KEYWORD: Guideline G
DIGEST: Applicant was advised by letter of his right to obtain counsel.  There is no basis to
conclude that he was denied his due process rights.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-11034
DATE: 08/11/2010
DATE: August 11, 2010
In Re:
-----
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-11034
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 5, 2009, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
2
requested that the case be decided on the written record.  On May 12, 2010, after considering the
record, Administrative Judge Juan J. Rivera denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of
fact were supported by substantial record evidence and whether the Judge erred in his application
of the pertinent mitigating conditions.  Consistent with the following discussion, we affirm the
Judge’s decision.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a software engineer for
a Defense contractor.  He holds a B.S. degree, having graduated from college with honors.  Divorced,
he remarried in 2008.  
Applicant began consuming alcoholic beverages as a teenager.  He has consumed alcohol to
the point of memory loss and blackouts.  In addition, his alcohol use has contributed to criminal
conduct.  At age 17, while drinking with friends, Applicant stole carpet from a home construction
site.  He was convicted of larceny, serving nine months in jail and paying restitution.  
In 1981 he operated a motorcycle while intoxicated and had a serious accident.  He was
convicted of DUI and was required to attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).  From 1984
until 1991 Applicant abstained from the use of alcohol due to the effect it was having on his life.
He underwent treatment for bipolar disorder and alcohol consumption from 1995 until 2004.  He
received treatment for alcohol dependence from 2005 to 2006.
In 2006 Applicant drank until he was impaired and ran his vehicle off the road.  He began
walking and was arrested for public intoxication.  He was given pretrial diversion and participated
in an alcohol rehabilitation program.  
In June 2007, he was convicted of DWI.  He received a suspended jail sentence, was ordered
to pay a fine and court fees, placed on probation, or directed to attend an alcohol rehabilitation
program.  Additionally, his driver’s license was suspended for one year.
The following September, Applicant drank to excess, blacked out, and was arrested for public
nudity and public intoxication.  Convicted of the latter charge, he was given a suspended jail
sentence, ordered to pay a fine and court fees, and placed on probation.  He attended an alcohol
rehabilitation program from late 2007 until mid 2008.  He cooperated fully with the counselors.  His
diagnosis included alcohol dependence and bipolar disorder.
In 2008 Applicant experienced a relapse into alcohol consumption.  He disclosed this fact
to his counselors.  He successfully completed the treatment program, with a good prognosis.  He has
been sober since 2008 and participates in AA.  
3
Applicant experienced difficulties in his early life, due to abuse he suffered in foster homes
and by adopted parents after he was abandoned by his mother.  His AA sponsor considers Applicant
to be trustworthy and reliable.
Applicant contends that the Judge erred in some of his findings.  Among other things, he
denies that he has a history of alcohol abuse or that he has ever had symptoms of bipolar disorder;
he states that he has been abstinent from alcohol since 2007 rather than the Judge’s finding of 2008;
he disagrees with the Judge’s finding that his alcohol consumption contributed to criminal activity;
and he takes issue with the Judge’s finding that his return to drinking in 1991 after seven years
abstinence was due to an inability to control his impulses.  
After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge’s material findings are based
on substantial evidence, or constitute reasonable characterizations or inferences that could be drawn
from the record.  Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the
case.  Considering the record evidence as a whole, the Judge’s material findings of security concern
are sustainable.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 08-11564 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2009).
Applicant states, “[d]ue to my inability to retain counsel . . . I have been denied proper legal
representation throughout this entire process.”  Applicant Brief at 2.  We construe this as a claim that
he did not receive due process.  However, the record demonstrates that Applicant was provided a
copy of the Directive and advised of his right to submit written matters in mitigation and
extenuation, as well as his right to be represented by counsel.  Letter to Applicant, Oct. 26, 2009;
File of Relevant Material (FORM) at 8-9.  Applicant submitted a response to the FORM in which
he addressed what he considered to be pertinent mitigating conditions.  There is no basis to conclude
that Applicant was denied his due process rights.   
Applicant contends that the Judge did not consider record evidence, such as his favorable
psychological evaluation.  However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence in
the record.  See ISCR Case No. 09-05830 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 25, 2010).  In this case, the Judge
discussed Applicant’s having availed himself of professional help and his good prognosis, among
other things.  However, he also explained why he concluded that Applicant’s evidence was not
sufficient to mitigate the Government’s security concerns.  He stated that: 
In the past, Applicant stopped drinking several times for long periods after alcohol
rehabilitation treatment and medication.  He . . . resumed his alcohol consumption
which led to additional misconduct.  Not enough time has passed since his last
relapse to justify a finding that his alcohol-related behavior is not likely to recur.
Decision at 7. 
Applicant’s brief does not rebut the presumption that the Judge considered the entire record.  Neither
does it demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in the record in an arbitrary or capricious
manner.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-21819 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 13, 2009). 
4
Applicant claims that the Judge demonstrated an unfair bias against him by repeating what
Department Counsel said and disregarding any part of Applicant’s evidence containing information
that was contrary to the representations of Department Counsel.  Applicant’s claim of bias lacks
specificity and therefore prevents the Board from meaningfully evaluating this claim.  Moreover,
there is a rebuttable presumption that a Judge is impartial and unbiased, and a party seeking to
overcome that presumption has a heavy burden of persuasion.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-02253
at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 28, 2008); ISCR Case No. 02-08032 at 4 (App. Bd. May 14, 2004).  Applicant
has not overcome the presumption in this case. 
  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between
the facts found and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States,
371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  The Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general
standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the
national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffery D. Billett             
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                    
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board