1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE   
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 --------------------------- )     ISCR Case No. 08-05433
SSN: ------------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace L. Garcia,  Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Michael E. Satti, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has a history of repeated drunk driving incidents and treatment for
diagnosed alcohol dependence. She relapsed after her latest arrest for driving under the
influence in December 2008, despite attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings
since February 2009. Alcohol consumption concerns are not fully mitigated. Clearance
denied.
Statement of the Case
On January 30, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a statement of reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the security concerns under
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, that provided the basis for its decision to deny her a
security clearance. 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 on September 1, 2006. 
 
2
Applicant initially answered the SOR on March 3, 2009. She failed to respond to
SOR 1.e, and her answer was returned to her. On November 27, 2009, Applicant filed a
complete response and she requested a hearing. On December 29, 2009, the case was
assigned to me to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to
grant or continue a security clearance for her. On January 8, 2010, I scheduled a
hearing for February 4, 2010.
On February 2, 2010, counsel for Applicant entered his appearance, and he
requested a brief continuance, which was granted. With the parties agreement, on
March 9, 2010, I rescheduled the hearing for March 31, 2010. I convened the hearing as
rescheduled. Six Government exhibits (Ex. 1-6) and three Applicant exhibits (Ex. A-C)
were admitted without objection. Applicant and two witnesses also testified on her
behalf, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on April 9, 2010. Based on review of the
pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is
denied.
Findings of Fact
The SOR alleged under Guideline G, alcohol consumption, that Applicant
consumed alcohol, at times to excess and intoxication, from about 1974 to at least
February 2008 (SOR 1.a); that she was convicted of drunk driving offenses committed
in June 1994 (SOR 1.b) and February 2006 (SOR 1.c); that she received alcohol-related
treatment from May 12, 2006 to June 27, 2006, for diagnosed alcohol dependence but
did not complete the program (SOR 1.d); and that she was charged with driving under
the influence (DUI) in December 2008 (SOR 1.e). Applicant denied that she had a
problem with alcohol in 1994, although she acknowledged that she had consumed to
excess on the occasion of her DUI, and that she had been arrested for drunk driving as
alleged in February 2006 and in December 2008. Applicant admitted receiving alcohol
treatment in mid-2006 and that she failed to attend the last two meetings. As of March
2009, she was attending AA and a weekly substance abuse treatment program. After
considering the record evidence, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 54-year-old material technical aide, who has worked for her
present employer since 1979, with the exception of two years when she went out on
strike. (Tr. 89.) She holds a Secret security clearance that was last granted to her in
February 2001. (Ex. 1.)
After Applicant reached drinking age in 1974, she began consuming coffee
brandy or Kahlua mixed with milk about twice a month on the weekends while
socializing with friends. While in college from 1974 to 1979, Applicant consumed about
two to three glasses of wine at a sitting, three to six times a month. (Ex. 2, 6.) In the
early 1990s, she began drinking alone at home or with friends at bars. When out at
bars, she usually limited herself to two or three glasses of wine. (Ex. 6.) She consumed
one or 1.5 bottles of wine to intoxication at home some weekends. Work was stressful
because she had a lot of responsibility and received no support from her supervisor.
(Ex. 2, Tr. 110-11.)
3
On June 19, 1994, Applicant, whose weight varies from 96 to 98 pounds
(Answer), consumed three or four mixed drinks with a friend. Although she felt
intoxicated, she proceeded with plans to meet family. En route to her parents’ home,
she was arrested for driving while intoxicated after she failed field sobriety tests. She
submitted to breathalyzer testing, which registered her blood alcohol level at .385%
about a half hour after her arrest. (Ex. 5.) She was sentenced to complete a ten-session
alcohol education class (Tr. 117-19.), to pay a fine, and her license was suspended for
three months. After Applicant completed the DUI education program, she was required
to attend ten weeks of alcohol counseling and once weekly AA meetings because of her
high blood alcohol content when she was arrested. (Ex. 2, 6.) She completed the
outpatient program, which included AA meetings once a week. Applicant did not find the
AA meetings supportive, and she stopped attending when they were no longer required.
(Tr. 121.) 
Five weeks into her counseling, Applicant was interviewed by a Defense Security
Service investigator on November 17, 1994. Applicant indicated that as a result of her
alcohol counseling, she realized that she was drinking too much. Abstinent since
beginning her alcohol education classes, Applicant averred that she might not drink
alcohol again, and that she would “probably severely decrease [her] consumption” if she
drank. (Ex. 6.)
In the mid-1990s, she was hired into her current department at work. Her duties
were much less stressful than in her previous job. (Tr. 113.) Around 1997, she resumed
drinking, one or two glasses of wine a night. (Tr. 126.) But she also drank one to 1.5
bottles of wine to intoxication at home some weekends. She was convinced that she
could control her drinking (Tr. 129), and she continued drinking in this pattern until
February 2006, when she was arrested on suspicion of DUI. After she had consumed at
least 1.5 bottles of wine at home (Tr. 129.), Applicant decided to drive to the store, even
though she felt “tipsy.” She was pulled over for erratic driving, and failed field sobriety
tests. Based on breathalyser results, she was charged with DUI. In March 2006, she
was sentenced to attend an eight-week DUI school at a substance abuse treatment
facility (facility X), fined $500, and her driving privileges were suspended for three
months. (Ex. 2; Tr. 129-30.)
After completing the DUI program, Applicant voluntarily attended an intensive
outpatient treatment program at the facility from May 12, 2006 to June 27, 2006. (Tr. 91,
131.) At intake, she reported an increase in alcohol consumption over the past year,
that she had consumed 1.5 bottles of wine on 20 of the last 28 days, and that she
needed help to stop drinking long-term. She also reported a history of depression, well
controlled on Effexor medication. (Ex. 3.) Applicant was ambivalent about becoming
involved in recommended AA. She went to a couple of AA meetings while in treatment,
but she did not like the religious overtones. (Tr. 94.) Applicant left facility X’s outpatient
program early against medical advice because her insurance would no longer cover the
cost. (Ex. 2; Tr. 133.) Discharge documentation reflects she was diagnosed by a staff
licensed clinical social worker with alcohol dependence and anxiety disorder, not
otherwise specified, and that she was unwilling to attend self-help groups. (Ex. 3.)
Applicant came to believe that she is an alcoholic (Tr. 134.), but she resumed drinking
Treatment records reflect that she attended the outpatient program in 2006. (Ex. 3.)1
4
after she left the outpatient treatment program, in part due to stress over issues
involving her mortgage. (Tr. 136.) She consumed one glass of wine each evening and
more on weekends (Ex. 2.), although at one point, she abstained for three months. (Tr.
96.)
On January 4, 2008, Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) for an update of her Secret clearance. She disclosed
her February 2006 DUI and indicated that she was treated at alcohol treatment facility X
from May 2007 to July 2007 [sic].  (Ex. 1.) On February 19, 2008, Applicant was1
interviewed by a government investigator about her treatment and her alcohol
consumption. Applicant indicated that she voluntarily pursued alcohol treatment at
alcohol treatment facility X because she felt she had a problem with alcohol. Applicant
denied she had been diagnosed with an alcohol problem. She admitted she was
drinking 12 alcohol drinks per month, although she no longer drove after drinking.
Applicant expressed her intent to reduce her alcohol intake. She had no explanation for
why she continued to drink. (Ex.  2.)
On December 6, 2008, Applicant was arrested for DUI after she rear-ended a
vehicle that was stopped at a traffic intersection. She had been drinking wine at a
holiday party, but felt that she could drive safely. (Ex. 4; Tr. 139-40.) In February 2009,
she was convicted of the charge, and sentenced to one year probation, 100 hours of
community service, and fines. She lost her driving privileges for 14 months. (Tr. 97.)
Applicant completed her community service for a human services organization within
walking distance of her work. (Tr. 99.)
To regain her license, Applicant was required to attend a substance abuse
treatment program recognized by the state department of motor vehicles (DMV). She
completed Phase I, consisting of a 48-hour weekend retreat, on February 15, 2009. She
attended Phase II, consisting of at least 20 hours of aftercare counseling sessjons, and
AA three times a week, between February 24, 2009 and April 14, 2009 (Tr. 141.), and
her license was restored to her in February 2010. (Tr. 101.) She had not commenced
Phase III as of her security clearance hearing. Three of the four required meetings were
scheduled for April 10, 2010, July 10, 2010, and October 9, 2010. The last session is to
be held in 2011 on a date that had not been determined as of March 2010. (Ex. C; Tr.
98, 101.) 
Applicant drank alcohol, “a few glasses of wine here and there” after her
December 2008 DUI, including on March 18, 2009. (Tr. 61, 96-97, 145.) On March 24,
2009, at the request of adult probation, Applicant was evaluated by a state-certified
alcohol and drug counselor affiliated with a nonprofit substance abuse treatment
agency. (Ex. A; Tr. 58-59.) Applicant reported to the clinician that she had consumed a
glass of wine on March 18, 2009, which she did not think was a problem for her. (Tr.
61.) The counselor did not make a referral for further treatment because Applicant was
“doing what she needed to do” in attending the program mandated by the DMV. The
counselor told Applicant to call if she felt she needed additional treatment. (Tr. 58, 72.)  
5
In August 2009, Applicant voluntarily began attending a women’s support group
run by the counselor because she wanted support beyond AA. From August 14, 2009 to
November 16, 2009, Applicant attended 12 group sessions (18 hours total), which
stressed the value of 12-step groups, spirituality, and triggers to alcohol use, in the
context of relapse prevention. (Ex. B; Tr. 48-50.) Applicant denied any temptation to
drink throughout her treatment (Tr. 64.), and she attended different types of AA
meetings in compliance with her treatment plan, so that she could figure out for herself
what was best for her. (Tr. 68, 75.) About halfway through her group sessions, Applicant
realized that if alcohol had ever been a problem for her, one drink of wine could be a
problem. She also came to see that AA was not an imposition, but rather it provided her
support and insight away from a formal group setting. (Ex. B; Tr. 51, 61, 71, 102.) The
counselor considered Applicant to be an alcohol abuser rather than alcohol dependent
(Tr. 74.), but she advised Applicant to abstain from alcohol because Applicant was on
antidepressant medication and had problems in the past with alcohol. (Tr. 76.) Applicant
had told the counselor that she had identified a sponsor in AA and the clinician advised
Applicant to continue in AA with her sponsor. (Tr. 67.)
As of March 2010, the counselor considered Applicant’s prognosis for
maintaining sobriety to be excellent, provided Applicant stays involved in AA and has a
sponsor. (Ex. B; Tr. 53, 66, 77.) This assessment was based on her facilitation of
Applicant’s group sessions from August to November 2009. The counselor had no
contact with Applicant after the group therapy sessions apart from a recent conversation
with Applicant about testifying at the hearing on Applicant’s security clearance eligibility.
Applicant informed her at that time that she was doing well. (Tr. 69.)
Applicant considers herself to be a “recovering alcoholic.” (Tr. 144.) She drank
alcohol twice after completing her counseling in November 2009, most recently in
February 2010 when she consumed “a very large glass of wine” in her home. She
purchased the wine. (Tr. 160.) Applicant had no explanation for what led her to drink.
(Tr. 152-54.) She poured out the remainder of the bottle and went immediately to an AA
meeting after she drank. (Tr. 153.)
Applicant has attended AA at least once a week since late February 2009, and
she tries to get to at least three meetings a week. (Tr. 95, 156-57.) Applicant does not
intend to consume alcohol in the future because she recognizes, by her own efforts to
quit drinking or reduce her consumption in that past, that “sooner or later one glass of
wine is going to be more than one glass of wine.” (Tr. 102-03.) She completed the first
step of the AA program in that she admitted to herself that she is powerless in the face
of alcohol. She has not completed other steps of the AA program (Tr. 143.), although
she plans to complete the other 11 steps eventually. (Tr. 151.) Applicant has yet to find
a sponsor. There is one woman in AA with whom Applicant talks, but this woman
addresses recovery in religious terms. (Tr. 147.) Applicant has not called anyone in AA
since December 2009. (Tr. 163.) She did not think about contacting anyone in AA
before she drank the wine in February 2010. (Tr. 164.)
Applicant has not been in a bar in the past two years. She has been in the
presence of family members while they have been drinking on special occasions, such
6
as the Christmas holiday, but they usually do not drink when she is dining with them.
(Tr. 114.)
Applicant is currently under the care of a psychiatrist for her antidepressant
medication (Effexor). In February 2010, she started taking Campral, which suppresses
the desire for alcohol, which for her is more mental than physical. She feels more
secure in her recovery taking the drug. (Tr. 103-04, 144.) The psychiatrist suggested
she take the Campral after she told him that she had relapsed. (Tr. 161.) In March 2010,
she began once weekly counseling to help her remain sober. (Tr. 148-50.) 
Applicant has never reported to work under the influence of alcohol. (Tr. 103.)
Applicant enjoys her present work for the defense contractor. (Tr. 107.) Applicant’s
direct supervisor for the past six years has never observed her to be under the influence
of alcohol on the job (Tr. 26.), and he has no concerns about her judgment and
reliability at work. (Tr. 33.)  Applicant has not discussed the specifics of her alcohol
problem with him other than to indicate that she did not enjoy her rehabilitation. (Tr. 33)
He learned from Applicant’s father that she had been arrested for DUI. (Tr. 29.) In 2008
and again in late summer 2009 or early fall 2009, Applicant’s supervisor was required to
counsel her about absenteeism because she had no vacation or personal time left. (Tr.
34-36.)
Policies
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,
emphasizing that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy
v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a
security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines
(AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative
guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are
required to be considered 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
7
evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven
by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to
obtain 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
that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation
about 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 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
untrustworthiness.” Applicant has three drunk driving convictions that implicate 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.” Despite her abusive relationship with alcohol from the early 1990s,
there has been no impact on her work performance, so AG ¶ 22(b), “alcohol-related
incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired
condition, or drinking on the job, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an
alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent,” is inapplicable. 
However, the responsibility for protecting classified information is not limited to
duty hours. She showed extremely poor judgment in driving with a blood alcohol content
of .385% in June 1994. After two years of abstinence, she resumed drinking wine in
quantities of up to 1.5 bottles to intoxication at home on some weekends. By 2006, she
had developed a serious alcohol problem, as evidenced by her second DUI and her
abusive drinking thereafter, leading to her third DUI. 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,” applies.
Furthermore, because Applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependency by a
licensed clinical social worker at facility X in May 2006, and with alcohol abuse by the
state-certified counselor who assessed her at the request of adult probation in March
2009 and then treated her in the fall of 2009, AG ¶ 22(e), “evaluation of alcohol abuse
8
or alcohol dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a
recognized alcohol treatment program,” is implicated. The evidence also supports
application of AG ¶ 22(f), “relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and
completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program.” Because of her premature departure
from facility X’s intensive outpatient program in 2006, it cannot be said that Applicant
completed that alcohol rehabilitation program. She also has yet to complete Phase III of
the substance abuse treatment program mandated after her third DUI. But she
successfully completed two months of women’s group therapy facilitated by a state-
certified drug and alcohol counselor. By November 2009, Applicant had received
sufficient alcohol rehabilitation treatment to fulfill the treatment component of AG ¶ 22(f).
Her consumption of alcohol on two occasions thereafter, including in February 2010
when she drank “a very large glass” of wine, qualify as relapses, whether or not she
became intoxicated, given she had been advised by substance abuse treatment
professionals to abstain from alcohol.
Although Applicant’s drinking has been limited since August 2009, when she
entered the women’s group, her history of abuse is too recent and recurrent to favorably
consider mitigating condition AG ¶ 23(a), “so much times 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.” 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),” is implicated only in part. Applicant admits she is powerless over
alcohol and considers herself a recovering alcoholic. She took steps to address the
problem by voluntarily entering facility X’s intensive outpatient program in 2006, and the
women’s group in 2009. But her recent purchase and consumption of alcohol against
therapeutic advice, and her reliance on Campral medication to make her feel more
stable in her recovery from alcohol, are consistent with the diagnosis of alcohol
dependency rather than alcohol abuse. Moreover, the counselor who diagnosed
Applicant with alcohol abuse rather than alcohol dependence may not have been fully
aware of Applicant’s alcohol consumption history. She knew little about Applicant’s prior
DUI offenses or her alcohol rehabilitation treatment at facility X. (Tr. 64.) Applicant drank
alcohol, “a few glasses of wine here and there” after her arrest, including on March 18,
2009, before her evaluation for adult probation. She did not drink while attending the
women’s group from August to November 2009, but relapsed at least twice since then.
Abstinence lasting a few months is not enough to establish a pattern in light of her
history, which includes two DUI offenses after she had been free of alcohol for as long
as 2.5 years in the past, from June 1994 to 1997. 
AG ¶ 23(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,” is designed to encourage employees to seek treatment
without fear of denial or loss of their clearance eligibility. At the same time, the
Department of Defense justifiably requires current employees to make the progress
necessary to avoid a relapse and to meet their need for treatment. Applicant’s decision
The counselor who facilitated Applicant’s group therapy in the fall of 2009 gave Applicant an excellent2
prognosis (Ex. B), but with the following caveat:
W ell, I have to couch that a little bit. Because if she’s doing AA and if she’s still got her
sponsor, and if she is under any kind of–of she’s getting any kind of mental health or
counseling treatment–all of those things, I truly believe–I’m a behaviorist–I truly believe that
we can rewire our brains. Does that mean I think she should drink again or could? No,
because for her, it’s been a problem. (Tr. 77.)
AG ¶ 2(a) requires consideration of the following nine factors:3
(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.
9
to purchase and drink wine in February 2010, knowing that she risked her sobriety by
doing so, raises concerns about her commitment to recovery.
In addition to completing outpatient counseling, Applicant has not gone a week
without going to an AA meeting since late February 2009, when she was required to
attend under Phase II of a mandated substance abuse treatment program. However,
despite her treatment and the regularity of her attendance at AA, Applicant has yet to
demonstrate a “clear and established pattern” of abstinence, which is required of those
with diagnosed dependency for mitigation under AG ¶ 23(d). See AG ¶ 23(d) (stating,
“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”). Limited relapses are not unexpected, even by persons
committed to their recovery, but Applicant does not have a sufficiently sustained period
of abstinence. Moreover, while Applicant was given an excellent prognosis for
maintaining her sobriety, the prognosis was rendered by a clinician who considered it
significant that Applicant continue with her sponsor in AA.  This clinician, whose2
therapeutic relationship with Applicant ended in November 2009, seemed to not know
that Applicant never had a sponsor in AA or that Applicant had relapsed since
November 2009 despite regular attendance at AA. The evidence does not show that
this counselor was fully aware of the extent of Applicant’s alcohol use over the years.
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 conduct
and all the circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶
2(a).  3
10
Serious judgment concerns are raised by Applicant’s repeated drunk driving and
her history of relapse after counseling. Applicant is credited with taking some steps on
her own to deal with her serious alcohol problem, and there is no evidence that she
became intoxicated from consuming a  “very large glass” of wine in February 2010. I
have no reason to doubt her testimony that she stopped after that one drink, and that
she emptied out the rest of the bottle. She exercised good judgment in going to an AA
meeting immediately. That said, her commitment to the AA program is only in its infancy
at this point, despite her regular attendance at AA meetings since late February 2009.
Until October 2009, she viewed AA as more of an imposition than an aid to her
recovery. She did not consider contacting anyone in AA before she drank in February
2010, and had not found a sponsor in AA by late March 2010. Counseling and Campral
medication initiated weeks before her hearing appear to be helping her feel more secure
in her recovery, but these treatments are too recent to rely on in assessing the risk of a
relapse. While Applicant has not allowed her off-duty drinking to affect her work
performance, I am unable to conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for her.
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented 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.
Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Administrative Judge