1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-07310
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Thomas P. Quinlan, II, Esquire 
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant committed numerous alcohol-related driving offenses between 1983
and 2005. In 2009 he was arrested after an alcohol-fueled disturbance on an airplane
for a 2007 bench warrant issued for his failure to complete court-ordered alcohol
treatment. In 1989 he fled to another state to avoid trial on a felony charge. He
deliberately omitted his 2009 arrest from his security clearance application. The
evidence is insufficient to mitigate resulting security concerns. Based upon a review of
the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is
denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on March 25, 2010. On May
25, 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), 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
GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 50-51.1
GE 2.2
GE 2; Tr. 96-97.3
2
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information,
effective within the Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing (AR) on June 25, 2011, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on July 22, 2011, and the case was assigned to me on August 1, 2011. DOHA issued a
Notice of Hearing on August 3, 2011, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on
September 13, 2011. The Government offered exhibits (GE) 1 through 3, which were
admitted without objection. Applicant offered exhibit (AE) A, which was also admitted
without objection, and testified on his own behalf. I granted Applicant’s request to leave
the record open until September 27, 2011, for submission of additional evidence. DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on September 23, 2011. Applicant timely
submitted additional evidence, which was marked AE B and AE C, and admitted without
objection. The record closed as scheduled.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 49-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he began
working in August 2009. He is divorced, with two adult children. He graduated from high
school in 1980, and spent the next year earning a diploma from a vocational/technical
institute. He has never served in the military, although he has worked as a direct-
support contractor for military units since October 2007. He was first granted a security
clearance in connection with this work in June 2008.  In his response to the SOR,1
Applicant admitted SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.g, 2.a, and 2.b. He denied SOR ¶ 2.c.
Applicant’s admissions, including his statements in response to DOHA interrogatories,2
are incorporated in the following findings.
Applicant stated that he started to consume alcohol at age 13 (approximately
1975) while in military school. During the 1980s he consumed approximately 12 beers
per day, to the point of intoxication and sometimes to excess until he blacked out.
During the 1990s he reduced his consumption to a six pack of beer three or four times a
week. He reported moving home to look after his ill mother in 2002, where he consumed
6 to 18 beers a week at home but continued to drink away from home and drive until his
most recent arrest for Driving under the Influence (DUI) in July 2005. From 2005 until
the date of his interview with an investigator from the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) in May 2010, he reportedly drank a six pack of beer on a weekly basis at home,
becoming intoxicated maybe twice a month. He testified during his hearing that he
presently drinks alcohol once or twice a month, never to the point of intoxication. He did
not remember the last time he was intoxicated, and last drank a couple beers during a
going-away party at a pizza restaurant three weeks previously.      3
AR; GE 2; GE 3; Tr. 52-57.4
AR; GE 2; Tr. 57-70.5
GE 2 at R-14 to R-18.6
AR; GE 2; Tr. 70-72, 77-78.7
AR; GE 2; Tr. 78-81.8
3
Applicant was arrested in May 1983 and charged with DUI, as well as drug
possession charges that were eventually dismissed. He says that he cannot remember
very much about the 1980s due to the long-term effects of his past alcohol abuse and
party life style, and could have had other DUI offenses that he cannot remember. A
friend recently told him that the arrest occurred after they had been partying and
Applicant drove because the friend was too drunk to do so.4
Applicant said that he was arrested again in November 1987, and charged with
felony DUI after he ran into the back of a car that had stopped along the freeway and
may have had a passenger inside. He drank after work until he was intoxicated, then
attempted to drive home. He is unclear concerning the date or details, but recalls being
advised by his attorney that, for this second DUI offense, he would be sent to jail if he
remained in State A. He was afraid of being imprisoned, so he moved to State B to
avoid trial. He said that the court in State A issued a bench warrant for his arrest. He
returned to State A in 1998 to care for his mother. While there, he hired an attorney to
resolve his outstanding DUI charge and bench warrant. Around May 1998, he pled
guilty to misdemeanor DUI, and was fined and awarded three years of probation.  5
Court documents from State A provided by Applicant indicate that he was
convicted of DUI on August 10, 1983, and again on February 28, 1984. He was arrested
and charged with misdemeanor DUI on November 13, 1987. He pled guilty and was
convicted of the lesser offense of Reckless Driving with alcohol involved on September
20, 1989. On October 5, 1989, he was arrested again and charged with Felony DUI. It
was this latter offense for which the bench warrant was issued on November 7, 1989,
that was resolved in June 1998 by a guilty plea to misdemeanor DUI.  6
In August 1998, Applicant was arrested for another DUI in State A. He pled guilty
to the lesser offense of Reckless Driving with alcohol involved on October 20, 1998. He
was fined, awarded three years probation, and ordered to attend an alcohol treatment
program. In December 1999 he met this requirement by completing an 18-hour
chemical dependency program.7
Applicant visited his brother in State C during 1999. After getting intoxicated at a
party, he drove his truck into a city roadside pole. He then drove the truck a few blocks
away and abandoned it. In order to avoid another DUI arrest, he waited until the next
morning when he had sobered up to retrieve the truck which had been impounded. He
was issued a citation for damaging city property and fined around $200.8
AR; GE 2; Tr. 84-93.9
AR; GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 37-40, 90, 93-94, 10
AE A; GE 2; Tr. 33-35, 73-76, 103. 11
4
During July 2005, while in State A taking care of his mother, Applicant went
fishing on a friend’s boat. After drinking about 12 beers over a four or five hour period,
he hit a motorcycle that was stopped in traffic from behind. He was arrested and
charged with two felony counts of DUI causing bodily injury and driving with a blood
alcohol content (BAC) in excess of .08 and causing bodily injury. His BAC registered
.17. Contrary to his testimony at the hearing concerning why he failed to disclose this
felony arrest, he remained charged with these felonies until August 31, 2005. On that
date, the court accepted his guilty plea to the lesser included offense of driving with a
BAC in excess of .08, and sentenced him to community service, five years of probation,
and a $2,200 fine. He was also ordered to complete an 18-month alcohol treatment
program. Shortly thereafter, Applicant moved back to State B, where he obtained an
alcohol assessment and enrolled in an acceptable treatment program. However, he did
not have any medical insurance and thought the $7,000 cost of the program was more
than he wanted to pay. Accordingly, he did not attend the treatment program.   9
On September 27, 2007, the court in State A revoked Applicant’s probation and
issued a bench warrant for his arrest for failure to complete his required alcohol
treatment program. In June 2009, while working in support of U.S. combat forces
overseas, Applicant was notified that his brother had passed away in State A. His
company arranged for him to fly there to attend the funeral, and bought him a first class
ticket. He drank too much of the free alcohol he was offered, and became loud and
disruptive. When the plane landed, it was met by airport police officers who escorted
Applicant off the plane. After a criminal background check, the police arrested him on
the outstanding bench warrant. He was never charged with any offense in connection
with his conduct on the plane. When he appeared in court, the judge sentenced him to
180 days in confinement, suspended on condition that he not drive in State A, and
extended his probation until October 24, 2012. The requirement that he undergo alcohol
treatment was deleted, since he was going to return to the overseas combat zone
following his brother’s funeral. He did return overseas, but quit that job and returned to
the United States in August 2009 due to ongoing personal problems with a supervisor
with whom he had gotten into an off-duty alcohol-fueled fight during March 2009.   10
Sometime during the 1980s, Applicant voluntarily entered an inpatient alcohol
detoxification treatment program. He does not remember the details, but testified that
after being there for three days they discharged him and said that he did not have an
alcohol problem. During August 2011, he was assessed by a Chemical Dependency
Professional in State B, who found, “Insufficient Evidence of Abuse/Dependence with
drugs/alcohol at this time.” No treatment was recommended. He told the assessor that
he had four prior DUI charges, in 1981, 1988, 1989, and 2005 in State A. His State B
driving record was clear of any prior or pending charges, and he reported his current
use as social drinking twice a month. He made no mention of his 2009 airport arrest.  11
Tr. 82-83, 98-99, 104-108.12
Tr. 44-46, 95-96.13
AE B; AE C; Tr. 26-33, 46-50.14
5
Applicant testified that he attended four general counseling sessions during a
two-month period in early 2011 to learn how to manage and deal with his family-related
stress. He felt that this counseling had significantly helped him, and would reduce his
tendency to turn to excessive drinking in response to those stressful issues.12
Applicant did not include his June 2009 arrest by the airport police on his security
clearance application dated March 25, 2010, in response to question 22b. He answered,
“Yes,” to that question, but only listed DUI arrests in August 2004 and February 1988.
He commented that those were DUIs that were currently in his summary of offenses.
During the hearing he variously testified that he omitted this arrest because he forgot
about it, that he completed the 2010 application using one he had submitted in 2007
that was based on a background check he conducted on himself, that there were no
new charges, and that he thought it was directly related to the 2005 DUI. He
acknowledged that he should have listed it, but denied intentionally omitting it in order to
deceive the Government.13
  
Applicant is a highly regarded technician who, according to him, is one of a few
specialists capable of supporting maintenance and training operators of an important
and relatively new type of military equipment. Two supervisors praised his technical
expertise and dedication to professional performance of his responsibilities in this
respect. He credibly testified that he highly values the contributions to the national
defense that he proudly provides in this work.14
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be 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, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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.
6
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 the 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
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. The DC supported by the SOR allegations and asserted by Department
Counsel is:
(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under
the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or
Tr. 115-121.  I considered that the evidence would also support security concerns under AG ¶ 22(c),15
“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”;  and under AG ¶ 22(g),  “failure to
follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.” The security
concerns under these DCs overlap with, and essentially duplicate those addressed below under AG ¶
22(a).
7
other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.15
Applicant was arrested and prosecuted for four DUI offenses between 1983 and
1989, two of which he could remember and were alleged in the SOR. The last of these
resulted in felony charges. He was arrested for another DUI in 1998, two months after
being sentenced for his prior offense. During 1999, while in another state, he drove into
a pole while intoxicated, and avoided prosecution by abandoning his truck until the next
day. In July 2005, he again drove with a BAC more than twice the legal limit and hit a
stopped motorcycle. This incident resulted in two felony charges. He failed to complete
a court-ordered alcohol treatment program, resulting in issuance of a bench warrant in
2007. During June 2009, he became intoxicated and disruptive on an airplane to the
point that airport police were called to escort him off the plane. He was subsequently
arrested on the outstanding warrant. These incidents establish a long, troubled pattern
that supports substantial security concerns under AG ¶¶ 21 and 22(a). Accordingly, the
burden is shifted to Applicant to mitigate those security concerns.
AG ¶ 23 provides conditions that could mitigate alcohol consumption 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);
(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
8
medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff
member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.
Applicant was involved in at least seven alcohol-related driving offenses, and
another alcohol-related incident leading to his arrest, over a 26-year period. The most
recent incident was about two years ago. None of these alcohol-related incidents were
shown to have occurred under unusual circumstances. His choice to continue alcohol
consumption, after all of these drinking-related problems, precludes a finding that such
incidents are unlikely to recur. Accordingly, AG ¶ 23(a) does not provide mitigation.
Applicant asserted that he had not consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication
for several months, but insufficient time has passed to establish mitigation under AG ¶
23(b), given the duration and nature of his history of alcohol abuse. Similarly, there is
insufficient evidence to support mitigation under AG ¶¶ 23(c) or (d). Applicant resumed
drinking after each of his alcohol-related incidents, and chose not to participate in court-
ordered alcohol counseling and treatment after his 2005 DUI conviction. His only
documented completion of alcohol treatment was in December 1999, after which he
resumed drinking on a regular basis. He provided no current favorable prognosis by a
duly qualified medical professional or social worker, including the counselor he saw for
four sessions in early 2011. His August 2011 assessment of “Insufficient Evidence of
Abuse/Dependence” was based on his self-report of only about half of his history of
alcohol-related incidents.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
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.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The potentially disqualifying conditions alleged in this case are:
(a) 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; and
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is
not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single
guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-
9
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.
Applicant admitted the allegation in SOR ¶ 2.a which, although the dates should
read “October 1989" and “1998", vice “November 1987" and “1997", describe his flight
to another state to avoid answering felony DUI charges that he expected would result in
his imprisonment. He was also arrested in June 2009 on a 2007 bench warrant issued
for his failure to comply with court-ordered alcohol treatment. Further whole-person
analysis follows below, but these actions demonstrate questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations under AG ¶
16(c). 
He denied that his omission of his 2009 arrest in his response to question 22b on
his March 25, 2010 security clearance application was deliberate. His claim that his
answer was based on his prior record check is not credible, since neither of the dates
listed for the two reported DUIs coincide with any of his actual offenses. His omission of
his other alcohol-related offenses and inconsistent explanations for not listing this arrest
cause his denial of intentional omission to lose credibility. On that basis I conclude that
he deliberately answered that question falsely. Security concerns under AG ¶ 16(a)
were raised by these facts.
Applicant offered insufficient evidence to support any mitigating condition under
Guideline E. After careful review of the record, I find that none of them 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 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. 
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.   
10
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s numerous alcohol-
related incidents, including several collisions while driving drunk, spanned many years.
He was most fortunate that neither he nor anyone else suffered serious injury, or worse,
but the conduct was highly reckless and flaunted known legal requirements. Although it
did not result in separate criminal charges, his excessive drinking led to his arrest as
recently as June 2009. 
Applicant is a mature individual who is accountable for his choices and actions.
He does not acknowledge an alcohol problem, and was not forthcoming about the full
extent of his alcohol-related arrests on his security clearance application or during his
most recent assessment. He continues to drink, and failed to demonstrate rehabilitation
or other behavioral changes that might make recurrence of such incidents less likely.
His susceptibility to pressure or duress in the face of potentially unpleasant
consequences is demonstrated by his 1989 flight to avoid trial and his failure to comply
with court-ordered alcohol treatment. 
Applicant’s recent good work performance and pride in providing important
direct-support technical services to deployed service members is very commendable.
However, it is insufficient to outweigh the concerns raised by his pattern of excessive
alcohol consumption and failure to comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
Overall, the record evidence creates substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to mitigate
the security concerns arising from alcohol consumption and personal conduct
considerations.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.g: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a through 2.c: Against Applicant
11
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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge