1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-03259
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Raashid Williams, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s alcohol and drug abuse occurred when he was a teenager. He is now
a mature, introspective young man who has been alcohol and drug free for nearly two
years, is actively involved in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and is thriving on the job. He
has mitigated the alcohol consumption, drug involvement, and criminal conduct security
concerns. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On April 8, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines
G, alcohol consumption, J, criminal conduct, and H, drug involvement.  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 by the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.
The SOR alleges the arrest occurred in 2006. Applicant admitted the arrest occurred, but testified that it1
occurred in 2007. (Tr. 30)
2
Applicant answered the SOR on May 24, 2011, admitting all of the allegations
and requesting a hearing. On July 5, 2011, the case was assigned to me. On August 8,
2011, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case for August 22, 2011. At the
hearing, I received six Government exhibits (Government Exhibits (GE) 1-6), two
Applicant Exhibits (Applicant Exhibits (AE) A and B), Applicant’s testimony, and the
testimony of two witnesses. At the close of the hearing, I left the record open for
Applicant to submit additional documents. Within the time allotted, he submitted an
additional document (AE C). The transcript was received on August 30, 2011. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 21-year-old, unmarried college student. He earned his associate’s
degree in computer science. (Ex. A) He works full-time for a defense contractor as a
technician’s apprentice. His duties include performing land surveys and project support
for weapons separations. (Tr. 44) 
Applicant is highly respected on the job. According to his mentor, a federal
government employee who has been training technician’s apprentices for more than 25
years, Applicant is “motivated, conscientious, focused, and skilled at his job.” (AE A)
Applicant has a drinking problem. When he first started drinking alcohol in high
school, his consumption was infrequent. However, it gradually increased. After
graduating from high school, his drinking increased “exponentially,” as he was
consuming 12 to 15 beers per day on the weekends. (Tr. 25)
Applicant drank alcohol as part of the “party scene.” (Tr. 20) Because marijuana
was also part of this social milieu, he began to supplement his alcohol use with
marijuana consumption by his senior year in high school. In 2007, while driving and
smoking marijuana, Applicant was stopped by a police officer for speeding.  When the1
police officer noticed the marijuana, he arrested and charged Applicant with possession
of a controlled substance. Applicant received probation before judgment. After
performing eight hours of community service, the state nolle prossed the charges. (Tr.
30)
In March 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving under the
influence of alcohol (DUI). Subsequently, his license was suspended and he received
18 months of supervised probation. (Tr. 32; GE 2 at 6) Also, Applicant voluntarily
attended three months of weekly outpatient treatment at a rehabilitation facility. (GE 2 at
6)
Applicant continued to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana while receiving
rehabilitation services. During this time, he failed random urinalyses once for alcohol
3
and four times for marijuana. (Tr. 35) Consequently, the court extended his required
participation in rehabilitation an extra two months. (Tr. 34)
Applicant did not abuse alcohol or marijuana for the remainder of the period he
received treatment. However, as soon as he was discharged, he “picked it right back
up.” (Tr. 36)
One night in October 2009, while driving home extremely inebriated, Applicant
“blacked out” and ran off the road, crashing into a swamp. (Tr. 37) After awaking in a
hospital, he was charged with DUI and violation of probation. (GE 3 at 2) 
In November 2009, Applicant voluntarily enrolled in an inpatient alcohol treatment
facility. (AE C) Applicant was evaluated by a licensed counselor who concluded he was
alcohol dependent and cannabis dependent. (AE C at 3) Applicant successfully
completed inpatient treatment in December 2009. (AE C) According to the counselor,
“he has been active in his treatment and has committed to attending outpatient
treatment and twelve step meetings after his discharge.” (Id. at 3) Upon Applicant’s
discharge, his counselor recommended he continue outpatient treatment through AA.
In February 2010, Applicant was found guilty, and the court ordered him to serve
four days in jail, time served, and to continue his outpatient alcohol treatment. (GE 5 at
5) Also, Applicant’s probation was extended for a year. (Id.)
Applicant has not consumed any alcohol since October 2009. (Tr. 40) He
continued to use marijuana after abstaining from alcohol. (Tr. 41) He used it “as a
crutch” to adjust to his alcohol abstinence. He has not used marijuana since his
discharge from the treatment facility in December 2009. (Tr. 41) 
Applicant diligently attends AA meetings three to four times per week. (Tr. 41) He
frequently chairs AA meetings and goes to jails and rehabilitation facilities “to share [his]
story of alcoholism and recovery.” (Tr. 16)
Applicant seldom socializes with the friends with whom he had socialized before
he quit drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. (Tr. 43) He is currently attending
college, seeking a bachelor’s of science degree in engineering technology. (Tr. 45)
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.
4
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.”
Applicant continued to drink alcohol after completing a court-ordered
rehabilitation program in March 2009. AG ¶ 22(g), “failure to follow any court order
regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence,” applies also.
After Applicant’s most recent alcohol-related offense, he entered an inpatient
rehabilitation clinic where a licensed clinical social worker evaluated him and concluded
he was alcohol dependent. 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,” applies.
Applicant’s most recent offense occurred less than two years ago. AG Mitigating
Condition (MC) ¶ 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,” is
inapplicable. 
Applicant was 19 years old when he committed his most recent offense. Since
then, he has abstained from alcohol and marijuana, successfully completed inpatient
alcohol treatment, and has been adhering to his outpatient requirements. He avidly
participates in AA, attends meetings frequently, and volunteers to speak at local jails
and rehabilitation centers. He is now a mature, introspective young man who rarely, if
5
ever, associates with his old, substance-abusing friends, and spends his time working
and attending college. AG MC ¶¶ 23(b), “the individual acknowledges his or her
alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome
this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or
responsible use (if an alcohol abuser),” applies.
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
Under this guideline, “use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can
raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may
impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to
comply with laws, rules, and regulations” (AG ¶ 24). Applicant’s use of marijuana, his
failure of several drug tests, and his diagnosis of cannabis dependence triggers the
application AG ¶¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” 25(b), “testing positive for illegal drug use,”
25(c), “illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase,
sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia,” and 25(e), “evaluation of drug
abuse or drug dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of
a recognized drug treatment program,” apply. 
Applicant has matured, and has not used marijuana in nearly two years. As
described above, he rarely socializes with his former drug-using contacts, and he
successfully completed a treatment program. AG ¶¶ 26(b), “a demonstrated intent not to
abuse any drugs in the future, such as . . . disassociation from drug-using associates
and contacts, [and] an appropriate period of abstinence,” and 26(d), “satisfactory
completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including but not limited to
rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable
prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional,” apply.
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct
Under this guideline, “criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness.” Moreover, “by its very nature, it calls into question a
person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations,” (AG ¶ 30) In
the past three years, Applicant has been arrested twice for alcohol-related criminal
misconduct and once for possession of marijuana. AG ¶¶ 31(a), “a single serious crime
or multiple lesser offenses,” applies.
For the reasons discussed above, I conclude AG ¶ 32(d), “there is evidence of
successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to . . . remorse or restitution, job
training or higher education; good employment record, and constructive community
involvement,” 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
6
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.
Applicant was an immature teenager when he began abusing alcohol and
marijuana. After realizing that his second DUI could have had fatal consequences,
Applicant committed himself to sobriety, completing inpatient treatment and following the
outpatient requirements. Upon considering this case in the context of the whole-person
concept, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.d: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.c: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: For Applicant
7
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