1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-02595
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Marc G. Laverdiere, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On June 23, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising 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 (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 September 1, 2006. 
In a July 15, 2010, response, Applicant admitted all allegations set forth in the
SOR under Guideline G, providing comments regarding each allegation. He also
requested a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me on August 17, 2010. The parties
proposed a hearing date of September 9, 2010. A notice setting that date for the
hearing was issued on August 23, 2010. I convened the hearing as scheduled.
Applicant gave testimony and presented eight documents, accepted into evidence
without objection as exhibits (Exs.) A-H. Department Counsel offered 15 documents,
admitted as Exs. 1-15 without objection. Applicant was given until September 16, 2010,
to submit any additional materials. On September 17, 2010, Department Counsel
forwarded 34 additional documents that were timely submitted by Applicant. Noting no
 Tr. 27. Applicant noted that at that point, three beers were enough to keep him “giddy.”       1
 Tr. 19-20.      2
 Tr. 29-30. Applicant was able, however, to maintain sobriety for extended periods of time when his      3
assignments demanded it. See Tr. 62.
2
objections, I accepted the documents as Exs. I-PP. The transcript (Tr.) of the
proceeding was also received on September 17, 2010. The record was then closed.
Based on a review of the testimony, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to
meet his burden of mitigating security concerns related to alcohol consumption.
Clearance denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 37-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He served in the
U.S. military from 1994 until 2007. He has a high school diploma and has been
attending college courses. He is married and has no children.
Applicant has had a longstanding issue with excessive alcohol abuse. He
consumed alcohol, at times to excess and the point of intoxication, from about 1988
until November 2009. Applicant began drinking beer in high school, where he would
consume up to about three beers per weekend.  His alcohol use increased dramatically1
when he joined the military. He relied on beer to help him fit in. In the service, he found
hearty drinking to be as much a part of his unit’s mentality as it had been in the blue
collar environment in which he was raised.  Beer remained his beverage of choice. He2
grew into a “binge drinker,” a level he intermittently maintained until his 2009 Driving
While Intoxicated (DWI) charge.  He sometimes arrived at work intoxicated, although3
his intoxication was the result of excessive drinking the night before, not of morning
alcohol consumption. Over the years he has attended various alcohol treatment and
counseling programs, but found most of them ineffective or repetitive. While his military
career had many successes, it was equally marred by alcohol-related incidents, as
described below.   
In about November 1994, he received nonjudicial punishment for an alcohol-
related incident while a student in a military program. The incident led to his release
from the program and he was instructed to attend a Level II alcohol-abuse program the
following year. He willingly referred himself to an alcohol-awareness class in about June
1998 and completed treatment with an aftercare program in about December 1998. He
also completed an inpatient-outpatient treatment program at a military substance abuse
rehabilitation center in about July 1999. 
In the 2000s, Applicant was arrested in about October 2005 and charged with
driving under the influence and failure to drive in a single lane. He pled guilty to the
former charge and was sentenced to 60 hours of public service, completion of alcohol
treatment, and fined. The charge for failure to drive in a single lane was dismissed. In
March 2006, he received nonjudicial punishment for failure to obey a lawful order or
regulation. He was ordered to serve 45 days extra duty, restriction for 45 days,
 Tr. 68-70.      4
 Tr. 71.      5
 Tr. 76.      6
 Tr. 76-77.      7
 Applicant’s wife does not drink alcohol. See Tr. 97.      8
 Tr. 83; Answer to the SOR, dated Jul. 15, 2010, at 3.      9
 Tr. 86-88.      10
3
reduction in rate, forfeiture of one-half month’s pay for two months, and instructed to
receive Level 2.5 treatment for alcohol dependence. Applicant was treated for alcohol
dependence at a military facility from approximately May 2006 through June 2006. He
failed to complete that treatment due to his alcohol dependency or abuse, but he was
retained by the military. In March 2007, Applicant received nonjudicial punishment for
failure to obey order or regulation and disorderly conduct, drunkenness, for which he
received restriction for 45 days. On May 7, 2007, Applicant was discharged from the
U.S. military. His discharge was noted as honorable, but the narrative reason given for
his discharge was alcohol rehabilitation failure. At the time, Applicant thought his
discharge would help him face his drinking issues, but he returned home without a
support system in place.  When he started his current job, he thought he had his4
drinking under control. When he completed a security clearance application in February
2008, he was committed to not “mess this up” with alcohol problems.5
Most recently, Applicant was arrested in about May 2009 and charged with DWI,
1 . He was found guilty and sentenced to 180 days in jail (170 days suspended), hisst
operator’s license was suspended for 12 months, he was restricted to an ignition
interlock, ordered to attend an alcohol safety program, and pay fines. The experience,
including jail time, was horrific.  He was ashamed and felt he let down both his6
employer and the friend who had recommended him for the job.7
Over Thanksgiving weekend in 2009, Applicant had his last alcoholic beverage.
At the time, he consumed alcohol while nervous over the prospect of meeting his new
wife’s family for the first time.  He drank alcohol and triggered his ignition interlock8
device, resulting in a probation violation and additional counseling.9
The November 2009 incident occasioned a turnaround in Applicant’s life and in
his understanding of some of the underlying problems affecting his attempts at sobriety.
He did not want to selfishly disappoint his employer, wife, family, and himself through
alcohol abuse. Applicant began a new 12-step program (90 In 90) which affected him
positively, in a way Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) had not in the past.  It has helped him10
self-analyze, reconnect with his faith, better understand AA, and face his issues with
 Id., Attachment, Personal Narrative.      11
 Id., Attachment, Clinical Director’s Letter, dated Dec, 8, 2009.      12
 Ex. J (Letter, dated Sep. 10, 2010).       13
 Ex. C (Schedule); Tr. 90. Applicant’s AA attendance is comprised of regular AA meetings as well as two      14
separate hour-long meetings with a specialized focus. 
 Tr. 91.      15
 Tr. 89.      16
 Tr. 98-99.      17
 Tr. 92.      18
 Tr. 95.      19
 Tr. 94.      20
4
alcohol. He now understands abstinence is his only option.  He is working diligently to11
maintain this outlook.
 
In December 2009, while attending 90 In 90, Applicant was discharged from a
24-week DWI counseling program with a “good” prognosis. The clinical director, a
Ph.D., noted: “Perhaps for the first time in his life, [Applicant] has begun to see that
alcohol has had a negative impact on his life. He is wrestling with the thought of what
permanent abstinence would mean, But, he is not rejecting the idea outright. He
appears to realize that two DWIs is a wake up call for making major changes. . . .”  His12
probation and restriction for an ignition interlock device ended in June 2010.  
At work, Applicant is a valued employee. In his November 2009 evaluation, he
received scores ranging from 90 to 100 in various performance areas. In maintaining
his sobriety, Applicant has the full support of his wife, brother, family, and friends. His
father wrote that Applicant’s 2009 DWI arrest may have been a “blessing in disguise”
because it has helped Applicant reassess his life and reconnect with his faith.  13
Today, Applicant fully understands the need for a solid support system to help
him maintain sobriety. He has that with his wife, family, recovery sponsor, a church-
based recovery group, and AA, in which he has found new insights after completing the
90 In 90 program.  He admits he is alcohol dependent.  He has not had an alcoholic14 15
beverage since the November 2009 interlock device incident.  He has replaced alcohol16
in his life with exercise, movies, church activities, and more focus on his marriage.17
When asked whether he planned to drink alcohol in the future, he stated, “Alcohol is not
an option for me.”  He also noted, “alcohol is not in my future.”  He feels his marriage18 19
and support system, as well as his renewed “spirituality and . . . emotionality,” have
prepared him to remain sober.  20
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      21
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      22
 Id.      23
5
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the revised AG. In addition to brief introductory
explanations for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions. 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.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all
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.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a21
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  22
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
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). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access23
 Id.      24
 AG ¶ 21.      25
6
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.24
Based upon consideration of the evidence, Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
is the most pertinent to this case. Conditions pertaining to that AG that could raise a
security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which would mitigate such
concerns, are set forth and discussed below.
Analysis
Guideline G – 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.  In this case, Applicant admits that he25
abused alcohol from 1988 through November 2009. Its abuse marred his otherwise
successful military career on multiple occasions. He failed to complete an alcohol
program in 2006. He has gone to work still intoxicated from the previous evening’s
alcohol consumption. Applicant has been evaluated as alcohol dependent by a qualified
medical facility. He has relapsed despite repeated alcohol treatments and programs.
Applicant has received two convictions related to drinking while driving a motor vehicle.
Such facts are sufficient to raise Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Condition (AC DC)
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); AC DC AG ¶ 22(b) (alcohol-related incidents at work, such as
reporting to work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, drinking on the job,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol
dependent); AC DC 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); AC DC AG ¶ 22(d) (diagnosis by a duly qualified medical
professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or
alcohol dependence); and AC DC AG ¶ 22(f) (relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse
or dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program).
Applicant continued abusing alcohol through Thanksgiving weekend of 2009,
less than a year ago. While the circumstances giving rise to that incident, meeting his
in-laws for the first time, were unique, they are part of a pattern that has continued
since 1988 and after his last DWI conviction. Although Applicant is now resolved to
maintain sobriety and expresses himself with a clear display of understanding of his
condition, he appears to have been similarly resolved to abstinence in May 2009, after
his last DWI incident. Such facts obviate application of AC DC Mitigating Condition (AC
MC) AG ¶ 23(a) (so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it
7
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast
doubt on individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgement). 
Applicant admits he is alcohol dependent. He has articulated a well-chosen and
clear plan for maintaining sobriety through formal and informal support systems. In
describing his methods, he demonstrated a resolute intention to remain sober, but has
yet to establish a pattern of either abstinence or responsible use since the November
2009 incident or the end of his probation in June 2010. Given his long-term abuse of
alcohol, more time is necessary to demonstrate successful abstinence. Therefore, DC
AC 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)) does not apply.
Applicant has repeatedly participated in alcohol counseling and treatment
programs. He has relapsed after prior programs in the past, but not since his successful
completion of the 2009 program, where he received a good prognosis from a qualified
medical provider. However, he has completed slightly less than a year of sobriety,
obviating applicability of AC MC 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). Given the aforementioned facts, AC
MC AG ¶ 23(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 meeting with [AA] or a similar
organization and has received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified or a licensed
clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized treatment program) also
does not apply.
Applicant is clearly sincere in his efforts to maintain sobriety. He fully appreciates
the adverse consequences his alcohol abuse has had on his career and his life. He
resolutely wants to remain abstinent. Given his longstanding alcohol issues and
repeated relapses, however, more time is needed to establish a pattern of committed
and successful sobriety. Alcohol consumption security concerns remain unmitigated.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. An 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
8
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 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, as well as the “whole-person”
factors. Applicant is a 37-year-old man who served in the U.S. military for 13 years. He
recently married a woman who does not approve of alcohol, thus providing a stabilizing
influence. His entire family is supportive of his attempts to maintain sobriety. After the
90 In 90 program, Applicant now finds AA to be a significant source of support. Church
abstinence programs and his faith help in his support, as does a reliable sponsor. He
has turned to other activities to fill the void once filled with alcohol consumption, and he
is a valued employee. Applicant fully appreciates the destructive nature alcohol has
played on his career and on his life. He admits he is alcohol dependent. His current
support network and programs, if fully utilized, should effectively help him maintain
sobriety, given his recent self-assessment regarding the importance of his need to
abstain from alcohol. It is clear that he has started to turn his life around. Given his
personal history, he is to be commended for this achievement for, as Applicant noted,
alcohol is no longer an option if he wants to remain healthy and enjoy his successes.
Despite Applicant’s highly credible testimony, his demonstrated contrition for his
past alcohol abuse, and his expressed commitment to remain alcohol-free, he has
maintained sobriety for less than one year. Moreover, his most recent DWI-related
probation and removal of an ignition interlock device restriction only ended in June
2010. Given Applicant’s past relapses, more additional time is needed to fully
demonstrate a successful pattern for maintaining sobriety. As noted above, any doubt
concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be
resolved in favor of national security. In light of the facts in his case, and the brevity of
his sobriety, alcohol consumption security concerns remain unmitigated. Clearance is
denied. 
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 H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.d-1.k: Against Applicant
9
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge