1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No.11-09587
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant continues to drink alcohol despite being evaluated as alcohol
dependent. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On September 28, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guideline G, alcohol consumption. 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.
Applicant answered the SOR on October 26, 2011, admitting all of the allegations
except subparagraph 1.f, and requesting a hearing. On December 7, 2011, the case
2
was assigned to me. On January 10, 2012, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling
the case for January 19, 2012. Applicant waived his right to 15 days notice of hearing.
(Tr. 8) At the hearing, I received into evidence six Government exhibits marked as
Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 6, and four Applicant Exhibits, marked as
Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through D.  Also, I considered Applicant’s testimony. The
transcript was received on January 27, 2012. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 55-year-old married man with an adult child from a previous
marriage. After graduating from high school, he served four years in the U.S. Army
followed by 18 years in the U.S. Navy, retiring in 2006. (AE C; Tr. 19) Since retiring from
the Navy, Applicant has worked for a defense contractor. His duties include monitoring
calibration standards, performing “true analysis repair,” and lab auditing.  (Tr. 20) 
Applicant is highly respected on the job. According to a customer, Applicant
works quickly and efficiently. (AE A) According to his supervisor, he is “uniquely
qualified in his position . . ., and is a recognized subject matter expert responsible for
ensuring operational capabilities are maintained at [the] calibration activities around the
globe.” (AE D)
Applicant has a drinking problem. He began drinking when he was 17 years old,
drinking approximately a six-pack of beer every other weekend. By the time he was 26,
his consumption had increased to six to ten beers every weekend. 
In 1988, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of
alcohol (DUI). (Answer at 1) Applicant then attended treatment for alcohol abuse. It is
unclear from the record whether the treatment was court-ordered. 
After completing the treatment program, Applicant remained sober for the next
seven years. Applicant resumed drinking in 1995. He started with a few beers at dinner
periodically over the course of a month. By 1996, he was going to bars every weekend,
consuming a half dozen beers and several mixed drinks over the course of each
evening. (GE 4 at 4) By the early 2000s, Applicant was drinking a pint of whiskey
together with a few beers every weekend.
In September 2003, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to probation before judgment. (Answer) As part of probation,
Applicant was ordered to attend a substance abuse program. (GE 5)
Applicant entered the program in November 2004. In response to an intake
questionnaire, Applicant admitted occasionally drinking before noon. He also admitted
to being unable to stop drinking after one to two drinks. (GE 5 at 39) A clinician
evaluated him with alcohol abuse. (GE 5 at 17)
3
Applicant underwent treatment in the program for approximately seven months,
participating in both individual and group counseling, together with participation in
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). According to his counselor his prognosis upon discharge
was fair. (GE 5 at 1)
Over the next few years, Applicant attempted to quit drinking multiple times, but
was unsuccessful. By 2008, Applicant was drinking two pints of liquor over the
weekends. It caused him to miss work on Mondays “once every couple of months.”
Over time, his alcohol-related absences “migrated into” Tuesdays, also. (Tr. 47) By
March 2009, Applicant was spending approximately $400 per month on alcohol. (GE 6
at 36)
After a particularly bad drinking binge, Applicant spoke with his employer. With
his employer’s help, he enrolled in an intensive, 28-day inpatient program on April 20,
2009. (Tr. 49; GE 5 at 2) The program’s counselor evaluated him and concluded he was
alcohol dependent.  (GE 6 at 20)
Applicant believed the program was not helpful. (Tr. 51) His counselor
characterized him as uncooperative and “resistant to treatment.” (GE 56 at 20) His
participation in group therapy was minimal, and he had little insight into the issues that
could potentially trigger a relapse. He left the treatment center having completed only
three weeks of the program. Consequently, the counselor concluded that his prognosis
was poor, but that it could improve if he attended the six-month outpatient program and
attended AA meetings five to seven times weekly.  (GE 6 at 20)
Applicant stopped participating in the outpatient program after two months. (Tr.
50) However, he did attend AA daily through 2009. (Tr. 36) In 2010, he decreased his
AA attendance to twice per week. (Tr. 37) Since the summer of 2010, he has been
attending AA meetings approximately once per month.
Applicant no longer binge drinks. He credits his wife, whom he married
approximately two years ago, with being a significant positive influence. (Tr. 38) He has
not drunk to the point of intoxication since October 2009. 
Applicant still occasionally has a drink of alcohol. In the past year, he has
consumed eight to ten drinks. (Tr. 34) His last drink was approximately three weeks
before the hearing. (Tr. 34) When asked during cross-examination why he has
continued to drink alcohol despite being counseled to remain abstinent, Applicant
responded as follows:
AA of course is going to tell me not to drink. I would suspect [the treatment
facility] would recommend I don’t drink. I recommend I don’t drink, but an
alcoholic has no control over it at all times. (Tr. 53)
4
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 has been
battling alcoholism for nearly 30 years. This period encompasses two DUI arrests,
seven-years of abstinence followed by a relapse, and stints in both inpatient and
outpatient rehabilitation facilities. A clinician’s evaluation in 2004 concluded that
Applicant was an alcohol abuser, and a 2009 clinician’s evaluation concluded he was
alcohol dependent. AG ¶¶ 22(a), “alcohol 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;” 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;” and 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,” apply.
I have considered the mitigating conditions and conclude none apply. Applicant
never finished his most recent treatment program, leading his counselor to question his
commitment to sobriety. Although Applicant drinks significantly less alcohol than he did
two years ago, his consumption is contrary to his counselor’s recommendation that he
totally abstain.
5
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.
Applicant is highly respected on the job. Previously, he served the country
honorably in two branches of the armed services for a combined 22 years before retiring
in 2006.  His testimony regarding his struggles with alcohol was frank and introspective.
Conversely, Applicant’s history of alcohol abuse is longstanding and severe, and
his most recent professional prognosis was not good. Most important, Applicant is still
drinking alcohol occasionally, in contravention of his clinician’s recommendation. Under
these circumstances, I cannot conclude that Applicant has mitigated the security
concern. 
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.g: Against Applicant
6
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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge