psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence; 
22.  (f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion of
an alcohol rehabilitation program.
 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
6
Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
15.  The Concern.  Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified
information.  Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers
during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security
clearance process.
Condition that could raise a security concern:
16. (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used
to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or
status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary
responsibilities.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and 
i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
7
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.”  The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order
. . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a
determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned.
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in alcohol abuse and dishonesty that demonstrates poor
judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
continued holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the
burden then shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation
or mitigation, which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The
Applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant him a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has engaged in alcohol abuse (Guideline G), and poor personal conduct and
dishonesty (Guideline E).  The totality of this evidence indicates poor judgment,
unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of the scope
and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or connection with his
security clearance eligibility.  Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has not
introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to
overcome the Government's case under Guidelines G and E of the SOR.  
The evidence shows that the Applicant is an alcoholic with over thirty-five years
of abusive drinking, who has been sober for 319 days.  He is commended for his recent
commitment and great effort to adopt an alcohol free lifestyle.  He is also encouraged to
8
continue with his rehabilitation program.  Under Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
Disqualifying Conditions 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; 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; 22.(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical
professional (e.g., physician , clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or
alcohol dependence, and 22.(f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence
and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program apply.  
Admittedly, the Applicant is currently working his alcohol rehabilitation program.
He has been sober for ten months and his intent is to remain sober.  However, given the
extensive nature of his drinking that occurred over a thirty-five year period, at the
present time, more time in rehabilitation is needed in order to demonstrate that he will
not return to his old habits.  There is insufficient evidence in the record that any of the
mitigating conditions apply.  Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline G,
Alcohol Consumption.
The Applicant deliberately concealed his marijuana use from the Government on
two different security clearance applications and in response to interrogatories issued to
him by the DoD, in fear that it would jeopardize his security clearance.  Furthermore, he
continued to use marijuana and other illegal drugs after receiving a security clearance
from the DoD.  This conduct demonstrates dishonesty, unreliability and
untrustworthiness.  Under the particular facts of this case, his poor personal conduct is
considered a significant security risk, which prohibits a favorable determination in this
case.  Under Guideline E, Personal Conduct, Disqualifying Conditions, 16.(a) deliberate
omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security
questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct
investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status,
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary
responsibilities applies.  None of the mitigating conditions are applicable.
Consequently, I find against the Applicant under Guideline E, Personal Conduct.  
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth under all of the guidelines viewed as a whole, support a
whole-person assessment of poor judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, a lack of
candor, an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other
characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard classified
information.  
This Applicant has demonstrated that he is not trustworthy, and that he clearly
does not meet the eligibility requirements for access to classified information.
Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and
under Guideline E (Personal Conduct).     
9
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a  security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the SOR.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.a.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.c.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.d.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.e.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.f.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.g.: Against the Applicant.
Paragraph 2: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.a.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.b.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.c.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.d.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.e.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.f.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.g.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.h.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.i.: Against the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
the Applicant.
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge