DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 09-07329 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: William T. O'Neal, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Gary L. Rigney, Esquire 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On September 21, 2007, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to update a security clearance for her position with a 
defense contractor. Applicant was granted continued access to classified information 
and has had access for over 16 years. On April 7, 2009, Applicant's employer submitted 
an adverse information report concerning Applicant's conduct. After reviewing the 
results of an ensuing background investigation, adjudicators for the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant interrogatories to clarify or augment 
potentially disqualifying information. After reviewing the results of the background 
investigations and Applicant's response to the interrogatories, DOHA could not make 
the preliminary affirmative finding required to continue a security clearance. On 
December 17, 2010, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
detailing security concerns for alcohol consumption under Guideline G and personal 
conduct under Guideline E. These actions were 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 in the Department of Defense on September 1, 
2006.  
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on January 18, 2011. She admitted eight of nine 
allegations of alcohol consumption under Guideline G, and denied the two allegations of 
personal conduct under Guideline E. She requested a hearing before an administrative 
judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on February 2, 2011. The case 
was assigned to me on February 23, 2011. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on March 
18, 2011, for a hearing on April 5, 2011. I convened the hearing as scheduled. The 
Government offered six exhibits, which were marked and admitted into the record 
without objections as Government exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 6. Applicant and four 
witnesses testified on her behalf. She offered one exhibits which I marked and admitted 
into the record without objection as Applicant exhibit (App. Ex.) A. DOHA received the 
transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on April 22, 2011. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact. Applicant admitted eight of nine allegations under 
alcohol consumption, and denied the two allegations under personal conduct. Her 
admissions are included in my findings of fact.  
 
Applicant is a 39-year-old college graduate who has worked for a defense 
contractor for approximately two years as a procurement specialist. Prior to this 
employment, she worked for other defense contractors. While working for these defense 
contractors, she received raises and bonuses. She has been a widow since 2003, when 
her husband died. She has no children. (Tr. 16-19, 32-33; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated 
September 21, 2007)  
 
The Government alleges that Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess 
and to the point of intoxication, to include daily from 1988 until at least October 2010. 
(SOR 1.a) Applicant admitted to infrequent use of alcohol from 1988 until the present 
and denies that her consumption was daily. (Answer to SOR, dated January 18, 2011) 
The Government alleges, and Applicant admits in her response to the SOR, that she 
consumed an excessive amount of alcohol at a company sponsored off-site meeting in 
March 2008. (SOR 1.b), However, at the hearing, Applicant admits to drinking alcohol at 
the off-site meeting but denies she consumed an excessive amount of alcohol. She 
stated that she confused her answer in response to the SOR to this allegation with her 
response to the December 2008 incident. (Tr. 39-40, 58-59) The Government alleges 
that Applicant removed part of her clothing and exposed herself at a company party in 
December 2008 after consuming alcohol. (SOR 1.c) Applicant admits that she behaved 
 
3 
 
 
inappropriately at the party after consuming alcohol (Answer to SOR, dated January 18, 
2011) The Government alleges that Applicant arrived late for work smelling of alcohol 
on her breath on January 22, 2009. (SOR 1.d) Applicant admits that she reported 
approximately 30 minutes late for work and was informed she smelled of alcohol. She 
acknowledges that she consumed a small bottle of wine the previous evening. The 
Government alleges and Applicant admits she received a performance improvement 
plan due to the above incidents in January 2009 and was required to successfully 
complete a substance abuse program. (SOR 1.e)  
 
The Government alleges but Applicant denies that she reported late to work 
smelling of alcohol on several occasions in January and February 2009 (SOR 1.f) The 
Government alleges and Applicant admits she was diagnosed with alcohol abuse and 
received treatment from January 30, 2009 until March 3, 2009. (SOR 1.g) The 
Government alleges and Applicant admits that she was diagnosed with alcohol abuse 
and received treatment from March 16, 2009, until March 18, 2009. She discontinued 
this treatment when she changed employers. (SOR 1.h) The Government alleges that 
Applicant continued to consume alcohol after the diagnoses of alcohol abuse. (SOR 1.i) 
Applicant admits that she continues to infrequently use alcohol, but has not abused 
alcohol since December 2008. (Answer to SOR, dated January 18, 2011) Her employer 
reported these activities to the appropriate security officials as required. (Gov. Ex. 6, 
Report, dated April 7, 2009) 
 
When interviewed by a security investigator in May 2009, Applicant said she 
drinks about two glasses of wine two or three times a week. She becomes intoxicated 
after two glasses of wine and is intoxicated about once a month. (Gov. Ex. 2, 
Investigation Report, dated January 14, 2010; Gov. Ex. 3, Answers to Interrogatories, 
dated October 19, 2010) In her response to the SOR, Applicant notes that her alcohol 
consumption now is infrequent, usually two glasses of wine on an average of two or 
three times a week with friends. She infrequently drinks hard liquor drinks. (Tr. 31-32) 
She admits the inappropriate conduct in December 2008 but asserts that it was an 
isolated incident. She has no history of alcohol addiction or uncontrolled consumption of 
alcohol. She has demonstrated a low tolerance for hard liquor so she will limit her future 
consumption to limited quantities of wine. (Answer to SOR, dated January 18, 2011) 
 
As to the personal conduct allegations, the Government alleges and Applicant 
denies that the above alleged conduct was a security concern. (SOR 2.a) The 
Government alleges, but Applicant denies, that she failed to report her involuntary 
alcohol treatment in March 2009 as required by her Facility Security Officer (FSO). 
(SOR 2.b) 
 
Applicant testified that she attended a company sponsored off-site meeting in 
March 2008. She drank about three glasses of wine with her supervisors and co-
workers at the hotel bar the night before, and she had some more wine with the same 
group at dinner the following evening. No comments were made to her at the event 
about her consumption of alcohol. After the off-site meeting, she was awarded a $250 
bonus and permitted to enroll in the company stock option plan. Her performance rating 
 
4 
 
 
for the period was also good, and there was no misconduct mentioned in the evaluation. 
The first negative indication she received concerning the March 2008 incident was in a 
January 23, 2009, letter from her company's human resources director. She was told 
that other employees at the off-site noticed her excessive consumption of alcohol at the 
off-site meeting. Applicant did not challenge this comment or ask for specifics from the 
human resources director because she was afraid that she would lose her job if she 
challenged the comments. (Tr. 19-23, 39-41, 61-62)  
 
Applicant admitted she drank at least four hard liquor drinks at the December 
2008 Christmas party and behaved inappropriately, removing some of her clothes and 
showing the party attendees an inappropriate part of her body. Her consumption of 
alcohol contributed to the conduct, and she was embarrassed and humiliated. She 
admits to being intoxicated which led to her having no inhibitions. (Tr. 41-42, 62-63) 
 
Applicant's senior supervisor reported that at a time of stressful work in the 
beginning of the months of January and February 2009, Applicant could not 
concentrate, was late for work, and was not able to complete her work completely or 
timely. Applicant was disrespectful to her immediate supervisor, and her breath and 
clothes smelled of alcohol. On Thursday, January 22, 2009, Applicant's supervisor 
noticed the smell of alcohol coming from her. After Applicant and the supervisor met 
with some clients, the supervisor counseled Applicant concerning coming to work late 
and smelling of alcohol. Applicant does not remember smelling of alcohol at work, and 
she does not know where the supervisor got the impression of the alcohol smell. She 
was about 30 minutes late that morning because she got up late and was tired. Time 
sheets from her employer show she worked 7 and 1/2 hours that day. (App. Ex. A, 
Timesheet, January 30, 2009) She does admit that she consumed four martinis and two 
beers with friends the previous night. This was the first complaint she received about 
smelling of alcohol at work. On January 26, 2009, she was counseled again by her 
immediate and senior supervisors and was placed on a performance improvement plan 
concerning alcohol consumption. As part of this plan, Applicant was to attend and 
successfully complete a substance abuse program. (Tr. 24-26, 40-45, 63-65; Gov. Ex. 
6, Performance Improvement Plan and attached memorandum, dated January 23, 
2009) 
 
On January 30, 2009, as required by her employer, Applicant saw a licensed 
clinical social worker substance abuse counselor at a behavioral treatment facility. On 
the initial intake form, Applicant stated she drank alcohol to deal with tension and 
physical stress, and has had blackouts, but not in over 20 years. The counselor's 
evaluation was alcohol abuse, and he recommended she attend an outpatient 
substance abuse program as well as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Applicant does not 
remember the counselor informing her of his diagnosis of alcohol abuse or even that 
she should attend AA. She does not remember the counselor telling her not to drink 
alcohol but he did tell her to minimize her consumption of alcohol. He referred her to an 
outpatient substance abuse facility. (Tr. 45-53, 65-67; Gov. Ex. 5, Report, dated 
January 30, 2009) 
 
 
5 
 
 
Applicant started the outpatient program as a condition of her employment on 
March 16, 2009. The doctor's admitting diagnosis was alcohol abuse. While in the 
program, Applicant's participation was good and she participated in the treatment 
program and attended three AA meetings. On March 18, 2009, Applicant voluntarily 
withdrew from the program after three days because she had new employment and 
further treatment was not a condition of her new employment. When she terminated this 
treatment, she was advised not to consume alcohol. (Tr. 53-55, 67-68; Gov. Ex. 4, 
Clinical Discharge Summary, dated March 20, 2009) 
 
Applicant's alcohol consumption in any given month from 2008 until 2010 was 
about three or four bottles of wine a month. She did not drink hard liquor but would also 
drink some beer during the month. She drinks alcohol with neighbors and friends and 
there is not a consistent pattern to her alcohol consumption. She does not go to bars or 
clubs to drink and does not drink alone. She does not feel she has a problem with 
alcohol since she can go without drinking. She does not drink in the morning or during 
the day but mainly at night with friends. Since the December 2008 incident, her 
consumption of alcohol has decreased. (Tr. 31-36, 59-61, 67-68) 
 
Applicant was aware of and signed her employer's policy requiring her to report 
any adverse information concerning her eligibility for access to classified information. 
The FSO sent her e-mails telling her that she needed to report the alcohol-related 
treatment she received. Applicant believed all required reporting had been 
accomplished since the human resources manager told her that she submitted the 
performance improvement plan to the FSO. She believed the FSO was fully aware of 
her treatment because the human resources manager discussed Applicant's treatment 
requirements with the FSO. She did not ask anyone in the company, including her 
supervisor and the FSO, the nature of her reporting requirement. It was her 
understanding that the FSO knew she was going for treatment since the treatment was 
handled through the company. When she was reminded by the FSO of the obligation to 
report the treatment, she did not report it. Applicant did not report her alcohol-related 
treatment to the FSO when she was directed because she did not know what to do. She 
does not believe she was given a clear indication of her responsibility to report the 
treatment. (Tr. 35-36, 54-58, 67-72) 
 
The FSO for Applicant's present employer testified that she has known Applicant 
for two to three years and sees her at work daily. She has never smelled alcohol on 
Applicant nor has Applicant ever appeared to be under the influence or hung over from 
alcohol consumption. The FSO has not seen any conduct from Applicant that would 
negatively affect her eligibility for access to classified information. (Tr. 78-86) 
 
A fellow employee testified that she works with Applicant daily. She has never 
seen any evidence of alcohol abuse from Applicant. She has attended company parties 
with Applicant and has never seen her abuse alcohol at these functions. She mainly 
sees her drink wine and an occasional beer. Her conduct at the December 2008 party 
was not Applicant's normal behavior pattern. (Tr. 85-95) 
 
 
6 
 
 
The director of business development for Applicant's employer testified that he 
sees her daily since they work in the same group. Applicant is very dependable. He has 
never seen her display an alcohol problem either at work or in a social setting. He has 
seen her have one or two drinks of alcohol but not to the point of excess. (Tr. 95-101) 
 
One of Applicant's neighbors testified that she sees Applicant at neighborhood 
women's functions. She has only seen Applicant drink wine at these functions. She has 
only seen her drink too much at a New Year's party five or six years ago when she was 
grieving her husband's death. She classified Applicant's drinking habits as moderate. 
Applicant is respected and accepted by her neighbors. (Tr. 101-108) 
 
In her response to interrogatories, Applicant included letters of recommendation 
from former and current coworkers. They attest that Applicant always displayed a 
positive professional attitude and work ethic. She never presented any reasons to 
believe she was under the influence of alcohol. Some attended social events with 
Applicant and she always acted in a reasonable manner and never presented any 
reason to suspect she abused alcohol. (Gov. Ex. 3, Response to Interrogatories, dated 
October 19, 2010) 
 
Policies 
 
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 must 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, the 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 
 
7 
 
 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for 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 protect 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Alcohol Consumption 
 
Applicant admitted the eight allegations concerning alcohol consumption, 
including allegations that she has been diagnosed for alcohol abuse. Excessive alcohol 
consumption is a security concern because it 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)  
 
The information in an adverse incident report from Applicant's former employer, 
Applicant's admissions of excess alcohol consumption, and Applicant's diagnosis of 
alcohol abuse are sufficient for the Government to raise Alcohol Consumption 
Disqualifying Conditions (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); 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); 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): 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).  
 
Applicant was involved in an alcohol-related incident at work in March 2008 when 
her co-workers noticed she drank alcohol to excess. She was involved in an alcohol-
related incident at work in January 2009 when she arrived for work late after drinking 
alcohol the previous evening, smelled of alcohol, and could not concentrate or perform 
her work functions properly. She was involved in an alcohol-related incident away from 
work, but incidental to her work, at a company party in December 2008 because of 
 
8 
 
 
binge drinking of alcohol. Based on these incidents, she was referred to a substance 
abuse facility and diagnosed by a licensed clinical social worker for alcohol abuse. She 
was referred from this facility to an outpatient program and was diagnosed by a staff 
psychologist for alcohol abuse. 
 
Applicant continues to consume alcohol. She admits to drinking a few glasses of 
wine a few nights each week, resulting in drinking three or four bottles of wine a month. 
While she continues to drink of alcohol after diagnosis of alcohol, she never completed 
an alcohol rehabilitation program. The disqualifying condition at AC DC AG ¶ 22(f) 
(relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion of an alcohol 
rehabilitation program) is not raised. There is no information that Applicant was ever 
convicted of alcohol-related issues so AC DC AG ¶ 22(g) (failure to follow any court 
order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence) is not raised. 
 
 I considered Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition (AC MC) 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 or does not cast doubt on the 
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment). It does not apply. 
While there is no "bright line" rule for determining when conduct is recent or sufficient 
time has passed since the incidents, a determination whether past conduct affects an 
individual's present reliability and trustworthiness must be based on a careful evaluation 
of the totality of the evidence. If the evidence shows a significant period of time has 
passed without evidence of an alcohol issue, there must be an evaluation whether that 
period of time demonstrates changed circumstances or conduct sufficient to indicate a 
finding of reform or rehabilitation. The last reported alcohol-related incident for Applicant 
was in January 2009. She was referred to a substance abuse counselor and referred to 
a substance abuse outpatient program. She attended little of the outpatient program 
and withdrew after finding a new job. She was diagnosed at both facilities as an alcohol 
abuser. Applicant has not changed her life circumstances. She continues to drink 
alcohol, usually wine, a few times a week. She is not an active participant in any alcohol 
prevention programs and aftercare. The evidence does not show a change of 
circumstances indicating Applicant has reformed, or has been rehabilitated, or is no 
longer an alcohol abuser. It is likely her previous alcohol consumption problems will 
recur. Her present circumstances and lifestyle show that her past conduct still reflects 
adversely on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  
 
 I also considered AC MC AG ¶ 23(b) (the individual acknowledges his or her 
alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of action taken to overcome 
this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or 
responsible use (if an alcohol abuser)). The mitigating condition does not apply. 
Applicant does not acknowledge that she has an alcohol-related problem and she 
continues to consume alcohol, although at a moderate rate. She does not attend any 
alcohol prevention programs. She has not established a clear pattern of responsible 
consumption of alcohol after a diagnosis of alcohol abuse. In total, Applicant has not 
presented sufficient information to meet her burden to establish that her past alcohol 
use is under control and her present alcohol consumption does not reflect now on her 
 
9 
 
 
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Applicant has not mitigated security 
concerns for alcohol consumption. 
 
 Applicant withdrew from the alcohol-related outpatient program in March 2009. 
She presented no information that she is now attending an alcohol prevention program. 
Therefore, AC MC AG ¶ 22(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) does not apply. Additionally, AC MC AG ¶ 22(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 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) is not applicable. 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
 A security concern is raised because conduct involving questionable judgment, 
untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations 
can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect 
classified information. (AG ¶ 15) Personal conduct is always a security concern because 
it asks the central question does the person’s past conduct justify confidence the person 
can be entrusted to properly safeguard classified information.  
 
 Applicant was involved in alcohol-related incidents at work. This fact raises 
Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) AG ¶ 16(d) (credible adverse 
information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be 
sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all 
available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, 
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and 
regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly 
safeguard protected information. This includes but is not limited to consideration of: (2) 
disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior in the workplace. (3) a pattern of 
dishonesty or rule violations); and PC DC 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, .). While her 
alcohol-related conduct at work is covered under Guideline G (Alcohol consumption), it 
is also inappropriate behavior in the workplace. 
 
 I have considered Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition (PC MC) AG ¶ 17(d) 
(The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the 
behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or 
factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such 
behavior is unlikely to recur). This mitigating condition does not apply. As noted under 
 
10 
 
 
the analysis of alcohol consumption, Applicant has not presented sufficient information 
to demonstrate a changed circumstance concerning her alcohol consumption. She 
continues to consume alcohol at the rate of at least a bottle of wine a week. She 
continues to consume some other types of alcohol. She does not participate in any 
alcohol prevention program even after a diagnosis of alcohol abuse 
 
 Applicant did not report her alcohol-related outpatient treatment to her FSO as 
required by her company's policy. Her supervisors directed her, as a condition of 
employment, to attend an alcohol prevention program. Applicant did as directed and 
was referred by the counselor for evaluation in an outpatient program. Applicant initially 
attended the outpatient program but withdrew after three days. Applicant did not inform 
her FSO of the referral to the outpatient program. She thought the company knew of the 
referral since her company-sponsored health program paid for the treatment, her 
supervisor and the human resources officer knew of the referral, and the human 
resources director discussed her circumstances with the FSO. Applicant was 
specifically told by the supervisor and FSO that she had to report her attendance at the 
program in accordance with company policy. Even after being so advised, Applicant did 
not report as directed. This put her in direct violation of the company policy, and could 
possibly conceal the information from company officials. The attendance at an alcohol 
treatment facility and a diagnosis of alcohol abuse could affect her personal and 
professional standing as required by AG ¶ 16(e). Her deliberate failure to follow the 
known company policy and attempt to conceal the information reflects adversely on her 
judgment, reliability, candor, and ability to follow rules and regulations. These factors 
indicate she may not properly protect classified information. Personal conduct security 
concerns are not mitigated. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis  
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and 
the relevant 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 
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.  
 
 
11 
 
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered that Applicant is a good 
employee and is considered by her co-workers as trustworthy and reliable. I considered 
the testimony of her present co-workers who have not seen any indications of alcohol-
related problems. I also considered that Applicant successfully held a security clearance 
for over 16 years. Applicant had alcohol-related problems both at work and outside of 
work in March 2008, December 2008, and January 2009. She was directed to attend an 
alcohol prevention program by her employer. She started the program and was 
diagnosed with alcohol abuse. She left the program after a few sessions because she 
changed jobs. Applicant continues to consume alcohol amounting to about a bottle of 
wine a week and maybe some beer and an occasional hard liquor drink. There have 
been no reported alcohol-related issues since January 2009. However, Applicant has 
not taken sufficient steps to deal with her alcohol-related problems and the diagnosis of 
alcohol abuse. She did not complete the alcohol prevention program and continues to 
consume alcohol at a moderate rate per week. She has not established that she is wiser 
and more focused about alcohol consumption. She still maintains alcohol consumption 
in a social setting lifestyle that caused her alcohol-related problems in 2008 and 2009. 
There is no indication that her alcohol consumption is under control. It may be 
moderated but not under control. She does not now participate in any alcohol-related 
recovery and aftercare programs. She currently consumes alcohol and there is no 
indication that she is exercising good self control. She did not report her involuntary 
alcohol-related treatment to her FSO after being told to do so. Her continued alcohol 
consumption and her failure to report her alcohol treatment are indications that she may 
not properly safeguard classified information. The record evidence leaves me with 
questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. 
For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the alcohol consumption 
and personal conduct security concerns.  
 
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 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.i:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a and 2.b: Against Applicant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12 
 
 
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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge