1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX )  ISCR Case No. 08-11929 
 SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Jennifer I. Goldstein, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant has mitigated security concerns pertaining to Guideline G (alcohol 
consumption). Clearance is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On August 23, 2007, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). On August 27, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings 
and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing 
security concerns under Guideline G (alcohol consumption). 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) effective within the 
Department of Defense for SORs on September 1, 2006.  
  
 Applicant answered the SOR on September 18, 2009, and DOHA received his 
answer on September 21, 2009. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on 
 
2 
 
 
October 27, 2009. The case was assigned to me on November 5, 2009. DOHA issued a 
notice of hearing on January 12, 2010, scheduling the hearing for January 27, 2010. 
The hearing was held as scheduled. 
 
The Government offered Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 3, which were 
received without objection. Applicant offered Applicant Exhibits (AE) A and B, which 
were received without objection, and he testified on his behalf.  
 
I held the record open until February 12, 2010, to afford Applicant the opportunity 
to submit additional documents. Applicant timely submitted AE C, which was received 
without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on February 3, 2010. The 
record closed on February 12, 2010.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations except for SOR ¶ 1.c., which he 
denied. His admissions are incorporated as findings of fact. After a thorough review of 
the evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 26-year-old database analyst, who has been employed by a 
defense contractor since August 2007. (GE 1, Tr. 12-13) He seeks to retain his security 
clearance, which he has held since August 2007. Maintaining a security clearance is 
essential for Applicant to remain in his current position. (Tr. 15-16.) 
 
Applicant graduated from high school in May 2002. He attended university from 
August 2002 to May 2007, and was awarded a Bachelor of Science Degree in 
Management Information Systems. He has never married and has no dependents. (GE 
1, Tr. 13-15.) 
 
Applicant has a history of episodic alcohol abuse, marked by excessive alcohol 
consumption, a December 2005 driving under the influence (DUI) arrest, driving a 
vehicle while impaired, and three blackouts. He began drinking while he was in high 
school, and his drinking increased while in college. He does not dispute the fact that 
during this timeframe he drank excessively and to the point of intoxication. (SOR ¶ 1.a., 
Tr. 16-17.)   
  
In December 2005, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI, speeding, and 
DUI with a BAC of .08 or more. At the time of his arrest, he was 21 years old and still in 
college. He was driving home from a bowling ally after a late night outing when he was 
stopped for speeding. The charges were later dismissed. (SOR ¶ 1.b., Tr. 17-23.) 
Applicant significantly reduced his alcohol consumption after his DUI arrest, however, 
he later increased his alcohol consumption for a short time. He stated, “I know that I 
drank heavily in college after my first girlfriend broke up with me. I’m not sure if it was 
directly related (to it) or if it was just being irresponsible with college dorm mates.” (Tr. 
23-24, 26-28.) 
 
3 
 
 
SOR ¶ 1.c. alleged that between 2000 and December 2005, Applicant drove a 
motor vehicle approximately five to fifteen times while intoxicated. He denied this 
allegation in his Response to SOR. He takes exception to the number of times he 
purportedly drove a motor vehicle while intoxicated. He does, however, concede there 
were a “number of times” that he chose to get behind a motor vehicle while intoxicated 
(Tr. 25.) Applicant had about three alcohol-related blackouts between 2002 and 2008. 
(SOR ¶ 1.d.) He denied having any blackouts since then. (Tr. 32.) 
 
Applicant applied for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) with 
another Government agency (AGA) in 2008, and his alcohol history was identified as a 
security concern. The AGA referred Applicant to a clinical psychologist who prepared a 
psychological consultation report in May 2008. The AGA denied him SCI access noting 
that “[w]hile [Applicant] was not diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse or Dependence, he is 
deemed a high risk to engage in behaviors indicative of poor judgment, impulsivity, or 
irresponsibility in the future. This coupled with his seemingly high consumption habits, 
recent blackouts, and history of driving under the influence of alcohol renders 
[Applicant] ineligible for access to [AGA] SCI.” (GE 3.) 
 
Applicant has significantly reduced his alcohol consumption. The last time he 
became intoxicated was on New Year’s Eve with his friends. (Tr. 33-34.) He stated, “I 
think it (past alcohol consumption) helped me realize that it was about time to grow up. I 
think it was just being a little bit juvenile in my alcohol consumption.” (Tr. 35.) Applicant 
described his current alcohol consumption as “[s]ometimes I don’t drink at all for the 
week, sometimes I’ll have a glass of wine with dinner, sometimes I won’t.” (Tr. 37.) 
Applicant acknowledged that he had a problem with alcohol in the past, but stated he 
drinks responsibly now. (Tr. 39.) 
 
Psychological and Substance Abuse Evaluation 
 
Post-hearing, Applicant submitted a Psychological and Substance Abuse 
Evaluation prepared in February 2010. (AE C.) Briefly, the neuropsychologist’s 
credentials consist of over 30 years of experience in alcohol and other drug abuse 
assessment, treatment, and research. He has designed and managed chemical 
dependency treatment programs, and has been a consultant to private, state, county, 
federal, and national chemical dependency treatment programs. He is a Ph.D. trained 
neuropsychologist, a Board Certified Forensic Examiner, a Fellow of the American 
College of Forensic Examiners International, and holds the APA Certificate of 
Proficiency in Alcohol and Other Substance Abuse Treatment. (FRE 702.) 
 
Under Diagnostic Considerations, the neuropsychologist stated that Applicant’s 
MMPI-2 profile listed no diagnostic possibilities adding that all available sources of 
information should be considered before establishing final diagnoses. Under Axis I 
Diagnostic Considerations, he listed 305.00 Alcohol Abuse, and under Axis II, he listed 
799.0 Diagnosis Deferred on Axis II, alternatively stated, incomplete data precludes 
diagnostic judgment. The neuropsychologist listed under conditions and experiences 
that may compromise Applicant’s employment success: (1) he started his substance 
 
4 
 
 
abuse in his teenage years, (2) he used alcohol to cope with problems, (3) he was 
arrested for DUI, and (4) he has a high tolerance for alcohol.  
 
Listed under characteristics and conditions that will improve his chances for 
success: (1) he has had periods of abstinence, (2) he has significantly reduced his 
drinking frequency and amount, (3) he has a supportive family, (4) he have moved out 
of a peer situation with alcohol abuse norms, (5) there is no family history of substance 
abuse or dependence, (6) there is no family history of mental illness, (7) he has 
reasonably good social skills, (8) he has a track record of demonstrated success in 
business and academia, (9) he has alternatives for positive addictions, (10) he does not 
have personality disorders that would increase his risk for failure, and (11) he 
experiences anxiety, guilt, and remorse that can motivate positive lifestyle changes. 
 
Character Evidence 
 
 Applicant submitted a reference letter from his company vice president. He 
stated that Applicant “consistently met or exceeded all job requirements as needed by 
both management and his team.” He further stated that Applicant “is an individual of 
high character, who may have just made some juvenile mistakes” and recommended 
him for a security clearance. (AE A.) 
 
 Applicant also submitted a statement from his girlfriend, who is an attorney. She 
stated, “[i]n these past four years I have seen [Applicant} mature immensely. On 
weekends, we spend our nights trying out new recipes rather than frequenting college 
bars. She concluded by saying that Applicant “has drastically reduced his alcohol 
consumption. He has replaced old vices with new hobbies and matured significantly. I 
am confident in my positive review of [Applicant’s] character, and affirm that he is a 
nothing short of a responsible individual.” (AE B.) 
 
Personal Observations 
 
Having observed Applicant’s demeanor closely, I find his testimony credible. At 
his hearing, Applicant promptly answered all the questions asked. He was frank, candid, 
and forthcoming in his answers and explained his answers without hesitation. He readily 
acknowledged his bad behavior.  
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the revised AG. In addition to brief introductory 
explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying 
conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used 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 
 
5 
 
 
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.  
 
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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation of 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 
 
  Under Guideline G (alcohol consumption), the Government’s concern is that 
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.) 
 
The Government established its case under Guideline G through Applicant’s 
admissions and the evidence presented. Applicant consumed alcohol excessively and 
at times and to the point of intoxication from 2000 to 2009, was arrested for DUI in 
 
6 
 
 
December 2005, drove a motor vehicle various times while intoxicated from 2000 to 
2005, and experienced at least three alcohol-related blackouts between 2002 and 2008. 
 
 A review of the evidence supports application of two alcohol consumption 
disqualifying conditions. AG ¶ 22(a): “alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as 
driving while under the influence,” and 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,” apply.  
Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, I find that application of 
one alcohol consumption mitigating condition is appropriate. 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).” Although Applicant has 
never been diagnosed as alcohol dependent or as an alcohol abuser, he has 
acknowledged and recognizes the deleterious effect the misuse of alcohol has had on 
his life. Two qualified medical professionals have evaluated Applicant and neither 
concluded that he was an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent. The first evaluation was 
conducted in May 2008 by a psychologist on behalf of AGA, and the second evaluation 
was conducted in February 2010 by a neuropsychologist selected by Applicant. Neither 
medical professional diagnosed Applicant with an underlying alcohol dependence or 
alcohol abuse problem. 
Applicant presented credible evidence of actions taken to overcome his problem, 
and established he has significantly modified his behavior and alcohol consumption 
over the last two years. He is remorseful for his behavior and has initiated changes in 
his lifestyle. The statement from a senior company representative shows Applicant’s 
work behavior has not been indicative of an alcohol problem. He is viewed as a valuable 
employee, who is reliable, dependable, and professional. Applicant’s sobriety and 
responsible use of alcohol is supported not only by his company vice president, but also 
by his attorney-girlfriend of four years. Furthermore, Applicant acknowledged the 
problems his misuse of alcohol has caused him, demonstrated remorse, and a steadfast 
commitment to continue lifestyle changes consistent with the responsible use of 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 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) extent to which 
participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and 
 
7 
 
 
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 commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person-concept.  
 
Applicant has been forthright and cooperative throughout this entire process. He 
voluntarily underwent a post-hearing psychological and substance abuse evaluation 
from a qualified neuropsychologist. At age 26, he recognizes the adverse 
consequences of misusing alcohol. Apparently, these consequences were not part of 
his thought process during his high school and college years. Applicant has been willing 
to do whatever is necessary to demonstrate his responsible alcohol consumption. He 
has family support, stable employment, and a strong work ethic. His willingness to make 
significant lifestyle changes accompanied by company, family and girlfriend support 
should ensure his continued success. Applicant demonstrated the correct attitude and 
commitment to being sober. Considering his demeanor and testimony, I believe 
Applicant has learned from his mistakes, and his questionable behavior is unlikely to 
recur. In sum, I find Applicant has presented sufficient evidence of rehabilitation.  
 
Also noteworthy is Applicant’s past behavior, which serves as a reliable indicator 
of future behavior. In particular, he has successfully held a security clearance since 
August 2007. He does not drink and drive, he has disassociated himself with his “frat 
house” college and post-college lifestyle. He has been cooperative throughout this 
process and recognizes the gravity of these proceedings. Applicant is living a different 
lifestyle from the person who was arrested for DUI in December 2005. He is in a stable 
relationship, is a responsible and contributing citizen, and is a trusted and valued  
employee.  
 
To conclude, Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate the security concerns raised. Applicant met his ultimate burden of persuasion to 
obtain a favorable clearance decision. I take this position based on the law, as set forth 
in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), my careful consideration of the 
whole-person factors and supporting evidence, my application of the pertinent factors 
under the adjudicative process, and my interpretation of my responsibilities under the 
adjudicative guidelines. For the reasons stated, I conclude he is eligible for access to 
classified information. 
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:   FOR APPLICANT 
  Subparagraphs 1.a. – d.:  For Applicant 
  
 
8 
 
 
Conclusion 
  
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
ROBERT J. TUIDER 
Administrative Judge