1
                                                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                              DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  ) ADP Case No. 08-11325 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Public Trust Position ) 
 
 
 
 
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
DAM, Shari, Administrative Judge: 
 
 Based upon a review of the record evidence as a whole, eligibility for access to 
ADP I/II/III sensitive information is denied. 
 
On March 11, 2008, Applicant signed a Questionnaire for Public Trust Position 
Application (SF 85P). On March 23, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing trustworthiness 
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 effective within the Department of Defense 
for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
  
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing on March 29, 2010, and elected to have 
the case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On April 20, 2010, 
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) containing 11 Items, 
 
 
 
 
2
and mailed a copy of it to her the same day. Applicant received the FORM on April 23, 
2010, and had 30 days from its receipt to file objections and submit additional 
information. She did not submit any additional information. On July 7, 2010, DOHA 
assigned the case to me.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the four allegations contained in 
the SOR. Those admissions are incorporated into the following findings. 
 
 Applicant is 25 years old and unmarried. In August 2006, she began a position 
with a defense contractor for a health services company. Prior to that, she worked as an 
office assistant from July 2005 to May 2006. She was a waitress from September 2000 
to May 2006.   
   
 Applicant has a history of alcohol abuse. In October 2003, Applicant was 
arrested and charged with (1) Driving While Intoxicated (DWI); (2) DWI 4th Degree, and 
(3) Operating a Motor Vehicle Without One Headlight. She plead guilty to DWI 4th 
Degree and was placed on two years of supervised probation and ordered to undergo 
an alcohol assessment. The other two counts were dismissed. She was fined $1,000 of 
which $700 was stayed, Her driver’s license was suspended for one year. She was 17 
years old. (GE 7, 8.)        
  
 In December 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with Minor in 
Consumption. She pled guilty and was placed on unsupervised probation for eight 
months. She paid a $100 fine and court costs. Prior to the arrest she attended a party 
with high school friends. (GE 7, 9.) 
 
 In June 2006, Applicant was arrested and charged with (1) DWI – Operate Motor 
Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol, and (2) DWI -Operating Motor Vehicle – Alcohol 
Concentration 0.08 Within 2 Hours. In June 2007, she pled guilty to Count 1, and was 
sentenced to 365 days in jail, 335 days suspended, fined $3,000, and placed on 
probation for two years, until July 2009. Her driver’s license was suspended for one 
year. She was ordered to pay $217 in court fees, which included the cost of a Chemical 
Dependency Evaluation. She attended a party before the arrest. (GE 7, 10.) 
 
 During an interview with a government investigator in October 2008, Applicant 
stated that she was never diagnosed as abusing alcohol or being alcohol dependant. 
She started consuming alcohol in June 2001, when she was 17 years old. She admitted 
that prior to June 2006 she consumed four to six beers about three times a week and 
occasionally to the point of intoxication. From June 2006 to the time of the interview, 
she claimed that she had not consumed any alcohol and did not intend to consume it in 
the future. She realized that consuming it was not in her best interests. Other than being 
involved in the legal system three times for issues related to alcohol consumption, she 
does not believe that her alcohol consumption has caused problems in her life.  (GE 7 
at 4.) On February 27, 2009, Applicant completed a set of Interrogatories, in which she 
 
 
 
 
3
acknowledged that she consumed two beers on New Year’s Eve. (GE 6.) She also 
stated that she learned from her mistakes and is a good employee. (Id.) 
 
 Applicant submitted no character references or other evidence tending to 
establish current good judgment, trustworthiness or reliability. I was unable to evaluate 
her credibility, demeanor, or character in person since she elected to have her case 
decided without a hearing. 
 
Policies 
 
Positions designated as ADP I, ADP II, and ADP III are classified as “sensitive 
positions.” (See Regulation ¶¶ C3.1.2.1.1.7 and C3.1.2.1.2.3.) “The standard that must 
be met for . . . assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, 
the person’s loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the 
person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.” 
(See Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1.) The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
(Counterintelligence and Security) Memorandum, dated November 19, 2004, indicates 
trustworthiness adjudications will apply to cases forwarded to DOHA by the Defense 
Security Service and Office of Personnel Management. Department of Defense 
contractor personnel are afforded the right to the procedures contained in the Directive 
before any final unfavorable access determination may be made. (See Regulation ¶ 
C8.2.1.)  
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, the 
administrative judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the 
Adjudicative Guidelines (AG). 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 
[sensitive] 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. 
 
 According to Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to 
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he 
applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, 
extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, 
 
 
 
 
4
and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable [trustworthiness] 
decision.” 
 
 A person who applies for access to sensitive information seeks to enter 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 sensitive information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of 
sensitive information.  
 
 Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that “[a]ny determination under this 
order adverse to an applicant 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.” 
See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified 
or sensitive information).   
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 
AG ¶ 21 expresses the security concern pertaining to alcohol consumption: 
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 ¶ 22 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying: 
(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; and 
 (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. 
In 2003, 2004, and 2006, Applicant was arrested and convicted of DWI. Based 
on that evidence, the Government raised a security concern under AG ¶ 22(a). She 
admitted that from June 2001 to December 2008, she occasionally consumed alcohol to 
excess and the point of intoxication, which facts are sufficient to raise a disqualifying 
condition under AG ¶ 22(c). 
 
 
 
 
5
After the Government produced substantial evidence of those disqualifying 
conditions, the burden shifted to Applicant to produce evidence and prove mitigation. 
Conditions that could mitigate those disqualifications are provided under 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; 
(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); 
(c) the individual is a current employee who is participating in a counseling 
or treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse, 
and is making satisfactory progress; and, 
(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 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. 
 None of the above mitigating conditions apply. Applicant has a history of 
consuming alcohol to excess, spanning from June 2001 to December 2008. Given that 
history and three DWI convictions, her behavior casts doubt on her current 
trustworthiness and good judgment. AG ¶ 23(a) does not apply. Applicant denied that 
she has a problem with alcohol consumption. In October 2008, she asserted that she 
had stopped consuming alcohol from June 2006 to that point and had no intention to 
consume it in the future. In January 2009, she admitted that she had two beers on 
December 31, 2008. To-date, she did not provide any independent evidence to 
establish a pattern of responsible alcohol consumption or to corroborate her assertions, 
which is necessary to apply AG ¶ 23(b). The record does not contain evidence to 
support the application of AG ¶ 23(c) or AG ¶ 23(d).  
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position by considering the totality of applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They include the following:  
 
 
 
 
 
6
(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. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a public 
trust position must include an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.        
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a 25-year-old 
woman, who has worked for a defense contractor since August 2006. She was 
convicted three times for incidents involving alcohol. In July 2009, she completed her 
probationary period for the third conviction. Although she stated that she no longer 
abuses alcohol, she did not present any independent evidence to corroborate that 
assertion. Given her three convictions, two driver’s license suspensions, and the 
imposition of probationary terms in 2003, 2004, and 2007, her written statements are 
insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that her alcohol consumption no longer 
poses a security risk.    
   
On balance, Applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate reliability 
and trustworthiness concerns arising from her alcohol consumption. Overall, the record 
evidence leaves doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a public trust 
position. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline G:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d:  Against Applicant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7
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 public trust 
position.  Eligibility for access to ADPI/II/III sensitive information is denied. 
                                    
 
 
            _________________ 
SHARI DAM 
Administrative Judge