1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-03841
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On October 15, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline
G for Applicant. 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) implemented in 2006. 
 
Applicant timely requested a hearing before an administrative judge. I received
the case assignment on January 13, 2011. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on March
5, 2011, and I convened the hearing on May 4, 2011. The Government offered Exhibits
(GE 1-6), which were received into the record without objection. Applicant testified and
submitted Exhibits (AE A-C), which were admitted into the record without objection. I
held the record open until May 23, 2010, so that Applicant could submit additional
documents. The submission was timely received, marked as (AE D) and entered into
the record. Department Counsel did not object to the documents. DOHA received the
2
transcript on May 13, 2011. Based upon a review of the record, eligibility for access to
classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a,
1.b, 1.c, and 1.d. He provided additional information to support his request for eligibility
for a security clearance. 
Applicant is a 38-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He graduated from
high school in 1992 and attends college classes. Applicant is married and has two
children. Applicant served in the United States Marine Corps from 1992 until 1999. (GE
1) He has held a top secret clearance since 1992. He has been with his current
employer since October 2006. (GE 1)
When he was 18 years old, Applicant drank beer on weekends, averaging about
six to seven beers at a sitting. (GE 2) He believes that he consumed a six-pack of beer
on a Friday/Saturday once every one to two weeks with other Marines. (GE 3) His
consumption was reduced when he deployed. He drank socially as permitted. He
estimates that he consumed to intoxication 25% of the time. This period was from 1992
until 2009. He states that he stopped drinking in 2009. He has never been diagnosed
with an alcohol problem. (GE 2)
In May 2000, Applicant held a party at his house. The music was loud and people
complained. The police arrived and Applicant would not allow them into the house. (Tr.
24) The police kicked in the door. Applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated
assault on a police officer. He recalls that he was intoxicated at the time. (Tr. 24) He
pled guilty to a lesser charge, was fined and entered the sheriff’s labor assistance
program (SLAP). He spent the weekend in jail. He performed seven days community
service. He was not required to seek alcohol counseling. (Tr. 25)
In July 2003, Applicant was visiting a friend. They went to a bar and consumed
alcohol without eating. When he left the bar, the police stopped him for speeding on the
highway. He does not recall how much he had to drink that evening. He took a
Breathalyzer and was charged with DUI and speeding. He pled guilty to DUI. Applicant
was sentenced to 24 hours in the intoxicated driver resource center (IDRC), fined and
his license was revoked for six months. 
Applicant changed his drinking habits from 2005 until 2009. He estimates that he
consumed alcohol once every three months with friends at a restaurant. He would drink
about four or five beers. He never thought he had an alcohol problem until his second
DUI. (GE 3)
In August 2009, Applicant was out with cousins watching a fight at a local bar. He
consumed about four or five beers. When it was time to leave, Applicant went to another
bar and had a drink. He did not stop at the light and was pulled over by the police. (Tr.
3
29) He was charged with DUI, refusal to take the Breathalyzer test, and resisting arrest.
Applicant pled guilty to the DUI. He was sentenced to 30 days community service,
received two years suspension of his license and ordered to attend the IDRC. He still
does not have a driver’s license. He completed his classes at the IDRC last July.(Tr. 36)
Applicant sought help from a psychologist in October 2010. (AE A) He received
outpatient counseling after his 2009 DUI. A screening result indicated that the impact of
alcohol on Applicant was minimal or none. It has not affected his work. He does not
meet the criteria for substance abuse or dependence. (AE D) Applicant has
acknowledged that alcohol does not help him in his life. He realizes the hardship it
creates for his family. He is aware of the danger or drinking and driving. He has learned
that alcohol wreaks havoc in his life and serves no purpose. (Tr. 16)
Applicant has not had any alcohol since his November 2009 DUI. He intends to
abstain from drinking even though it was not advised due to any alcohol dependence.
He and his wife do not have alcohol at home. His wife does not drink. His wife supports
him in his goals.
A May 2011 report from Applicant’s psychologist confirms that Applicant utilizes a
social support group of family and friends when feeling an urge to consume alcohol.
Applicant’s therapist reports that Applicant now possesses the strength to abstain from
alcohol by utilizing techniques learned in therapy. Applicant completed all goals set in
his therapy. As part of his treatment, Applicant compiled a detailed history of his alcohol
abuse. Applicant learned interventions and has a written plan to assist him to be free of
alcohol. He has learned to share his problems with someone who can assist him so that
social pressure or interpersonal conflicts are not resolved through the use of alcohol.
Applicant’s therapist emphasized that Applicant has acknowledged the hardship that
was created for his family. He has been successful in abstaining from alcohol and is
aware of the danger of drinking and driving. (AE D)
Applicant wants to re-enlist in the Marine Corps (Reserve). He keeps busy with
his two children. He attends church. He continues to see his psychologist. He has a
support group with his wife and family.
Applicant noted at the hearing that his parents had problems with drugs and
alcohol. He never realized the possible impact that had on his behavior. He is now
addressing those issues with his counselor. (Tr. 47) He has not completed his
community service because he does not have his license. He receives the license in
November 2011. His plan is to help with church projects. (Tr. 49) As soon as he has a
driver’s license, he plans to attend AA meetings. He lives in a remote area and needs
transportation to attend meetings on a regular basis. He cannot risk losing his driver’s
license and going to prison, nor does he want to jeopardize his family and his job.
Applicant submitted a letter from his wife who was unable to attend the hearing.
(AE B) She has known Applicant for six years. They have been married for four years
and have two young children. She is aware of the DUI charges and implications for
4
Applicant’s security clearance. Applicant’s wife describes him as a good man, who has
raised himself against all odds, and has become a loving, caring, dedicated father and
husband. He cares for the children and helps with household duties. She knows he is
taking steps to make changes in his life. He wants to join the Marine Reserve. He is
apologetic and realizes the burden his behavior has created for his family. He admits his
mistakes and continues to talk to his counselor and has abstained from drinking. When
Applicant receives his driver’s license, he is required to install a ignition interlock in his
vehicle in order to drive and maintain his license.
Applicant submitted several letters of reference from other colleagues and
friends. He is described as an extremely talented and capable person. He is dedicated
to his family. Applicant completes his work in a professional manner. (AE D) 
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 are required 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,
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
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to 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
5
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).
Analysis 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 21 expresses the security concern pertaining to 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.”
AG ¶ 22 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying, “(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.”
In this case, Applicant acknowledges his three alcohol-related incidents and
DUIs. His last alcohol conviction was August 2009. He admitted drinking to intoxication
from 1992 until 2009.  AG ¶¶ 22 (a) and (c) apply.
AG ¶ 23 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(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;
(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);
6
(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; and
(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.
After his 2009 arrest, Applicant acknowledged he had a problem with alcohol. He
sought counseling. Applicant has not been diagnosed with an alcohol problem. He has
had alcohol counseling. In those classes, the counselor did not believe that Applicant
had a problem with alcohol.  He underwent and successfully completed his treatment
without any need for a structured aftercare. Applicant stopped drinking in 2009.
Applicant has taken full responsibility for his past excessive alcohol consumption. Now
with his family as support, he has a network in place to help him. He understands the
dire consequences of abusing alcohol. He continues to see his therapist. He will attend
AA meetings when he receives his license. Applicant is exceptionally motivated to
abstain from alcohol and achieve his goal to join the Marine Reserve. Applicant has
mitigated the alcohol consumption concerns under AG ¶¶ 23(a), (b), and (d). 
 
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.” 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept.       
7
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a highly credible and
forthright 38-year-old employee of a contractor. He is a respected employee. He has
submitted several letters of recommendation. He lives at home and is married with two
children. He attends church. He is motivated to succeed. He receives counseling from
his psychologist. He abstains from alcohol. He wants to re-enlist in the Marine Reserve.
He excels at work and is highly valued. Applicant will not risk losing his career,
marriage, or driving privilege by repeating past behavior with alcohol. He has shown
insight into his previous behavior. Given these facts, and in light of a thorough
consideration of the whole-person factors, I have no concern that Applicant will again
abuse alcohol.
In sum, Applicant is not the same as he was in 2009. He has become a mature,
resolute, and responsible man who cares for his family, excels at work, and contributes
to society. Applicant has made great strides and has maintained since 2009.  
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his alcohol
consumption.
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
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
_________________
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge