1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-07567
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Stephen Gardella, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant was arrested for five alcohol-related incidents between 1995 and 2010,
and tested positive for cocaine use in 2005. He was diagnosed as alcohol or drug
dependent, or both, in connection with three different treatment programs and a 2011
assessment, and continues to drink alcohol. 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 May 30, 2009. On
October 6, 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 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 for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information, effective in the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.
GE 1; AE AA; Tr. 64..1
AR.  2
GE 2 through GE 5.3
AE D; GE 9.4
AR; Tr. 26-27.5
2
Applicant answered the SOR in writing (AR) on November 29, 2011, and
requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared
to proceed on December 9, 2011. The case was assigned to me on December 14,
2011. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on December 19, 2011, and I convened the
hearing, as rescheduled due to inclement weather, on January 24, 2012. The
Government offered exhibits (GE) 1 through 9, which were admitted without objection.
Applicant offered exhibits (AE) A through J, which were also admitted without objection,
and testified on his own behalf. I granted Applicant’s request to leave the record open
until February 8, 2012, to permit submission of additional evidence. DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on February 3, 2012. On February 6, 2012, Applicant
submitted additional documentary evidence marked as AE AA through SS. Department
Counsel objected to the admissibility of AE AA and AE BB on hearsay grounds.
Pursuant to Directive item E3.1.19, I relaxed the technical rules of evidence excluding
hearsay, and provided Department Counsel the opportunity to submit evidence
rebutting the truth of any facts asserted therein. Department Counsel affirmatively
declined to submit any rebuttal evidence. AE AA through AE SS were admitted into the
record. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 49-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he has
worked as a mechanic in the commercial division since January 2008. He is married, for
the third time, with three children ages 29, 20, and 16, and one stepchild age 11. The
three youngest children all now reside with Applicant. He dropped out of high school
during his junior year, and later completed a General Educational Development (GED)
program. He served in the Army from 1981 or 1982 until 1988, when he was honorably
discharged at pay grade E-4. He previously held a security clearance while in the Army,
and during previous periods of employment with the defense contractor up until 1999 or
2000.  In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.e, 1.g, 2.b,1
and 2.c. He also admitted parts of SOR ¶¶ 1.c, and 2.a, with an explanation. He denied
SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.f, and 1.h, also with explanations.  Applicant’s admissions, including his2
statements in response to DOHA interrogatories,  are incorporated in the following3
findings.
Applicant started to consume alcohol at age 13, and began regular heavy use at
age 19.  He admitted consuming alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of4
intoxication, from approximately 1998 to the present.  In August 1996, he was arrested5
AR; GE 1; GE 3; AE B; Tr. 27-29, 68-69. He erroneously reported the date as July 1995 on his SF-86.6
GE 9; AE MM through AE PP; Tr. 29-33, 70-71, 85-86.7
GE 2; AR.8
AR; GE 2; GE 8; AE C; Tr. 33-35, 72-80.9
3
for boating under the influence (BUI) of alcohol. He was fined, placed on probation for
two years, and ordered not to drive a boat in the state for two years and to attend a
boater safety class.  6
Applicant voluntarily entered and completed an inpatient hospital detoxification
and chemical dependency treatment program during October and November 1997. At
the time of his admission, his blood alcohol content (BAC) was .157, but his urine tested
negative for any drugs of abuse. Based on his self-reported drug and alcohol abuse
history, his admission and discharge diagnoses by a physician were alcohol
dependence, alcohol withdrawal, cocaine dependence, cannabis dependence,
methamphetamine dependence, and alcoholic gastritis. The doctor who performed a
physical examination upon admission found nasal congestion and inflamed turbinates
from intra nasal drug use. Applicant now claims that he lied about using $300 worth of
pot, cocaine, and methamphetamine per week in order to be admitted for inpatient
treatment of his alcoholism, for which he would otherwise only receive outpatient
treatment.  In his April 2010 response to interrogatories and his November 20117
response to the SOR, however, he said that he lied about this drug use because he was
embarrassed that he was only there for drinking when everyone else had major drug
issues, and because the other patients told him that if he denied drug use he would be
held in treatment longer for being in denial.  8
On September 19, 1998, Applicant was arrested for driving while intoxicated
(DWI), speeding, and improper lane use. He admitted to the arresting officer that he had
consumed two or three drinks, and was taking prescription pain medication. He failed
the field sobriety tests, but refused to provide a breath sample at the police station. He
was convicted, fined, ordered to perform 80 hours of community service, and placed on
probation for two years. He testified that he did not lose his drivers license, but court
records he provided indicate that his license was revoked until reinstatement by court
order on December 16, 1998.9
On June 26, 2000, Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in
another state where he was visiting some friends. He was convicted and sentenced to
four days in jail, two years of probation, and fined. Under the laws of that state, he was
required to complete an alcohol/drug treatment program in order to renew his driver’s
license. He was unaware of this until he attempted to renew his license in 2009 and
found the state had placed a hold on his renewal eligibility. From November 16 to 25,
2009, he successfully completed an outpatient treatment program to meet this
requirement. The treating facility assessment was insufficient evidence of substance
abuse or dependence, based on Applicant’s report that his heavy alcohol use was
AR; GE 2; GE 3; GE 6; AE D; AE E; AE G; AE RR; AE SS; Tr. 35-36, 80-81. 10
AR; GE 2; GE 3; Tr. 37-39, 81-82.11
AR; GE 2; GE 3; AE F; Tr. 39-43, 82.12
4
between ages 19 and 23, with then current use of up to two beers once a month.
Applicant also admitted regular marijuana use between ages 16 and 19, and regular
cocaine use between ages 40 and 42 ending in 2004.  10
During February 2001, Applicant attended a party at some friends’ house and
took a 12-pack of beer. During the evening two other people at the party had a fight and
the girl hit her boyfriend on the head with a beer bottle. The hosts called for an
ambulance, and the police also responded. Applicant and the hosts were taken to the
police station for questioning. Applicant interrupted the police questioning of the party’s
hostess to assert that she was not lying to them. He was held in custody for 24 hours,
then released. The initial charge of suspected procurement of liquor for a minor was
dismissed on February 24, 2001, for lack of prosecution. I find that he did not procure
liquor for a minor on this occasion, but his alcohol-fueled misbehavior at the police
station resulted in his detention.11
During the early morning hours of January 31, 2010, Applicant and his wife were
in a bar with some friends from his work. Shortly before closing time, a series of fights
and disturbances broke out. Applicant had given his bank card to the bartender to run a
tab for himself and some friends. According to him, he had consumed a few drinks, but
did nothing wrong and was trying to close out his tab and get his card back when the
bouncer started hassling him and pushing him to leave. He resisted because he did not
want to leave his card there, and some friends intervened to assist him. One of the
friends was then hauled out of the bar and arrested by police officers who had
responded to the disturbance outside the bar. The bouncer returned and physically
removed Applicant from the bar. He was also arrested and charged with disorderly
conduct and criminal trespass 2 . Trial on these charges was continued for six monthsnd
on condition that Applicant pay a $250 fine, have no contact with the bar, and have no
further criminal violations during the continuance. He met these conditions, and the
charges were dismissed on September 9, 2010.  12
On July 3, 2010, DOHA requested Applicant to undergo an alcohol evaluation
and obtain a medical prognosis concerning his resumption of alcohol consumption after
diagnosis of alcohol dependence. On August 24, 2010, he was evaluated by a licensed
clinical social worker (LCSW). The LCSW report, dated September 10, 2010, noted that
Applicant had an extensive history of drug and alcohol involvement that included a
diagnosis of alcoholism as a result of a residential stay. Applicant and his wife reported
his current consumption to be two to four beers from about every three weeks to
quarterly. Applicant denied any distilled alcohol or any illegal substance usage for, at
least, the past seven years, which his wife confirmed. The LCSW said this accounting
would indicate alcohol usage but not abuse. He encouraged Applicant to engage in
sobriety and resume attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. Applicant told
GE 2; GE 4; GE 5; Tr. 51-57, 59, 62, 66.13
AR; GE 1; GE 2; GE 7; AE LL; Tr. 44-46, 83-84.14
Tr. 84-85.15
AE A.16
5
the LCSW that he agreed to engage in this process. On June 5, 2011, DOHA sent an
interrogatory asking Applicant to contact the LCSW to obtain a revised evaluation to
include his knowledge of Applicant’s six alcohol-related charges, prior diagnosis and
ongoing alcohol consumption, as well as a current diagnosis by the LCSW. On June 30,
2011, the LCSW wrote another letter stating that he did not go into detail about
Applicant’s past history because, based on the information he received, it was a matter
of record and already in DOHA’s possession. He repeated that, during one of
Applicant’s inpatient treatments he had been diagnosed as being alcoholic, and stated
that such a diagnosis never changes. The LCSW also reiterated Applicant’s and his
wife’s reports that he continues to use, but not abuse, alcohol. Applicant confirmed that
he continues to consume alcohol in moderation on a regular basis, and does not
participate in AA.  13
           
Applicant admitted to using cocaine on one occasion in November 2005, with a
friend who provided it. He now claims this is the only time he ever used an illegal drug.
On December 8, 2005, he was selected to undergo a random urinalysis test at his work,
and tested positive for cocaine. He successfully completed an eight-week intensive
outpatient substance abuse treatment program on February 8, 2006. Treatment
documentation that is in evidence does not specify a diagnosis, but states, “Client has
good insight about his addiction,” and required eight unannounced drug tests over the
two-year period following treatment.           14
Applicant’s explanation for telling his various drug and alcohol dependency
program treatment providers about extensive drug abuse that he now denies included
the following comments: 
I might have said that I used it for the same reason that I said it when I
went into rehab the first time and I had lied about it. And then I might have
said it because the simple fact that once you’ve said something, you might
as well keep saying it so everything matches. . . . I have to say something
to keep everything matching. I never thought in a million years that this
was ever going to come back to haunt me on it, or I would have never said
- - I would have never claimed it. I would have never stated it.              15
  
Applicant submitted a notarized statement of intent never to abuse alcohol in the
future, and consenting to automatic revocation of his security clearance, “should there
be any violation with regard to alcohol use.”  He did not provide a similar statement16
concerning drug use, nor did he communicate an intention to abstain from alcohol
consumption altogether. 
AE I.17
AE J; AE BB through AE HH.18
AE H; AE II through KK.19
6
The licensed clinical social worker who provides marriage and family counseling
to Applicant’s wife wrote a letter expressing her positive opinions of his character and
dedication to making their marriage succeed under difficult circumstances.  Eight family17
members, friends, and coworkers wrote letters expressing their high opinions of his
character, dedication, and responsibility.  He also provided copies of his certificates18
honoring ten years of service at his employer and several training qualifications.           19
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.
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.”
Tr. 87.20
7
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 DCs asserted by Department Counsel  are:20
(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;
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol
dependence; 
(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;
 
(f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion
of an alcohol rehabilitation program; and 
(g) failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education,
evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.
Applicant was arrested for BUI in 1995, for two DUI offenses in 1998 and 2000,
and for his involvement in alcohol-related disturbances in 2001 and 2010. These
8
incidents, individually and collectively, establish security concerns under AG ¶ 22(a).
The evidence establishes that a “duly qualified medical professional” diagnosed
Applicant with alcohol dependence in 1997, as required by AG ¶ 22(d). In 2010 and
2011, a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of recognized alcohol
treatment program evaluated him as alcohol dependent, so AG ¶ 22(e) was also raised
by the evidence. Applicant has resumed drinking after each of his three substance
abuse treatment programs, and committed two DUIs within the three years following his
inpatient treatment in 1997, raising substantial concerns under AG ¶ 22(f). I was unable
to find evidence that Applicant failed to comply with any court order regarding alcohol
education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence, so AG ¶ 22(g) was not established.
However, the SOR alleged, and the evidence clearly supported, security concerns
under AG ¶ 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.” Department Counsel’s failure to argue for its application does not
preclude my consideration of those 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
medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff
member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.
Applicant has a long history of alcohol abuse. This includes multiple alcohol-
related offenses, the most recent of which occurred in 2010, more than six months after
submission of his pending security clearance application. His ongoing consumption of
alcohol, despite multiple diagnoses of alcohol dependence and treatment programs,
9
precludes a finding that recurrence is unlikely. He failed to establish mitigation under AG
¶ 23(a). He has relapsed after each of his three inpatient and outpatient treatment
programs, and his continuing consumption and failure to attend AA are contrary to
treatment recommendations, so Applicant failed to establish mitigation under the terms
of AG ¶¶ 23 (b), (c), or (d). 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to drug involvement:
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 ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The DCs supported by the record evidence are:
(a) any drug abuse; 
(b) testing positive for illegal drug use;
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence;
and  
(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.
Applicant admitted to use of cocaine in November 2005, resulting in a positive
random urinalysis test in December 2005. He admitted to additional marijuana and
cocaine abuse during his 2009 treatment program assessment. He also admitted to
sufficient marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine abuse to be diagnosed by a
physician as dependent on all three drugs during his 1997 hospitalization for inpatient
detoxification treatment. A licensed social worker on the staff of a recognized drug
treatment program evaluated him to be addicted during his treatment for cocaine abuse
in 2006. I find that his various explanations for allegedly falsifying these admissions to
be less than credible, and conclude that substantial security concerns are raised under
all four of the foregoing DCs.
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt
on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
10
(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; 
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and,
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation;
(c) abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness
during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended;
and,
(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.
Applicant’s last known drug use was in November 2005. He successfully
completed his subsequent outpatient treatment program, and says that he has not
resumed drug abuse since then. However, his unconvincing attempts at minimization
and denial of extensive prior drug abuse, and valid diagnosis of drug dependence,
preclude a finding of mitigation under AG ¶¶ 26(a) or (b). Abuse of prescription drugs
was not alleged in this case, so AG ¶ 26(c) is inapplicable. Applicant admittedly abused
cocaine in 2005, after being diagnosed and treated for cocaine dependence in 1997, so
his completion of another drug treatment program in 2006 provides very limited
mitigation under AG ¶ 26(d), particularly in the absence of a favorable prognosis by a
duly qualified medical professional.
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. 
11
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
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant has numerous
friends and family members who support him and believe that he learned from his past
bad choices. He is a good family man, who wants to set a good example for his children
and live up to his wife’s expectations.
However, Applicant is a mature individual who is accountable for his choices and
actions. His susceptibility to pressure or duress in the face of potentially unpleasant
consequences is demonstrated by his attempts to conceal his past drug abuse
problems. He demonstrated a willingness to be deceitful in order to obtain desired but
undeserved results. He continues to consume alcohol whenever he chooses, despite
multiple diagnoses of dependence, and recommendations that he abstain from drinking
and participate in AA. He was arrested during an alcohol-related incident again during
the pendency of his security clearance application, and was caught using cocaine by a
random urinalysis test as recently as 2005. 
On the whole, the evidence fails to establish rehabilitation or other permanent
behavioral changes. Applicant provided insufficient evidence of good work performance
or good character to overcome the resulting security concerns. 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 his alcohol consumption and drug involvement.
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.h: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a through 2.c: Against Applicant
12
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