1
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 08-09882 
 SSN: ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Paul Delaney, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOGAN, Erin C., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86), on 
October 30, 2007. On December 23, 2009, 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, and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. 
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 issued after September 1, 2006.  
  
 On February 17, 2010, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on June 11, 
2010. The case was assigned to me on June 24, 2010. On July 19, 2010, a Notice of 
Hearing was issued scheduling the hearing for August 10, 2010. The hearing was held, 
as scheduled. The Government offered nine exhibits which were admitted as 
Government Exhibits (Gov) 1 – 9 without objection. Applicant testified and called one 
witness. Applicant offered one exhibit which was admitted as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A 
without objection. The record was left open until September 1, 2010 to allow Applicant 
 
   
 
 
2
to submit additional documents. He timely submitted a seven-page document which 
was marked and admitted as AE B. Department Counsel’s response to AE B is marked 
as HE I. The transcript was received on August 20, 2010. Based upon a review of the 
case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified 
information is denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admits to all of the allegations.  
 
Applicant is a 47-year-old employee with a Department of Defense contractor 
seeking to maintain a security clearance.  He is a test engineer and has worked for his 
current employer for 21 years. He has held a security clearance since 1991. In 2003, he 
was denied access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), but his security 
clearance was not revoked. He is divorced. He lives with and has been in a committed 
relationship with a woman for 14 years. His girlfriend has three adult children.  He has a 
bachelor’s degree and is currently studying for his masters in industrial engineering. (Tr.  
4-7, 47-48, 72-73; Gov 1; Gov 6 at 2; AE B)   
 
Applicant started drinking alcohol when he was twelve years old. His parents 
would occasionally give him an alcoholic beverage during special occasions. He first 
became intoxicated at age 16 while in high school. His alcohol use increased in college. 
He initially flunked out of college. (Tr. 26; Gov 3 at 12; Gov 4 at 6; Gov 5 at 13-14) 
 
In December 1990, Applicant was arrested and charged with Operating While 
Intoxicated (OWI) and cited for Speeding. He received a deferred sentence, was 
ordered to pay a fine, complete community service and attend an alcohol awareness 
course.  One of the terms of his probation included abstaining from alcohol. (Tr. 32; Gov 
3 at 9; Gov 5 at 14-15, 141; Gov 6 at 3; Gov 7 at 4)  
 
In June 1991, Applicant was arrested for Public Intoxication. He spent the night in 
jail and was fined. He did not report this offense to his probation officer. He was found to 
be in violation of his probation related to his prior arrest. The judge ordered his deferred 
judgment revoked and he was ordered to serve five days in the county jail. (Tr. 32-35; 
Gov 5 at 15, 130, 133-134)  
 
In October 1991, Applicant was arrested and charged with OWI, Second 
Offense. He was found guilty. His sentence included a $750 fine, two years probation, 
and he was ordered to attend alcohol evaluation and counseling. (Tr. 37-38; Gov 3 at 9-
10; Gov 5 at 15, 124-126; Gov 6 at 3; Gov 7 at 4) 
 
In July 1992, Applicant underwent a substance abuse evaluation. He was 
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser by a chemical dependency counselor. The chemical 
dependency counselor was not a licensed clinical social worker. (Gov 5 at 123) 
 
 
   
 
 
3
On March 15, 1993, Applicant underwent a chemical dependency evaluation at a 
treatment center as one of the conditions of his supervised probation related to his 
second OWI conviction. The Clinical Supervisor determined that “alcohol abuse is 
certainly evident but presently there does not appear to be sufficient available data to 
substantiate a diagnostic impression of alcohol dependency.” (Gov 5 at 194) Applicant 
was advised to abstain from alcohol and/any or all mood altering substances except as 
prescribed by a physician. (Tr. 93; Gov 5 at 190-196) 
 
From April 15, 1994 to May 31, 1994, Applicant attended out-patient counseling 
at a Substance Abuse Council as part of his probation related to his October 1991 OWI 
conviction. (He chose to attend out-patient counseling here because it was less 
expensive than the two other facilities where he sought evaluations.) Applicant told the 
counselors that he remained totally abstinent from alcohol since his October 1991 
arrest. He had no plans to use alcohol in the future. His score on the Michigan 
Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) placed him in a category for moderate alcoholism. 
Upon completion of the program, Applicant was advised to remain abstinent from 
alcohol, to seek additional outpatient counseling on relapse issues, and to attend 
Alcoholic Anonymous (AA), Alanon, and Adult Children of Alcoholics meetings. (Tr. 39-
40; Gov 5 at 71-72) It does not appear the counselors in this program were licensed 
clinical social workers. (See Gov 5 at 71-72) 
 
On August 7, 1996, Applicant provided a signed, sworn statement to a 
Department of Defense investigator conducting his background investigation.  Applicant 
discussed his past alcohol offenses and his alcohol counseling. Regarding his current 
level of use, Applicant stated the following: 
 
I currently drink about two drinks, usually wine, every six months. I 
acknowledge that [the treatment facility] recommended that I abstain from 
alcohol completely and that I agreed to do so, but I feel I can control my 
drinking and subsequent actions. It is my intention to keep my 
consumption of alcohol at a moderate level. 
 
(Gov 9 at 3)  
 
The Department of Defense investigator subsequently interviewed several 
references who were on a bowling team with Applicant. Several of the references 
indicated Applicant drank beer on his bowling nights. The references indicated Applicant 
drank between three to six beers a week between August 1994 to April 1996. The 
investigator interviewed Applicant for a second time on August 8, 1996, to ask him 
about the conflicting information about his alcohol use. (See Gov 3 at 11) 
 
On August 8, 1996, Applicant provided a signed, sworn statement to the 
investigator. Applicant stated: 
 
In my previous statement I said that I currently drink about two glasses of 
wine every six months. This was a false statement. I have been 
 
   
 
 
4
consuming about six beers or alcoholic drinks weekly, on average since 
AUG 94. Since then I have been intoxicated about three times, the last 
being around JUN or JUL 96. On that occasion I had about three to four 
beers. The prior two times were in the period from AUG 94 to APR 95 and 
again in the Summer of 95. The amount consumed was roughly the same 
as in JUN or JUL 95. 
 
I now state that I intend to minimize my use of alcohol or stop it altogether. 
 
I acknowledge lying to [the investigator] in my 16 JUL 96 and 06 AUG 96 
interviews when I discussed my use of alcohol. I did this due to frustration 
on my part in my job. Without the security clearance I feel more pressure 
to do my work because of restrictions placed on my movements and 
access to materials necessary to do my job. Consequently, I lied so as to 
not complicate my investigation any more than it already was. This was a 
mistake. [The investigator] has pointed out that I now have to contend with 
the issue of my honesty as well as my use of alcohol. I want to state 
unequivocally and in full knowledge of punitive provisions of the United 
States Code Title 18, Section 1010 that I am being fully truthful in this 
statement. I admit lying under oath, for the reason set forth above, on my 
first statement. 
 
[The investigator] has pointed out that the record from ASAC states that in 
MAR 94 I intended to stop drinking forever. He has also noted that I was 
drinking again in AUG of that year. He has asked if I lied to the counselor 
at ASAC in order to speed up the end of that program. I admit that this 
was my intention and that while I may have had no specific plans at that 
time to resume drinking, neither was it my intention to forever abstain from 
alcohol as I had told my counselor. By AUG 94 I thought I could handle 
the alcohol. It is in this context only that I have ever lied to any counselor 
or probation officer.  
 
Gov 8 at 1.  
 
 Applicant also admits to giving conflicting information to an investigator 
conducting a background investigation for another government agency about his current 
use of alcohol during interviews on May 8, 2002, and January 28, 2003. (Answer to 
SOR) On May 8, 2002, Applicant told another government agency’s security 
representative that he drinks a total of six beers sporadically throughout the month, 
drinking more in the summer months. On January 28, 2003, Applicant was interviewed 
by a representative of the other government agency’s psychological services. During 
the interview, he told the representative that he currently drinks one or two beers 
approximately every other day. Applicant was advised by the psychological services 
representative to abstain from alcohol use, and that if his use of alcohol remains 
unchanged, he is at moderate risk for another alcohol-related incident. (Gov 3)  
 
 
   
 
 
5
 On July 17, 2003, the other government agency denied Applicant access to 
Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) because of his excessive alcohol 
consumption, and his false oral and written statements to government representatives 
during his prior and current background investigations in order to hide his alcohol 
consumption. The other government agency concluded:  
 
[Applicant] has acknowledged that he deliberately lied to [security] 
representatives and provided false signed/sworn statements during his 
SSBIs concerning his alcohol consumption. He has also intentionally lied 
to medical professionals, providing them information he knew they wanted 
to hear in order to end counseling and to satisfy the requirements of the 
court. In addition, he provided the other government agency’s security and 
psychological services representatives with conflicting information 
concerning his current consumption of alcohol. 
 
(Gov 3 at 11) 
 
In February 2005, Applicant voluntarily sought alcohol counseling through his 
employer’s Employee Assistance Program. (Tr. 50-52; Gov 4 at 10; Gov 6 at 8) Prior to 
his seeking assistance, his girlfriend expressed concern about his excessive drinking 
behavior. Applicant had several excessive drinking bouts. On two occasions, he 
experienced black outs. One time he fell off a bar stool. When he woke up, he was in an 
ambulance on the way to the hospital. On another occasion, Applicant was walking from 
his car to his house and fell on his face in the driveway. He suffered abrasions to his 
face. (Tr. 51-55; Gov 3 at 10-14) 
 
From September 5, 2006, to November 11, 2006, Applicant attended an 
intensive outpatient program for alcohol treatment at a local hospital, after being 
referred by the Employee Assistance Program. The treatment notes indicate Appellant 
developed severe problems with his significant other and family members because of 
his drinking alcohol in binges and falling down while drunk. During his treatment, 
Applicant received an assessment of alcohol abuse; tobacco abuse; and hypertension. 
Upon his completion of the program, it was recommended that Applicant attend AA 
meetings, seek direction from an AA sponsor, attend aftercare, and continue to develop 
a chemically free lifestyle.  (Tr. 56-59; Gov 4 at 3-8)  
 
On November 7, 2007, Applicant was interviewed as part of his periodic 
background investigation. During the interview, Applicant discussed his alcohol 
background. He indicated that he intended to continue drinking alcohol, in moderation, 
only while socializing and only on special occasions. (Gov 6 at 7) On January 2, 2008, 
Applicant was re-interviewed as part of his periodic background investigation. During 
the interview, he indicated that he intended to abstain from alcohol use. (Gov 6 at 3) On 
December 23, 2008, Applicant answered interrogatories about his alcohol use. In 
response to the question, “On what date did you last consume alcohol?” he responded, 
“December 15, 2008.” When asked about the frequency of his alcohol use, Applicant 
wrote, “Weekly to Monthly, 12-24 oz.” (Gov 7 at 2)  
 
   
 
 
6
On February 2, 2010, Applicant underwent a comprehensive evaluation by Dr. 
B., a licensed psychologist with substance abuse professional credentials. Dr. B. claims 
that his assessment was used to determine, “…whether there is a maladaptive pattern 
of alcohol use, causing clinically significant impairment or distress…” (AE 1 at 1) Dr. B. 
states that under the DSM-IV, Alcohol Abuse disorder has to be determined that in the 
past 12 months this individual’s drinking has repeatedly caused or contributed to, risk of 
bodily harm, relationship trouble, role failure, or run-ins with the law. If one or more of 
these is “yes,” then the individual is abusing alcohol. Testing found no problem in any 
category. (AE A) 
 
Dr. B. states to determine Alcohol Dependence Disorder it has to be determined 
in the past 12 months that the individual has not been able to stick to drinking limits, not 
been able to cut down or stop, shown tolerance, shown signs of withdrawal, kept 
drinking despite physical and psychological problems, spent a lot of time anticipating or 
recovering from drinking, and spent less time on other activities that are important or 
pleasurable. If three or more of these answers answered “yes” then the individual has 
alcohol dependence. Testing confirmed no current diagnosis of dependence in the three 
or more categories for any given substance in the previous year. (AE A) 
 
Dr. B. indicated, “[Applicant] reports he has resolved the issue of being able to 
enjoy even a lone social beverage. This creates all kinds of problems for treatment 
counselors and others who have insisted on complete abstinence. It is a hot wire 
[Applicant] no longer wishes to assume he can touch. He doesn’t need it or want it.”  
(AE A at 3) The report does not indicate whether Applicant provided information on his 
current consumption of alcohol or whether he told Dr. B. that he was no longer drinking. 
The report concludes, “[Applicant] will continue his affiliation with Alcoholics 
Anonymous. There are no further recommendations for clinical addiction treatment 
services.” (AE A)  
 
In his response to the SOR, dated February 17, 2010, Applicant made the 
following comments about his alcohol use: 
 
I have been abstaining from alcohol consumption for almost two months 
as I write this and I plan to continue. I have been living with the same 
person now for 14 years and have helped raise her family. They are all 
grown now and have been successful in their endeavors. Since my 
outpatient program completion until nearly two months ago I had only 
consumed alcohol on occasion, eating out somewhere or when a friend 
has come over, but not to the point of intoxication. I had planned on 
abstaining as I stated in the previous interrogatory but I wasn’t having any 
problem with an occasional drink. I now feel that it is pointless to even 
have an occasional drink and so I am now not using alcohol at all.  
 
I entered outpatient treatment under my own volition and have been 
attending Alcoholic’s Anonymous on a regular basis. My drinking in the 
past has never affected my ability to do my job or impaired my abilities to 
 
   
 
 
7
make decisions concerning my job or security matters. In fact, I have 
helped others when questions have arose as to how to handle certain 
security situations and I have always been thorough to follow guidelines 
and proper procedures when handling security situations.  
 
Response to SOR, dated February 17, 2010, at 2.  
 
During the hearing, Applicant admitted that prior to his outpatient treatment in 
2006, he had an attitude of “wanting to party until he dies.” Since his treatment, 
Applicant believes he has grown up and has not had any issues with alcohol. He admits 
to drinking occasionally but not to intoxication. When he drinks alcohol, he has a couple 
drinks when he goes out to dinner. The last time he drank alcohol was a couple of 
weeks ago. He considers himself to have an alcohol problem, but believes his drinking 
is under control. He occasionally attends AA meetings. He has never attended AA on a 
regular basis and has never obtained a sponsor.  He is not working a 12-step program. 
(Tr. 25-26, 68-70)  
 
Upon further questioning, Applicant described his current level of alcohol use as: 
  
Applicant: Currently, I had a period of abstinence from January until like 
the end of April and have consumed since then a couple times when going 
out for dinner and occasionally on the weekend when we go to our cabin.”  
 
Judge: And how much do you drink, beer, wine— 
 
Applicant: I just drink beer. 
 
Judge: And how many beers would you drink? 
 
Applicant: On a weekend from like Friday through Saturday or whatever, 
I’d have five or six over the course of the day.  
 
(Tr. 71)  
 
Applicant admits that his girlfriend still occasionally gets upset with him when he 
is drinking alcohol. She got upset a couple of weeks prior to the hearing about his 
alcohol use. She told him to quit drinking. (Tr. 72)  
  
Whole-Person Factors 
 
A security specialist/facility security officer from Applicant’s company testified on 
Applicant’s behalf. She indicated Applicant’s behavior at work is good and he has no 
security violations. She is aware of the allegations in the SOR. Based on her interaction 
with Applicant, she does not see him as a security risk. She does not socialize with 
Applicant outside of work. (Tr. 77-80; AE B at 7)  
 
 
   
 
 
8
Applicant’s mid-term review was favorable. He maintains a positive attitude and 
handles issues in a positive manner. He works well with other team members and seeks 
challenging work. He has excellent technical abilities. (AE B at 5-6) His mid-term review 
for 2009 was also favorable. (Gov 5 at 4-5) 
 
Applicant provided copies of his transcripts related to his studies for his masters 
in industrial engineering for the Fall semester 2009, Spring semester 2010, and 
Summer semester 2010. He has been successful in his studies. (AE B at 2-4)   
 
Policies 
 
 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 useful 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.  
 
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 
 
   
 
 
9
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 relating to the guideline 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 trustworthiness.  
 
The guideline notes several disqualifying conditions that could raise security 
concerns. The following Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions are relevant to 
Applicant’s case: 
 
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) applies with respect to Applicant’s three alcohol-related 
arrests in December 1990, June 1991, and October 1991.  
 
AG ¶ 22(c) (habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment, 
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol 
dependent) applies with respect to Applicant’s drinking history.  Applicant’s excessive 
alcohol use resulted in the three arrests during his younger years in the early 1990. In 
2005, Applicant experienced blackouts as a result of consuming too much alcohol. 
Applicant’s pattern of alcohol use is a concern. From to time to time, he abstains from 
drinking alcohol. He eventually resumes drinking claiming that he occasionally has one 
or two drinks on a special occasion. During the hearing, Applicant testified that he 
currently consumes 5-6 six beers on a weekend day. His level of alcohol use is 
increasing.   
 
AG ¶ 22(d) (diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, 
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence) and AG ¶ 
22(e) (evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence by a licensed clinical social 
worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program) do not apply. 
Although Applicant has gone through alcohol treatment on several occasions and 
received a diagnosis of alcohol abuse, the record is not clear that the 
 
   
 
 
10
individual/counselor making the diagnosis was a duly qualified medical professional or a 
licensed clinical social worker.   
 
AG ¶ 22(f) (relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and 
completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program) applies. Applicant has received a 
diagnosis of alcohol abuse on several occasions. After completion of outpatient 
treatment on several occasions, Applicant expressed an intent to abstain from drinking 
alcohol, but eventually resumed drinking alcohol.  
 
AG ¶ 22(g) (failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, 
evaluation, treatment, or abstinence) applies with respect to Applicant’s June 1991 
arrest for Public Intoxication.  Applicant was serving probation at the time and was 
required to maintain abstinence as a term of his probation. 
 
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from alcohol consumption. The following Alcohol Consumption 
Mitigating Conditions are relevant to Applicant’s case: 
 
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 and does not 
cast doubt on the individual=s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) does 
not apply. Applicant has a long history of alcohol abuse. He attempts to remain 
abstinent after each incident only to resume drinking alcohol to excess. Considering 
Applicant’s past history of relapses and his past minimization of his drinking patterns, 
questions remain about his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. 
Considering his past unsuccessful attempts to abstain from alcohol, a concern remains 
about his alcohol use as well his lack of participation in a program that would help him 
remain sober and prevent relapse.   
 
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 had 
established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an 
alcohol abuser) does not apply. While Applicant admits that he has an alcohol problem, 
he continues to drink alcohol even though his past alcohol use has caused problems 
with his family and with his security clearance. He attends AA occasionally but not on a 
regular basis. He has lied to investigators and medical providers on several occasions 
about his level of alcohol use in past security clearance investigations. Applicant’s  
current claims of controlled alcohol consumption are not credible. 
 
AG ¶ 23(d) (the individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient 
counseling or rehabilitation along with 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 similar 
organizations 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) does not apply. About a month and half after Applicant was 
 
   
 
 
11
served his SOR, he underwent a comprehensive alcohol evaluation by Dr. B, a licensed 
psychologist. While Dr. B.’s evaluation was favorable, he did not testify during the 
hearing and was not subject to cross examination. It cannot be determined from the 
record what Applicant told Dr. B. about his alcohol consumption and the extent of his 
participation in AA. Would Dr. B’s favorable evaluation change if he knew Applicant’s 
current level of alcohol consumption was approximately 5-6 beers on a weekend day? 
Would Dr. B’s favorable evaluation change if he knew Applicant admitted in the past to 
telling his counselors what they wanted to hear in order to successfully complete the 
program? While it does not appear that Applicant has encountered recent legal 
problems with his alcohol use, concerns remain because of his pattern of returning to 
alcohol use after several periods of trying to abstain, his current increased level of 
consumption, and his long history of alcohol problems.   
 
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised under Guideline G.   
 
Personal Conduct 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in AG &15: 
 
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.  
 
 There is sufficient evidence to conclude Applicant deliberately provided false 
information about the level of his alcohol use in a signed, sworn statement provided to 
an investigator conducting his background investigation on August 6, 1996. Applicant 
deliberately provided false information during interviews with security investigators of 
another government agency on May 8, 2002, and January 28, 2003. Personal Conduct 
Disqualifying Condition AG 16(b) (deliberately providing false or misleading information 
concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent 
medical authority, or other official government representative) applies.   
  
 AG ¶ 16(e) (personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s 
conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such as (1) 
engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal, professional, or 
community standing, or (2) while in another country, engaging in any activity that is 
illegal in that country or that is legal in that country but illegal in the United States and 
may serve as a basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence 
service or other group) also applies. Applicant is vulnerable to exploitation, 
manipulation, or duress as a result of his alcohol use. His misleading statements about 
past alcohol use reveals Applicant is aware of this vulnerability and the potential that his 
security clearance may be in jeopardy as a result of his drinking.   
 
 
   
 
 
12
 Several personal conduct mitigating conditions potentially apply. They include: 
 
AG ¶ 17(a) (the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the 
omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the 
facts)  
 
AG ¶ 17(c) (the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the 
behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique 
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the 
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment); and  
 
AG ¶ 17(e) (the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress). 
 
 I find none of the above mitigating factors apply. Applicant admits to deliberately 
providing false information during a 1996 security clearance background investigation 
and a 2002/2003 investigation regarding SCI access. While a significant amount of time 
has passed, in each falsification, Applicant did not admit to being untruthful until he was 
confronted about conflicting information uncovered during each investigation. While 
there is no proof Applicant deliberately falsified the extent of his alcohol use in the 
current investigation, there is evidence that he has changed his mind on several 
occasions as to whether he intends to abstain from alcohol use. In 2003, he admitted to 
telling medical personnel and investigators what he thought they wanted to hear 
pertaining to his alcohol use. I am not fully convinced that he is being entirely truthful 
about his alcohol use in the current investigation based upon his past history of 
untruthfulness. As a result, he remains vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation, or 
duress. He has not come to terms with his alcohol issues based on his continued 
consumption of alcohol and his lack of regular attendance at AA. In sum, Applicant 
continues to minimize and deny the true scope of his alcohol consumption.  
   
 With respect to SOR ¶ 2.c, which alleges Applicant was denied SCI access by 
another government agency on July 17, 2003, I find it is the consequence of Applicant’s 
admitted deliberate falsifications alleged in SOR ¶ 2.b. I find for Applicant with respect 
to the allegation in SOR ¶ 2.c. 
 
 With respect to SOR ¶ 2.d. which alleges Applicant told an investigator on 
January 2, 2008 that he intended to abstain from alcohol use but admitted to drinking 
alcohol in December 2008, I find no falsification. These statements, although conflicting, 
are more relevant to Applicant’s denial of his alcohol problem as opposed to a 
deliberate falsification. SOR ¶ 2.d is found for Applicant. 
 
 Applicant did not meet his ultimate burden of persuasion to mitigate concerns 
under personal conduct. Concerns about Applicant’s judgment, trustworthiness, and 
reliability remain.   
 
 
 
   
 
 
13
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) 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 
security clearance must be 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 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant’s favorable 
duty performance and his success so far while studying for his master’s degree. While 
Applicant received a favorable evaluation from a licensed psychologist in February 
2010, his Answer to the SOR indicates that he was apparently abstaining from alcohol 
during the evaluation. He resumed drinking alcohol two months later. His current level of 
use is occasionally five to six beers on a weekend day. Considering Applicant’s lack of 
truthfulness about his alcohol consumption in past security investigations, it is likely 
Applicant is minimizing his alcohol use during this investigation. He continues to use 
alcohol even though his past use of alcohol has caused problems with his family 
members, threatened his security clearance, and resulted in denial of SCI access in 
2003. Doubts remain about Applicant’s trustworthiness, reliability, and judgment. 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, and Guideline E, Personal Conduct, are found 
against Applicant.   
 
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 – 1.l:   Against Applicant 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
14
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a – 2.b:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.c – 2.d:   For Applicant 
   
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 security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
                                                
_________________ 
ERIN C. HOGAN 
  Administrative Judge