1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-07604
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s history of alcohol abuse and alcohol-related criminal conduct
generates a security concern. Applicant has abstained from alcohol for approximately a
year and has been diligently committed to sobriety, working with a therapist and
immersing himself in volunteer activities with Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Clearance is
granted.
Statement of the Case
On May 5, 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 E, personal conduct.  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).
2
Applicant answered the SOR on May 24, 2011, denying subparagraph 1.a and
admitting the remainder. On July 5, 2011, the case was assigned to me. On July 15,
2011, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case for August 5, 2011. At the
hearing, I received 6 Government exhibits (Government Exhibits (GE) 1-6), 18 Applicant
exhibits (Applicant Exhibits (AE) 1-18), Applicant’s testimony, and the testimony of 2
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
19). The transcript was received on August 15, 2011. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 45-year-old man with two teenage children. He has been married
for 19 years. He has a high school education.
Applicant served in the U.S. Army from 1984 to 1987. He was honorably
discharged. (Tr. 26) In 1990, he joined the U.S. Army National Guard where he worked
full time. He received a discharge under other than honorable conditions in 1994 after
failing a urine test, testing positive for cocaine. (GE 1 at 21) Applicant admits  to one-
time experimentation with cocaine, but has not used it since his discharge.  
Applicant is an engineering technician. He “does initial prototypes that are
installed on various aircraft,” and installs launch gear on aircraft. (Tr. 38) He has worked
in this field for 25 years. For the past two years, he has been working for his current
employer, a defense contractor. (Tr. 29) Applicant is well respected on the job. He has
received multiple letters of appreciation over the past 15 years. (AE E-Q; GE 2 at 8)
Applicant has a drinking problem. He began drinking alcohol in ninth grade. (GE
2 at 3) Through high school, Applicant typically drank to intoxication. However, his
drinking episodes were sporadic.
Applicant’s drinking drastically increased after joining the Army. In the late 1980s,
he was arrested and charged three times with driving under the influence of alcohol.
(GE 2 at 3) Two of the charges resulted in probation before judgment. (1986 and 1989)
The third charge, which occurred in 1988, was dropped. (Id.) 
Under the terms of the 1989 probation before judgment order, Applicant was
required to “enter a course of instruction or program of rehabilitation.” (GE 6 at 4)
Although Applicant remembers attending and successfully completing a 30-day inpatient
rehabilitation program (GE 3 at 1), the record is unclear as to whether he completed it
as part of the probation requirement for the 1989 charge.
Between 1989 and 1992, Applicant unsuccessfully attempted to quit drinking
alcohol two or three times. (GE 2) In 1995, Applicant’s effort at sobriety was more
successful, lasting 13 years. He maintained this extended period of sobriety with the
help of group counseling through Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). By the middle of the
The decision  to transport Applicant to a hospital rather than a jail was made in part because his blood alcohol1
content was dangerously high.  (GE 5 at 2)
3
2000s, Applicant became complacent and the frequency of his AA attendance ceased.
(GE 2 at 4)
In 2008, Applicant began “sneaking drinks whenever he could.” (GE 2 at 3) As
the year progressed, he began to completely lose control of his drinking. One day in
May 2009, Applicant drank a pint of vodka in five minutes. (GE 2 at 4) He then “decided
that [he] wanted to leave” his home. (Id.) His wife would not give him the car keys.
Applicant then became belligerent prompting his wife to call the police.
Subsequently, a police officer arrived who attempted to calm Applicant down.
Applicant was “extremely uncooperative” and began screaming and cursing at the
officer. (GE 5 at 9) The police officer then arrested Applicant charging him with
disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. (Id.)
While en route to the local jail, Applicant became “extremely violent,” and tried to
kick out the passenger window of the police car, prompting the officer to stop the car
and call for assistance to help him further restrain Applicant using foot restraints. (Id. at
9)
As the police officers were attempting to shackle Applicant’s feet, he kicked the
passenger door of the police car “which in turn struck” one of the officers in the head.
(Id.) Consequently, Applicant was additionally charged with second degree assault and
destruction of property.
Subsequently, Applicant and the prosecution reached an agreement whereupon
he agreed to serve 5 days in jail and attend a 28-day work release program at an
inpatient treatment facility if the state nolle prossed the charges. (GE 5 at 6; Tr. 49) He
served the jail time and successfully completed the inpatient treatment program, but did
not enroll in a recommended aftercare program, as the program director recommended.
(Tr. 50)
Applicant relapsed again. On the evening of September 27, 2010, he became
extremely intoxicated. His wife then took his car keys and told him not to leave the
home. Applicant became enraged, slapping his wife, choking, and pushing her. He did
not cease the assault until his daughter hit him with a baseball bat. (GE 4 at 10) Then,
Applicant’s wife or his daughter called the police. When they arrived, Applicant was
arrested and charged with first degree assault and second degree assault. He was then
transported to the local hospital emergency room for a mental evaluation.  While at the1
hospital, Applicant attempted to escape and was apprehended. He was additionally
charged with second degree escape. (GE 4 at 11)
While the trial was pending, Applicant began attending therapy. (AE D) On
October 14, 2010, Applicant pleaded guilty to second degree assault and the state
4
dropped the other charges. The court then sentenced him to six months of
incarceration, suspended, and six months of unsupervised probation. (Answer at 1) The
court also ordered him to continue receiving therapy and to follow the therapist’s
recommendations. (GE 4 at 2) Applicant’s wife spoke favorably on his behalf at the
sentencing hearing. (GE 4 at 2)
Applicant’s therapist has a PhD in clinical counseling. She wrote her dissertation
on the vocational abilities of people with substance abuse issues, and has been working
with such individuals for nearly 30 years. (GE D at 2) She has assisted, among other
things, in writing the state’s agency for rehabilitative services’ policies for serving
individuals with substance abuse problems. Currently, she primarily divides her time
providing psychotherapy to patients and teaching classes for students seeking to
become state-certified substance abuse counselors. (AE S)
For the first six months after Applicant’s 2010 arrest, he received weekly hour-
long psychotherapy sessions. (AE D at 2) In addition, he attended AA meetings four
nights per week.
In May 2011, Applicant’s therapist provided a written update of his progress. She
characterized him as dedicated to “sustained sobriety,” and complemented his strong
relationship with his AA sponsor, his insight, and his “sincere humility.” (AE D at 1)
Although she acknowledged that he was in the early stages of recovery, she concluded
that his prognosis for continued sobriety was positive.
Applicant’s therapist is aware that he had attended an alcohol rehabilitation
program in the past. However, she noted that his current program is the first one to
include individual psychotherapy. She concluded her report by recommending that
Applicant reduce the psychotherapy sessions to once every three months, and continue
with his AA attendance a minimum of four days per week. (AE B at 2)
On August 12, 2011, Applicant’s therapist provided another progress report.
Noting her “good track record in looking for particular indicators of success,” she
concluded that Applicant was in her “highest category for sustained success.” Applicant
continues to see his therapist approximately once every three months. (Tr. 54)
Applicant’s AA sponsor testified. He has been Applicant’s sponsor both before
and after Applicant’s relapse. He characterized Applicant as more invested in AA now
than before the relapse. (Tr. 76) Specifically, Applicant is more “willing to listen,” and
mentor incoming AA members. Also, Applicant is more devoted to AA’s outreach
programs. For example, Applicant frequently travels to the local prison and various
rehabilitation centers to mentor people with substance abuse issues. (Tr. 79) Applicant
has abstained from  alcohol since September 27, 2010. (GE 2 at 6)
He and Applicant do not work at the same company.2
5
Applicant’s AA sponsor works for a defense contractor as a facility security officer
(FSO).  He has been in this position for 10 years. His positive opinion about Applicant’s2
rehabilitation is based both on his experience as an AA sponsor and as an FSO who
has observed recovering alcoholics who have worked for his company over the years.
(Tr. 80-82)
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing
the complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in
the adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The
administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person,
past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a security clearance.
Analysis
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
Under this guideline, “excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise
of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness” (AG ¶ 21). Applicant’s history of
alcohol consumption and alcohol-related charges trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 22(a),
“alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence,
fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol
dependent,” and 22(c), “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of
impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol
abuser or alcohol dependent.”
Applicant was first diagnosed with alcohol dependence in the late 1980s. His
attempts at sobriety have failed multiple times. AG ¶¶ 22(d), “diagnosis by a duly
qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of
6
alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence,” and 22(f), “relapse after diagnosis of alcohol
abuse or dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation,” apply.
Applicant’s most recent relapse was less than two years ago. The  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 has a history of previous treatment and relapse. Consequently,
although he is currently participating in a treatment program and is making satisfactory
progress, AG MC ¶ 23(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,” is inapplicable.
The inapplicability of  AG MC ¶ 23(c) does not minimize the positive security
ramifications of Applicant’s good progress in treatment and 11 months of sobriety.
These factors, together with the highly favorable prognosis of Applicant’s therapist
trigger the application of AG MC ¶ 23(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.”
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 25 years, Applicant has been arrested three times for alcohol-related criminal
misconduct and twice for domestic violence-related criminal misconduct. He also used
cocaine, an illegal drug, on one occasion in 1994. AG ¶¶ 31(a), “a single serious crime
or multiple lesser offenses,” and AG ¶ 31(c), “allegation or admission of criminal
conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or
convicted,” apply.
Applicant’s use of cocaine occurred once more than 15 years ago, and no longer
generates a security concern. All of the lingering questions about Applicant’s security
concerns stem from the alcohol-related criminal conduct.
During Applicant’s 13 years of sobriety between 1995 and 2008, he committed
no criminal offenses. However, within 18 months of relapsing, his criminal conduct
recurred. Clearly, Applicant’s criminal violations have corresponded to the periods in his
7
life when he was abusing alcohol. Consequently, an analysis of whether his criminal
conduct will recur must address Applicant’s long-term chances of remaining sober.
 Applicant has completed alcohol treatment programs in the past, and has been
involved in AA more than 15 years. The quality of his current treatment and the depth of
his current AA participation are significantly better than they were before the 2008
relapse. Additionally, this is the first time Applicant has ever received individual
psychotherapy. Also, he not only participates actively in AA; he is a leader who  mentors
alcoholics in prison and rehabilitation centers. His remorseful and introspective
testimony was bolstered by the testimony of his AA sponsor and the comprehensive
treatment summaries of his therapist. Under these circumstances, 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. 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
Under this guideline, “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” (AG ¶ 15) Applicant’s longstanding alcohol-related misconduct and his
cocaine use, which led to his discharge from the Army National Guard, constitute
personal conduct “that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.”
(AG ¶ 16(e)) For the reasons set forth above, I conclude both AG MC ¶¶ 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 cause untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such
behavior is unlikely to recur;” and 17(e), “the individual has taken positive steps to
reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress,” apply.
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.
8
Applicant’s misconduct was serious, particularly the brutal, drunken assault on
his wife that occurred just last year. Also, his current period of sobriety must be
balanced against the fact that previous efforts at sobriety failed. The presence of
rehabilitation is significant enough, however, to outweigh these negative variables.
In reaching this conclusion, I was particularly impressed by the testimony of
Applicant’s AA sponsor and the treatment summaries of his therapist. Both individuals
vividly described the struggles of an alcoholic to remain sober, and both
comprehensively described the barometers they used to measure the possibility of
relapse. Their conclusions were shaped by decades of experience in working with
recovering alcoholics. Specifically, the therapist’s recommendations consisted of two
six-month updates. Both rate Applicant’s potential for sustained sobriety high. The AA
sponsor’s testimony effectively compared, through anecdotes, his observations of
Applicant both before and after the 2008 relapse. Under these circumstances, I
conclude Applicant has carried the burden.
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.f: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.b: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a-3.b: For Applicant
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
9