1 
 
 
                                                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                                        DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
               )  ISCR Case No. 10-08729 
                                                                      )                                            
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Marc G. Laverdiere, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
ANTHONY, Joan Caton, Administrative Judge: 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings and exhibits in this case, I conclude that 
Applicant failed to rebut or mitigate the Government’s security concerns under Guideline 
G, Alcohol Consumption, and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. Applicant’s eligibility for a 
security clearance is denied. 
 
                                           Statement of Case 
 
Applicant completed and certified two Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP), one on November 30, 2007 and the other on 
February 8, 2010. On March 4, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns 
under Guideline G, Alcohol Involvement, and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. On April 
20, 2011, DOHA amended the SOR to include four additional allegations under the 
personal conduct guideline and issued Applicant the amended SOR. 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 within the 
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
 
2 
 
 
                                           
 On April 4, 2011, Applicant answered the initial SOR in writing and requested 
that his case be determined on the record in lieu of a hearing. Applicant responded 
timely to the amended SOR and provided additional information.1 On May 13, 2011, the 
Government compiled its File of Relevant Material (FORM). The FORM contained 
documents identified as Items 1 through 13. By letter dated May 19, 2011, DOHA 
forwarded a copy of the FORM to Applicant, with instructions to submit any additional 
information and/or objections within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the FORM on 
May 28, 2011. His response was due on June 27, 2011. On July 29, 2011, the case was 
assigned to me for a decision.   
 
Applicant filed a twelve-page response to the FORM within the required time 
period. Department Counsel did not object to the admission of Applicant’s additional 
information. Accordingly, I marked Applicant’s response as Item A and entered it in the 
record.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 The SOR contains eight allegations of disqualifying conduct under Guideline G, 
Alcohol Consumption (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.h.), and four allegations of disqualifying 
conduct under Guideline E, Personal Conduct (SOR ¶¶ 2.a. through 2.d.). The 
amended SOR contains four additional allegations of disqualifying conduct under 
Guideline E (SOR ¶¶ 2.e. through 2.h.) In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted 
the eight Guideline G allegations and two of the Guideline E allegations (SOR ¶¶ 2.c. 
and 2.d.). He denied the Guideline E allegations at SOR ¶¶ 2.a. and 2.b. Applicant 
admitted the four Guideline E allegations in the amended SOR. Applicant’s admissions 
are entered as findings of fact. (Item 1; Item  4; Item 10; Item 13.) 
 
 The facts in this case are established by the record provided in the FORM by the 
Government and by written information provided by Applicant in response to the FORM. 
The record evidence includes Applicant’s answers to the SOR and the amended SOR; 
his November 2007 and February 2010 e-QIPs; official investigation and agency 
records; and Applicant’s responses to DOHA interrogatories.2 (See Items 1 through 13; 
Item A.) 
 
 Applicant is 56 years old and employed by a government contractor. He has 
been married and divorced twice. He was married for the first time in 1981. He and his 
first wife divorced in 1984. No children were born of his first marriage. Applicant married 
for the second time in 1988. He and his second wife divorced in 1994. The two children 
 
1 Applicant’s response to the amended SOR was incorrectly dated April 4, 2011. 
 
2Applicant was interviewed by authorized investigators from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM) on February 4, 2008 and April 6, 2010. In response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant reviewed 
the investigators’ reports and made no additions or deletions. On December 14, 2010, Applicant signed a 
statement that the investigators’ reports accurately reflected his two interviews. (Item 7.) 
 
 
3 
 
 
born of his second marriage are now young adults. He currently lives alone and has no 
other dependents. (Item 5; Item 6; Item 7; Item 13.) 
 
 From 1973 to 1976, Applicant served in the United States military. He was first 
awarded a security clearance in 1975. In 2000, he earned a bachelor’s degree in 
computer engineering. His background was investigated by another federal department 
in 2008.  Applicant seeks a security clearance for his current work as a senior systems 
analyst. (Item 5; Item 6; Item 7.)  
 
 Applicant has a history of problems with alcohol use. He began to consume 
alcohol in 1967, when he was 13 years old. From that time until 2005, when he was 51 
years old, Applicant’s alcohol use consisted of binge drinking. Applicant’s history of 
binge drinking is alleged at SOR ¶ 1.h. (Item 5; Item 6; Item 7 at 12.) 
 
 In his 2008 interview with an OPM investigator, Applicant described his drinking 
pattern as ten days of abstinence, culminating in binge drinking. He stated that his 
alcohol use affected his personal life but did not affect his professional life or financial 
stability. (Item 7 at 9.) 
 
 The SOR alleged at ¶ 1.a. that in February 1979, Applicant was arrested and 
charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Applicant admitted the allegation. (Item 
1; Item 4; Item 7 at 7; Item 9.) 
 
 The SOR alleged at ¶ 1.b. that Applicant was arrested, charged, and received 
probation for DUI in 1988. The SOR alleged at ¶ 1.c. that in November 1992, Applicant 
was arrested and charged with DUI, and in January 1995 he was convicted of the 
charge. Applicant admitted both allegations. (Item 1; Item 4; Item 7 at 7; Item 8.) 
 
 The SOR alleged at ¶ 1.d. that in May 1996, Applicant was arrested and charged 
with Aggravated Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Careless Driving. 
Applicant admitted the allegation. (Item 1; Item 4; Item 7 at 8.) 
 
 The SOR alleged at ¶ 1.e. that in September 1996, Applicant was arrested for 
Drunkenness and Disorderly Conduct, and a Failure to Appear warrant was issued in 
connection with that arrest in September 1997. Applicant admitted the arrest, and in his 
answer to the SOR, he claimed that he had paid the required fine and had been 
informed by an authorized official of the jurisdiction where the warrant had been issued 
that his case had been closed. However, he failed to provide documentation to support 
his claim. (Item 1; Item 4.) 
 
 The SOR alleged at ¶ 1.f. that Applicant was arrested in October 1998 and 
charged with DUI. The SOR further alleged that Applicant was convicted, lost his 
driver’s license, was sentenced to confinement for 0-5 years, and was released on 
parole. Applicant admitted the allegation. (Item 1; Item 4; Item 7 at 9.) 
 
 
4 
 
 
                                           
 The SOR alleged at ¶ 1.g. that Applicant was arrested in May 2005 and charged 
with Driving While Impaired. The SOR further alleged that Applicant received a fine, 
probation, and loss of his driver’s license for one year. Applicant admitted the allegation. 
(Item 1; Item 4; Item 7 at 9-10.) 
 
 Applicant’s May 2005 arrest occurred when his employer sent him to a distant 
state for training. On the night before the training began, Applicant went to bars and 
drank at least ten alcoholic drinks. He was arrested for Driving While Impaired, and, 
consequently, he did not appear at the training. His employer learned of his arrest and 
failure to appear for the training and terminated his employment contract.  (Item 7 at 2, 
6, 11.)  
 
 In his answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that his several DUI convictions were 
“due to bad judgment and [his] Alcoholism.” He further stated that he had been sober for 
six years, attended meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) four or five times a week, 
had completed the AA 12 steps, had an AA sponsor, and acted as a sponsor for others 
when asked. (Item 4 at 4.) 
 
 On December 2010, in response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant reported 
that he had received private counseling for his use of alcohol in 2006. He also reported 
that he had attended 72 sessions of alcohol-related counseling in 1999 and had 
participated in a 30-day residential alcohol treatment program in 1988. In his 2008 OPM 
interview, Applicant reported that he had been professionally diagnosed with alcohol 
abuse in 1999 and 1988. In his 2010 OPM interview, Applicant stated that he had not 
actually been diagnosed or evaluated by a qualified medical professional or licensed 
clinical professional as suffering from alcohol abuse or alcohol dependency. He 
provided no explanation for these apparently contradictory statements. (Item 7 at 3, 8-9, 
13.)  
 
 Applicant completed two e-QIPs, one on November 30, 2007, and the other on 
February 8, 2010. Section 23d on the e-QIP that Applicant completed in November 
2007 refers to an individual’s police record and asks: “Have you ever been charged with 
or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?” Applicant answered “Yes” to 
Section 23d. The instructions for completing a “Yes” answer to Section 23 state: “If you 
answered ‘Yes’ to a, b, c, d, e, or f [in Section 23], provide an entry for each occurrence 
to report.”  In response, Applicant listed a DUI offense in May 20043 and a DUI offense 
in 1998. He did not report that he has been arrested for and convicted of at least three 
other DUI offenses. SOR ¶ 2.b. alleged that Applicant’s failure to list all of his DUIs in 
response to Section 23d constituted a deliberate falsification of his e-QIP. Applicant 
denied the allegation of deliberate falsification and stated that he thought he was only 
responsible for reporting DUI arrests for the previous ten years. In support of his 
understanding, Applicant quoted from the e-QIP instructions pertaining to residence, 
employment, and education. (Item 1; Item 4; Item 5.) 
 
3 In his interview with an authorized investigator from OPM, Applicant stated that, through oversight, he 
had listed his 2005 DUI as occurring in 2004. (Item 7 at 14-15.) 
 
5 
 
 
 Less than three years later, Applicant completed a second e-QIP. Section 22e on 
the e-QIP Applicant completed in February 2010 also refers to an individual’s police 
record and reads: “Have you EVER been charged with any offense(s) related to alcohol 
or drugs?” [Emphasis in original.] Applicant answered “Yes” to Section 22e. The 
instructions for completing a “Yes” answer to Section 22e state: “If you answered “Yes” 
to [questions in Section 22], explain below, providing information for each and every 
offense.” In response, Applicant again misidentified his 2005 DUI as occurring in 2004, 
and he again listed his DUI offense in 1998. SOR ¶ 2.a. alleged that Applicant’s failure 
to list all of his DUIs in response to Section 22e constituted a deliberate falsification of 
his e-QIP. Applicant again denied the allegation of deliberate falsification and stated that 
he thought he was responsible for reporting DUI arrests for the previous ten years. In 
support of his understanding, Applicant quoted from the e-QIP instructions for 
completing questions related to residence, employment, and education. (Item 1; Item 4; 
Item 6.) 
 
 Section 25c of the e-QIP Applicant completed in November 2007 asks: “In the 
last 7 years, has your use of alcoholic beverages (such as liquor, beer, wine) resulted in 
any alcohol-related treatment or counselling (such as for alcohol abuse of alcoholism)?” 
Applicant responded “No” to Section 25c. He did not list his 2006 alcohol treatment. In 
SOR ¶ 2.d., DOHA alleged that Applicant’s failure to list his 2006 alcohol counselling 
constituted intentional falsification of material facts. Applicant admitted that the 
information he provided was false but not intentionally so. (Item 1; Item 4; Item 5.) 
 
 Section 24c of the e-QIP Applicant completed in February 2010 asks: “In the last 
7 years, have you received counselling or treatment as a result of your use of alcohol?” 
Applicant responded “No” to Section 24c. He did not list his 2006 alcohol treatment. In 
SOR ¶ 2.c., DOHA alleged that Applicant’s failure to list his 2006 alcohol counselling 
constituted intentional falsification of material facts. Applicant admitted that the 
information he provided was false, but he stated that his omission was not intentional. 
(Item 1; Item 4; Item 6.) 
 
 Section 22 of the e-QIP Applicant completed in November 2007 asks:  
 
Has any of the following happened to you in the last 7 years: 
 
1. Fired from a job? 
2. Quit a job after being told you’d be fired? 
3. Left a job by mutual agreement following allegations of misconduct? 
4. Left a job by mutual agreement following allegations of unsatisfactory          
performance? 
5. Left a job for other reasons under unfavourable circumstances? 
 
Applicant responded “No” to Section 22. He did not report that his contract was 
terminated by his employer after his May 2005 DUI. In ¶ 2.e. of the amended SOR, 
DOHA alleged that Applicant falsified a material fact on his 2007 e-QIP when he 
answered “No” to Section 22. Applicant admitted the allegation. He further stated that 
 
6 
 
 
he left his employment in 2005 under unfavourable circumstances, but he was later 
rehired by a successor company. He stated that he believed his “No” answer to Section 
22 was correct. However, in response to DOHA interrogatories in December 2010, 
Applicant conceded that, upon review of his e-QIPS, he could have reported that he left 
his employment in 2005 after allegations of misconduct. (Item 5; Item 7 at 6; Item 10; 
Item 13.) 
 
 Section 13c on the e-QIP Applicant completed in February 2010 is identical to 
Section 22 on the e-QIP he completed in November 2007, with one exception. In 
additional to asking the five questions asked on Section 22, Section 13c also asks if an 
employee was laid off by an employer. Applicant responded “No” to Section 13c and did 
not report that his employment contract had been terminated by his employer after his 
May 2005 DUI. In ¶ 2.f. of the amended SOR, DOHA alleged that Applicant falsified 
material facts on his 2010 e-QIP when he answered “No” to Question 13c. Applicant 
admitted the allegation. He again stated that he believed his “No” answer to Section 13c 
was correct. However, in response to DOHA interrogatories in December 2010, 
Applicant conceded that, upon review of his e-QIPS, he could have reported that he left 
his employment in 2005 after allegations of misconduct. (Item 5; Item 7 at 6; Item 10; 
Item 13.) 
         
 The amended SOR alleges at ¶¶ 2.g. and 2.h. that Applicant falsified material 
facts on his 2007 and 2010 e-QIPs when he identified only his second marriage and 
spouse and failed to identify his first marriage and spouse. Applicant admitted both 
allegations. He stated that he had had no contact with his first wife for over 25 years 
and had none of the information that was requested about her on the two e-QIPs. (Item 
10; Item 13.) 
 
 In response to the FORM, Applicant provided three letters of character reference 
and his most recent employment evaluation. In a letter dated December 22, 2010, the 
coordinator of a substance abuse recovery network expressed his appreciation to 
Applicant for his work in updating the organization’s website. The coordinator noted that 
Applicant donated a great deal of his time to helping recovering substance abusers find 
information on available services and support. In a second letter of character reference, 
dated June 13, 2011, the executive director of a non-profit substance abuse program 
expressed appreciation for Applicant’s service on its board of directors. In a third letter, 
Applicant’s friend of 20 years stated that she had witnessed his current six years of 
sobriety. She also stated: 
 
I am quite familiar with how [Applicant] maintains his sobriety and stays 
committed to his recovery: a regular AA meeting schedule, a home AA 
group, a sponsor, a core support group of men in recovery, volunteer work 
at a local recovery center and at a local residential treatment facility, plus 
helping newcomers through sponsorship and generally being available to 
help others achieve recovery. 
 
(Item A.)     
 
7 
 
 
 Applicant provided a copy of his employment assessment for the period from 
April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011. Applicant’s manager concluded that Applicant fully 
met 11 operational and personal competencies and exceeded expectations in two: job 
knowledge and results focus. The manager noted that Applicant “is an excellent 
technician” and an asset to the company. (Item A.) 
 
 Applicant did not provide a prognosis regarding his current alcohol status and his 
prospects for rehabilitation by a duly qualified medical professional or a licensed clinical 
social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.  
 
         Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the 
Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, and 
it has emphasized that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the 
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the 
authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine 
whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. 
at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant 
an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.    
  
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an   
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition 
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list 
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used 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 administrative judge applies these guidelines 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 
 
8 
 
 
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 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 
 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, applies in this case to a determination of 
eligibility for access to classified information. Under Guideline G, “[e]xcessive 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.” 
 
 I have considered all of the Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions. I 
conclude that Guideline G disqualifying conditions at ¶¶ 22(a) and 22(c) apply in 
Applicant’s case. AG ¶  22(a) reads: “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(c) reads: “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.”   
   
Applicant began to binge drink when he was 13 years old, and his binge drinking 
continued for 38 years. He was arrested and charged with DUI or Driving While 
Impaired in 1979, 1988, 1992, 1998, and 2005. Additionally, he was arrested and 
charged twice in 1996, once with Aggravated Driving While Under the Influence of 
Alcohol and once with Drunkenness and Disorderly Conduct. Applicant completed 
alcohol treatment or counseling in 1988, 1999, and 2006. Applicant states that he has 
remained sober since 2005. These facts raise security concerns under AG ¶¶ 22(a), 
and 22(c). 
 
9 
 
 
The Guideline G disqualifying conduct could be mitigated under AG ¶ 23(a) if 
“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.” The disqualifying 
conduct could also be mitigated under AG ¶ 23(b) if “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).”  If “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,” then AG ¶ 23(c) 
might apply. Finally, mitigation might be possible under AG ¶ 23 (d) if “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.” 
  
 Applicant, who is now 56 years old, admits binge consumption of alcohol from 
1967 to May 2005, a period of 38 years. During that time, he was arrested and charged 
with DUI in 1979, 1988, 1992, 1998, and 2005. He was also arrested and charged with 
Aggravated Driving While Under the Influence in May 1996 and Drunkenness and 
Disorderly Conduct in September 1996. Applicant participated in rehabilitative alcohol 
treatment and counseling three times. These treatments, in 1988, 1999, and 2006, were 
several years apart. The treatments in 1988 and 1999 establish that even after several 
years of apparent sobriety, Applicant relapsed and again was arrested for DUI and other 
alcohol-related offenses. While, to his credit Applicant is actively participating in AA, his 
long history of binge drinking despite treatment and counseling for alcohol rehabilitation 
suggests that his binge drinking may recur. Without a prognosis and assessment of 
Applicant’s current rehabilitation status from a qualified medical professional and an 
opportunity to question Applicant at a hearing and assess his credibility, I conclude that 
AG ¶ 23(a) does not apply to the facts of this case. Additionally, I conclude that AG ¶ 
23(c) has only limited applicability in this case. 
 
 Applicant acknowledged his alcoholism but provided conflicting information about 
whether he had been diagnosed as an alcohol abuser. He stated that he had abstained 
from alcohol use since May 2005 and attended AA meetings several times a week, had 
an AA sponsor, and was active as a volunteer in a community that provided 
rehabilitative resources to substance abusers. Additionally, he provided letters of 
character reference from individuals in his community who knew of and appreciated his 
efforts in the rehabilitation of individuals addicted to alcohol.  
 
 Applicant completed three alcohol rehabilitation programs. However, he failed to 
provide an assessment of his progress and a prognosis for rehabilitation from a duly 
qualified medical professional or licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of 
 
10 
 
 
                                           
a recognized alcohol treatment program. Accordingly, I conclude that AG ¶¶ 23(b) and 
23(d) apply only in part to the facts of Applicant’s case. 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
  
 AG ¶ 15 explains why personal conduct is a security concern: 
  
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or 
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions 
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect 
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful 
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other 
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process. 
  
 When Applicant completed and certified his e-QIPs in November 2007 and 
February 2010, he answered “Yes” when asked if he had ever been charged with any 
offenses related to alcohol or drugs. However, on both e-QIPS, he failed to report, as 
requested, all such offenses and only listed two of the five DUIs he had been charged 
with between 1979 and 2005. DOHA alleged that Applicant’s omissions were deliberate 
falsifications of material facts. Applicant denied the allegations and asserted that he 
believed he was required to report only those DUIs he had received in the previous ten 
years.  
 
   On his 2007 and 2010 e-QIPS, Applicant was asked if he had received 
counseling and treatment for his use of alcohol in the last seven years. Applicant 
answered “No” on both e-QIPS, when, in truth, he had received alcohol treatment in 
2006. DOHA alleged that Applicant’s denials were deliberate falsifications of relevant 
facts. 
 
 When he completed his 2007 and 2010 e-QIPs, Applicant was asked if, in the 
last seven years, he had been fired from a job, quit a job after being told he would be 
fired, left a job by mutual agreement following allegations of misconduct, left a job by 
mutual agreement following allegations of unsatisfactory performance, or left a job for 
other reasons under unfavorable circumstances.4 On both e-QIP forms, Applicant 
answered “No”, even though he knew his employer had terminated his contract after 
Applicant was arrested for DUI while assigned to another location for training. DOHA 
alleged that Applicant’s “No” answers were falsifications of material facts. 
 
 DOHA also alleged that Applicant falsified material facts on his 2007 and 2010 e-
QIPs when he identified only his second marriage and second spouse and failed to 
report an earlier first marriage and list the name of the first spouse.  
 
 
4 Applicant’s 2010 e-QIP also asked if he had been laid off by an employer in the last seven years. (Item 
6.) 
 
11 
 
 
The Guideline E allegation in the SOR raises a security concern under AG ¶ 
16(a). AG ¶ 16(a) reads: “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant 
facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar 
form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award 
benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award 
fiduciary responsibilities.”  
 
Applicant denied SOR ¶¶ 2.a. and 2.b., which alleged deliberate falsification and 
failure to report three of the five DUIs he was charged with between 1979 and 2005. 
DOHA’s Appeal Board has cogently explained the process for analyzing falsification 
cases: 
 
(a) when a falsification allegation is controverted, Department Counsel has 
the burden of proving falsification; (b) proof of an omission, standing 
alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind 
when the omission occurred; and (c) a Judge must consider the record 
evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial 
evidence concerning the applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the 
omission occurred. [Moreover], it was legally permissible for the Judge to 
conclude Department Counsel had established a prima facie case under 
Guideline E and the burden of persuasion had shifted to the applicant to 
present evidence to explain the omission.  
 
ISCR Case No. 03-10380 at 5 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2006) (citing ISCR Case No. 02-23133 
(App. Bd. June 9, 2004)).  
 
 Several Guideline mitigating conditions might apply to the facts of this case. 
Applicant’s disqualifying personal conduct might be mitigated under AG ¶ 17(a) if “the 
individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or 
falsification before being confronted with the facts.” If “the refusal or failure to cooperate, 
omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by improper or 
inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the 
individual specifically concerning the security process” and “[u]pon being made aware of 
the requirement to cooperate or provide information, the individual cooperated fully and 
completely,” then AG ¶ 17(b) might apply.  If “the offense is so minor, or so much time 
has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique 
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not case doubt on the individual’s 
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” then AG ¶ 17(c) might apply. 
   
 Applicant is a mature adult who has, in the course of his employment in the 
military and as a government contractor, completed several security clearance 
applications. When he completed his e-QIP in 2007, he listed his 1998 and 2005 DUIs 
and failed to report three earlier DUIs, even though the question specifically requested 
that he list all DUIs that he had ever received. Three years later, when asked the same 
question on his 2010 e-QIP, he again listed the 1998 and 2005 DUIs and failed to report 
the three earlier DUIs. Applicant said that he thought he should report only those 
 
12 
 
 
offenses within the last ten years, and he provided instructions from the e-QIP that he 
argued justified his actions. However, the instructions applied to another section of the 
e-QIP and not to the section having to do with a person’s police record. Applicant’s 
attempt to justify his omission of three of his five DUIs was not persuasive. He knew that 
a large number of DUIs on his e-QIPs might be considered a security concern, and he 
therefore had good reason to minimize the number of his DUIs. I thoroughly reviewed 
the documentary evidence in this case. I conclude that AG ¶¶ 17(a), 17(b), and 17(c) do 
not apply in mitigation, and Applicant’s failures to list all of his DUIs on his 2007 and 
2010 e-QIPS were willful and deliberate falsifications.  
 
 Applicant falsified his 2007 and 2010 e-QIPs when he denied receiving alcohol 
treatment and counseling in the past seven years when, in fact, he had received alcohol 
counseling and treatment in 2006. He also falsified his 2007 and 2010 e-QIPs when he 
failed to report that his employer had terminated his employment contract in 2005 after 
he was arrested for DUI when on a training assignment for his employer. As with his 
concealment of the number of his DUIs, Applicant’s denial on his e-QIPS that he had 
received alcohol treatment in the past seven years and had had his employment 
contract terminated as a result of a DUI in 2005 are events that Applicant, experienced 
in the security application process, would be motivated to conceal. After reviewing the 
record as a whole, I conclude that AG ¶¶ 17(a), 17(b), and 17(c) do not apply in 
mitigation and these falsifications were also willful and deliberate.  
 
 The amended SOR alleged at ¶¶ 2.g. and 2.h. that Applicant falsified his 2007 
and 2010 e-QIPs when he failed to report an earlier first marriage and provide 
information about his first spouse. Applicant admitted that the information he provided 
was false and stated that he and his first wife had divorced in 1984, he had not seen her 
for over 25 years, and he had no information about her. I conclude that AG ¶ 17(c) 
applies in part in mitigation to these two allegations. 
 
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 relevant 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. 
 
 
13 
 
 
 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.        
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature adult whose 
military and civilian contractor experience has provided him with knowledge of the 
security clearance process and its policies. In completing his e-QIPS in 2007 and 2010, 
he was aware that his long history of binge drinking, which resulted in numerous DUIs 
and alcohol-related arrests, might be of security concern. When he was interviewed by 
an OPM investigator in 2008, he stated that he had twice been professionally diagnosed 
as suffering from alcohol abuse and had twice undergone alcohol treatment and 
counseling. However, when he was interviewed by an OPM investigator in 2010, he 
stated that he had not actually been diagnosed by a qualified medical professional or 
licensed clinical professional as suffering from alcohol abuse or alcohol dependency. He 
did not provide documentation to establish the professional qualifications of those who 
diagnosed his condition as alcohol abuse, and such documentation was not otherwise 
found in the record. 
 
Applicant asserted that he was taking part in AA and other activities intended to 
support his sobriety, which he stated began in 2005 after his last DUI arrest and 
continued to the present. He also provided character reference statements from friends 
and other individuals that attested to his efforts to remain sober. His yearly performance 
evaluation was favorable.   
 
At the same time, however, Applicant, who admitted to binge drinking for over 38 
years, failed to provide 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 center. Applicant failed to meet his burden of persuasion that his alcohol 
problems no longer impacted his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.   
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts at the present 
time as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For these 
reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his   
alcohol consumption and personal conduct. 
  
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.h.:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
14 
 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a. - 2. f.:  Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.g. - 2.h.:  For Applicant 
 
                                     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. 
 
 
 
                            ________________________ 
Joan Caton Anthony 
Administrative Judge