1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-04789
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
In September 2009, Applicant, then 18 years old, was stopped twice by police for
alcohol-related offenses. Applicant has not drunk any alcohol since the incidents and no
longer associates with his underage friends who drink alcohol. He is a mature young
man who is working, attending college, and volunteering in the community. He has
mitigated the alcohol consumption security concern. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On December 23, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guideline G, alcohol consumption.  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG).
Applicant’s blood/alcohol content was .05 percent. For legal drinkers, this blood/alcohol content does not1
meet the legal threshold for driving while under the influence. (21 [state] Code Ann. § 16-205(b)(1)(i)). For
underage drinkers, however, the blood/alcohol content cannot exceed .02 percent. 
2
Applicant answered the SOR on January 12, 2011, admitting the allegations. On
February 11, 2011, the case was assigned to me. On March 4, 2011, a notice of hearing
was issued scheduling the case for March 24, 2011. At the hearing, I received four
Government exhibits and Applicant’s testimony. The transcript was received on April 1,
2011. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 20-year-old single man. He has nearly completed an associate’s
degree in information services technology, and will be attending a four-year college in
the fall. (Tr. 14, 37) He is active in his community, volunteering for Special Olympics and
working with handicapped youth once per week. (Tr. 38)
Since January 2010, Applicant has been working for a defense contractor as a
network technician. (Tr. 14) His duties include overseeing operations of a test flight
network. (Tr. 16)
Applicant first began drinking alcohol at a New Year’s Eve party in 2008. (Tr. 27)
He then consumed it regularly, approximately once per month, at parties. Typically, he
would consume six beers per episode. 
On the evening of September 5, 2009, Applicant attended a party and consumed
about four to five beers over six hours. (GE 2 at 5) While driving home, he fell asleep at
a traffic light and was stopped by a police officer who cited him with possession of
alcohol under age 21. (Id.) The officer did not arrest Applicant. Instead, he ordered him
to arrange a ride from the scene. Applicant then contacted a friend who drove him
home. (Id.)
About three weeks later, Applicant attended another party, and consumed
approximately seven beers over five hours. (Id.) The party ended abruptly when word
began circulating that the police were coming to break it up. While driving home,
Applicant was stopped by the police.  After failing a breathalyzer,  he was arrested and1
charged with driving a vehicle while under the influence, driving a vehicle while impaired
by alcohol, violating license restriction, speeding, and failure to drive vehicle on right half
of roadway when required. (Answer)  
The court consolidated both September 2009 cases. Also, after the second
incident, the state amended the first criminal petition to include the charge of attempting
to drive motor vehicle with alcohol in the blood. (GE 2 at 5) At a hearing in May 2010,
the court nolle prossed the charges related to the September 5, 2009 episode. As for
the second episode, Applicant pleaded guilty to violating a license restriction and
speeding, and the remaining charges were nolle prossed. The court then fined
3
Applicant, suspended his license for a month, and sentenced him to probation before
judgment. (Answer) The case was then placed on the court’s inactive docket for a year.
It will be dismissed if Applicant is not charged with any additional criminal infractions. 
As of the date of the hearing, the case was still on the inactive docket. (Tr. 31)
Applicant no longer associates with his friends who drink alcohol underage.  (Tr. 32)
Applicant has not consumed alcohol since the second arrest in September 2009.
He has no intention of resuming his alcohol consumption until he turns 21. Then, he will
consume in moderation. (Tr. 29) Applicant has not been evaluated by a clinician, nor
has he been referred to a counselor.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing
the complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in
the adjudicative process. 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.” 
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 to obtain a security clearance.
Analysis
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
Under this guideline, “excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise
of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness” (AG ¶ 21). Applicant’s history of
alcohol consumption and alcohol-related charges trigger the application of 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,” and 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.”
4
Applicant’s use of alcohol was limited to a nine-month period after he had turned
18 and graduated from high school. Immaturity is a mitigating factor. Conversely,
Applicant’s behavior transcends foolish, youthful experimentation with alcohol - he was
arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol three weeks after receiving an
alcohol-related citation. The immaturity of this behavior must be balanced against its
seriousness.
Nevertheless, he has not drunk alcohol for 18 months and has disassociated
himself from his friends who still choose to indulge in underage drinking. He has been
attending junior college and volunteering in the community while working for a
government contractor, and plans on attending a four-year college in the fall after
graduating from junior college. These responsible endeavors demonstrate maturity, and
lend credibility to his contention that he will not drink any more alcohol while underage.
Under these circumstances, AG ¶ 23(a), “so much time has passed . . . that it is unlikely
to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment,” applies.
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.
I considered the whole-person factors in evaluating the applicability of AG ¶ 23
(a). Applicant has mitigated the security concern. 
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c: For Applicant
5
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge