Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government’s Exhibits (GE) 1-8, and Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A-F.1
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February2
20, 1990), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG)
effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
        )       ISCR Case No. 08-11851
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah A. Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Dennis J. Sysko, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  Applicant’s clearance is denied.1
On 19 June 2009 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines
G, Alcohol Consumption, H, Drug Involvement, J, Criminal Conduct, and F, Financial
Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, and requested a hearing. DOHA2
assigned the case to me 28 August 2009, and I convened a hearing 6 October 2009.
DOHA received the transcript 14 October 2009.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations, except for SOR 1.h, 3.a, and 4.a. He is a
48-year-old network administrator employed by a defense contractor since March 2003.
He served on active duty for over 20 years in the U.S. Air Force, retiring as a Technical
Sergeant (paygrade E-6). He seeks to retain the clearance he obtained in the Air Force
in 1992, and transferred to his civilian employment when he retired.
Applicant grew up in a dysfunctional family, and began drinking when he was 13
or 14 years old. An older sister died from an aneurism that was related to her drug
abuse. He has a history of excessive alcohol consumption, punctuated by four alcohol-
related incidents between May 1984 and June 2000, and culminating in his first
diagnosis of alcohol dependence in April 2001.
In May 1984, Applicant was arrested for DUI (>.10% BAC) and later convicted.
Because of this arrest, he was referred for a military evaluation, which concluded that
Applicant was a problem drinker who was in the early/middle stages of alcoholism, and
recommended him for a rehabilitation program. However, he was not sent to the
program.
In June 1991, Applicant was again arrested, and later convicted, for DWI. He
paid a fine. In November 1998, he was arrested for DWI (.12% BAC) and later
convicted. The pertinent part of his sentence was five year’s probation and an order to
attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). His final DWI (.13% BAC) was June 2000. His
January 2001 sentence for that conviction included jail time and another year’s
probation
Because of his June 2000 arrest, Applicant received alcohol treatment from
October 2000 to April 2001. The evaluator was a Certified Associate Counselor Alcohol
and Drug (CAC–AD), the designation of his state licensing board. Applicant was ordered
to treatment by the judicial system. Applicant abstained from alcohol while in treatment,
and had six negative urinalyses during the program. He resolved his legal problem,
gained a working knowledge of alcohol dependency, and developed a support system
for ongoing recovery. The narrative summary noted:
It appears that this client is taking his Alcohol Dependency very seriously
and is willing to take the necessary steps to treat his Alcohol Dependency
on a daily basis. It is this counselor’s impression that his client has
accepted that he is Alcohol Dependent. (GE  2)
Applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent, told to abstain from alcohol,
attend at least two AA meetings per week for two years, and continue to use his support
system to fully understand the 12-step AA program for ongoing recovery. His prognosis
was good, provided he followed his continuing care plan.
¶ 22. (d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or3
psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence; (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;
The evaluation contained in both GE 2 and 3 is dated 01/15/05 at the beginning of the evaluation and4
01/15/04 at the end of the evaluation—which I consider a typographical error for two reasons. First, Applicant
got the evaluation because of DOHA’s December 2004 requirement. He could not have gotten the evaluation
in January 2004. Second, the counselor who made the evaluation also executed the interrogatories which
were hand-dated 15 January 2005 by Applicant when he submitted them to DOHA.
¶ E3.1.17. The SOR may be amended at the hearing by the Administrative Judge on his or her own motion,5
or upon motion by Department Counsel or the applicant, so as to render it in conformity with the evidence
admitted or for other good cause. W hen such amendments are made, the Administrative Judge may grant
either party's request for such additional time as the Administrative Judge may deem appropriate for further
preparation or other good cause.
3
On 22 December 2004 DOHA required Applicant to get a current medical
prognosis concerning his resumption of alcohol following treatment (GE 2). The
evaluation was to be performed by a treatment professional within the meaning of AG ¶
22. (d) and (e),  and include consideration of Applicant’s answers to other questions in3
the interrogatories. Applicant went to the same counselor who treated him in 2000-
2001, and got an evaluation dated 15 January 2005.  There is conflicting evidence on4
what the evaluation consisted of. At the hearing, Department Counsel proffered that
based on representations by Applicant and his counsel, the evaluation—although dated
15 January 2005—reflected only Applicant’s program participation in 2000-2001,
rendering SOR 1. h moot. Based on those representations, SOR 1.h was stricken (Tr.
16-17). However, at the conclusion of Applicant’s testimony (Tr. 95-93), I reinstated the
allegation in accordance with ¶ E.3.1.17 of the additional procedural guidance
(Directive, Enclosure 3).  Neither party requested additional time to address the5
allegation, and both declined  the opportunity to further question Applicant (Tr. 93).
Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the 15 January 2005 evaluation shows that it
was based on a detailed reevaluation of Applicant on that date. The evaluation correctly
states that Applicant had to get an evaluation for his security clearance processing. The
evaluation records the tests and techniques used by the counselor, the test results, and
the interpretation of the test results—items missing from the April 2001 evaluation. The
counselor concluded that Applicant was alcohol dependent (early stage), but had
excellent knowledge about alcohol dependency. He recommended no treatment, and
stated that Applicant was medically and mentally fit to perform his job duties. However,
he noted that Applicant had test results:
 . . . that are consistent with the scores of an individual who
is Alcohol Dependent, which (sic) has an excellent
knowledge of Alcohol Dependency. His verbal responses,
his self reported Drinking History (sic) tends to support this
finding.
4
The counselor emphasized that “[e]ach component of this evaluation was discussed
with [Applicant] in detail. [Applicant] is aware that he needs to address his Alcohol
Dependency on a daily basis.”
Applicant no longer drinks and drives, and he does not go out to drink. He
estimates that he drinks two glasses of wine with dinner 3-4 times per week, and maybe
a few beers per month. He has had no alcohol-related incidents since 2000.
Applicant states that the counselor did not conduct an interview in January 2005
or give him any tests (Tr. 72). He says their meeting was only to get the counselor to
confirm his treatment in 2000-2001. He admits that the counselor told him he was
alcohol dependent in 2001, and recommended that he use the AA 12-step program. He
insists that he was told to abstain from alcohol only during his treatment. He last went to
an AA meeting in 2003 and cannot recite any of the 12 steps. When he went to AA,
sometimes he thought he was an alcoholic, and sometimes not. He does not think he is
an alcoholic now, but admits he had an alcohol problem in 2000. He admits it was
important for his criminal case and his job for him to get a favorable evaluation from the
counselor in April 2001 (Tr. 75).
On 21 August 2009, Applicant consulted a Licensed Clinical Professional
Counselor (LCPC) for “an alcohol assessment and evaluation for security purposes for
his job.” (AE B) The counselor interviewed him for about 1½ hours, but performed no
tests. Applicant told her that he had been treated for alcoholism, but had not had a drink
in public for many years, although he occasionally drank wine spritzers in his home. She
did not render a diagnosis or prognosis, but stated he was fully capable of performing
his job duties. However, she recommended he get a second opinion.
Applicant got the second opinion in September 2009, when he consulted a
Licensed Clinical Alcohol and Drug Counselor (AE C). The counselor directs a program
that has been approved by several state agencies and courts. The counselor examined
Applicant and concluded:
[a]fter an in-depth interview, a psycho-social assessment,
cortical function test, and [state] Addictions Questionnaire, it
is my belief that [Applicant] does not have a problem with
drugs and/or alcohol. Therefore, I feel that neither an
educational program not treatment program is necessary at
this time.
However, the counselor did not otherwise explain the basis for his opinions, specifically
in light of Applicant’s resumption of alcohol after treatment and diagnosis as alcohol
dependent. The record is silent on any scope of practice limitations concomitant with
licensing as a CAC-AD, LCPC, or LCADC.
Applicant used marijuana one time in 1999, when he held a clearance. Applicant
also failed to report rental income on his income tax returns from April 2000 to May
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).6
5
2002. He bought a house in 2000. A friend needed a place to stay, and Applicant
obliged him. The friend lived on and off with Applicant for about two years and paid him
rent sporadically. Applicant did not know he had to claim those payments as income.
When he found out he had to claim the income, he submitted amended tax returns and
paid the additional tax, penalties, and interest (AE D, E).
Applicant’s supervisor and coworker consider him an excellent employee, who is
honest and trustworthy. He has good evaluations (AE F). Both witnesses are somewhat
aware of Applicant’s alcohol issues, but neither is aware of the full extent. They have
not observed him under the influence of alcohol or drugs at work.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for
access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is
not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed where a case
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the grant
or denial of a clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guidelines are Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H
(Drug Involvement), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.6
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline G, by
demonstrating Applicant’s history of alcohol abuse, punctuated by four alcohol-related
arrests between May 1984 and June 2000, his subsequent diagnoses of alcohol
¶22.(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or7
spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; . . . (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; (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; (f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or
dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program.
¶23.(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual8
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment;
¶23.(b) the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of9
actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent)
or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser);
¶23.(c) the individual is a current employee who is participating in a counseling or treatment program, has10
no history of previous treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress;
6
dependence in April 2001 and January 2005, and discontinuing his recovery program
and abstinence after his 2001 release from his rehabilitation program.  Applicant failed7
to fully mitigate the security concerns.
The mitigating conditions under Guideline G provide incomplete amelioration of
the security concerns. Although his alcohol abuse was not recent, as measured by
alcohol-related incidents, it was frequent, and not under unusual circumstances.8
Applicant’s acknowledgment of his alcohol abuse is limited to the period 1984-2000. He
views the problem as limited to his drinking and driving; thus the only action he took to
overcome the problem was drinking only at home. Arguably, he has established a
pattern of responsible use, but this only applies to a diagnosis of alcohol abuse. 
Applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent in 2001, and he has not
established a pattern of abstinence.  His claim that he was to abstain from alcohol only9
while in the rehabilitation program is simply unbelievable, as is his claim that he did not
undergo a full evaluation in January 2005, an evaluation which confirmed his diagnosis
of alcohol dependence. Applicant stopped going to AA in 2003, and has no other
support system in place. Without some kind of program, his demonstration of
responsible drinking is insufficient where abstinence is the standard.  Finally, Applicant10
returned to drinking after he completed his treatment program in 2001, a circumstance
that led to his being again diagnosed as alcohol dependent in 2005. His 2009
evaluations do little to refute that diagnosis.
Applicant completed a rehabilitation program in 2001, but returned to drinking
and stopped going to AA, contrary to treatment recommendations. His 2001 prognosis
was good, but conditioned on his continued adherence to his recovery program. His
2009 evaluations note only that Applicant does not currently demonstrate any alcohol
problem. But neither of them reconciles this finding with the earlier diagnoses of alcohol
dependence, neither of them addresses their findings in the context of Applicant’s
¶23.(d) the individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient counseling or rehabilitation along11
with any required aftercare, has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, . . . 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.
¶25.(a) any drug abuse. . .; (c) illegal drug possession, including. . . purchase. . . ;12
¶26.(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that13
it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment;
¶26.(b). a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as; . . . (3) an appropriate period14
of abstinence;
¶31.(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; (c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct,15
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted;
7
resumed alcohol consumption, and neither of them contains a prognosis for Applicant.11
Without a prognosis, Applicant’s drinking at home limits the likelihood that he will drink
and drive, but does not vitiate the security concerns that Applicant’s drinking will evolve
to abusive drinking again. Put another way, once Applicant was diagnosed as alcohol
dependent and resumed drinking contrary to treatment recommendations, he had the
burden of establishing that the diagnosis of alcohol dependence was no longer valid and
that his current alcohol consumption presented no security concerns despite the earlier
diagnosis. Applicant’s 2009 evaluations fail to meet that burden. Accordingly, I resolve
Guideline G against Applicant.
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline H.12
However, Applicant mitigated the security concerns. Although Applicant’s drug abuse
occurred when he had a clearance, the remoteness and infrequency of use, the
circumstances of that use, and 18 years abstinence from drug use, suggest he is
unlikely to use drugs in the future.  With no indication of any psychological or physical13
dependence on drugs, his 18 year abstinence from drug use is adequate to
demonstrate an intent to refrain from drug use in the future.  I conclude Applicant is14
unlikely to use illegal drugs in the future. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline H for
Applicant.
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline J by
establishing Applicant’s alcohol-related criminal conduct and his illegal use of drugs.15
However, the gravamen of the security concerns in this case revolve around Applicant’s
alcohol abuse issues. Separate allegation of the criminal nature of his conduct, whether
alcohol abuse or drug abuse, adds nothing of substance to the analysis of Applicant’s
fitness for access to classified information. I resolve Guideline J for Applicant.
The Government failed to establish a case for disqualification under Guideline F.
Applicant’s not knowing that the sporadic “rent” payments made to him by the friend
who lived with him occasionally was income, and thus not declaring those payments as
8
income on his tax returns, does not demonstrate poor judgment, untrustworthiness, or
unreliability. Once he knew it was income, he amended his tax returns and paid the
amounts due. Further, the additional taxes, penalties, and interest imposed did not
create any financial difficulty for Applicant. I resolve Guideline F for Applicant.
In my whole-person evaluation of Applicant, I have given particular consideration
to his 20 years honorable military service, his favorable work and character references,
and the favorable conclusions of his 2009 alcohol evaluations. However, I find those
factors insufficient to overcome the adverse inferences attendant to his resumption of
alcohol after his diagnoses of alcohol dependence.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-f: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Paragraph 3. Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Paragraph 4. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge