Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government Exhibits (GE) 1-5, and Applicant Exhibit  (AE) A.1
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February2
20, 1990), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG)
effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXX, Xxxxxx Xxx )       ISCR Case No. 10-01513
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Raashid S. Williams, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I grant Applicant’s clearance.1
On 13 January 2012 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
G, Alcohol Consumption.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a hearing.2
DOHA assigned the case to me 13 April 2012, and I convened a hearing 10 May 2012.
DOHA received the transcript 16 May 2012.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the Guideline G allegations. She is a 41-year-old systems
administrator employed by a defense contractor since December 2008. She seeks to
retain the clearance she has held since at least December 2004.
Applicant has a 15-year history of excessive alcohol consumption, punctuated by
alcohol-related incidents and failed treatment efforts. In October 1997, she was cited
for drunk in public and later fined (GE 4; AE A), without appearing in court. She received
detoxification and treatment for alcohol dependence from October 2003 to April 2004.
She relapsed during her treatment, but was later discharged with recommendations to
continue Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and abstain from alcohol use.
Applicant resumed drinking shortly after her discharge, and in November 2004
she was fired from her job because her alcohol abuse caused her to be tardy or absent
altogether. She was unemployed until March 2005. She was also unemployed from July
to November 2005 and April to December 2008, as the government contracts she was
employed on ended.
Applicant continued abusing alcohol, and sought treatment from November 2007
to March 2008 for alcohol dependence and major depressive disorder. She was given
medications, and instructed to attend AA regularly and abstain from alcohol use.
Applicant ignored these instructions. She left treatment in March 2008, stopped using
her medications, and quit going to AA. She left treatment because her job was ending
and she was losing her health insurance. Without her health insurance she could not
pay for her medications and treatment sessions while maintaining her other financial
obligations. She understood that alcohol was the cause of her major depressive
disorder and mistakenly felt she could stop her medication as long as she did not drink.
Not surprising, she resumed her alcohol abuse.
After Applicant obtained her current job in December 2008, her drinking began to
increase. She tried to stop drinking on several occasions, but found that she could not
stop on her own. She began to be concerned about the effect her drinking might have
on her job. She then sought treatment again. 
Applicant was last intoxicated in November 2010, when she drank 12 beers in
about nine hours. This binge led to her treatment for alcohol withdrawal syndrome at the
same treatment facility she attended in 2003-2004. She left treatment several days later
against medical advice, without subsequent ongoing treatment of her concurrent major
depressive disorder, and without follow-up plans to reduce relapse risk. She did this
because she had been through the program in 2003-2004 and understood what she
needed to do to prevent relapse risk.
Applicant returned to AA the day after she left the treatment program, and
attended 90 meetings in 90 days, as recommended by her sponsor. She joined an
alcohol-free social club that hosted AA meetings and sponsored social activities. This
3
allowed her to build a social network and support group that she did not have
previously. She attends sponsored social events two or three times per month. Her
home AA group recommended that she change sponsors, as her previous sponsor had
stopped attending AA. Her new sponsor helped her understand AA in a way she had
not previously understood it, and helped her to actually work the step program, not just
attend meetings.
The hardest step for her was step one (admitting she was an alcoholic), and she
is currently working on step four (making a searching and fearless moral inventory), a
step she finds equally hard. She now typically attends AA two or three times per week,
and last attended AA four days before the hearing. She speaks to her sponsor daily, at
least by telephone. She has received her one-year sobriety coin. She no longer
consumes alcohol, and her abstinence dates to November 2010. Applicant and her
fiancé keep no alcohol in their home, and he goes out with his friends if he is going to
drink. He does not drink in front of her.
Applicant has had clearances since her first job out of college, and has never had
any security violations. She credibly described (Tr. 26-28) being in denial about her
alcohol dependence until her November 2010 binge. She would abstain from alcohol
during treatment, and for a time after treatment, but would always tell herself she could
drink responsibly. She would drink responsibly for a time, but then return to alcohol
abuse. The November 2010 binge that got her attention and caused her to seek
treatment this last time, proved to her she could no longer be in denial about her alcohol
dependence.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for
access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is
not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed where a case
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the grant
or denial of a clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶ 22(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or4
spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; (b) alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting
for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition . . . regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed
as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; (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; (d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional . . . of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence;
. . . (f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence and completion of an alcohol
rehabilitation program;
Department Counsel gives Applicant credit for mitigating conditions 23(b) and 23(d) (Tr. 58-63).5
¶ 23(b) the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of6
actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent)
or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser);
4
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.3
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline G, by
demonstrating Applicant’s 15-year history of alcohol abuse, punctuated by a drunk in
public citation in October 1997, a failed treatment from October 2003 to April 2004, an
alcohol-related job loss in November 2004, a second failed treatment from November
2007 to March 2008, and a November 2010 alcohol binge that drove her to a third
treatment.4
Department Counsel argues that Applicant should not retain her clearance
because she only meets two of the four listed mitigating conditions (MC).  However,5
clearance decisions are not governed by whether an Applicant meets all mitigating
conditions or meets all disqualifying conditions. Indeed, an Applicant need not meet all
prongs of a given condition for that condition to relevant to the analysis of whether to
grant or deny the clearance.
Here, for example, Department Counsel argued that Applicant did not meet MC
23(a) because she had only been abstinent for 18 months (recency). In fact, Applicant
fails to meet MC 23(a) because her alcohol abuse was recent, frequent, and not
particularly unusual in its circumstances. However, Department Counsel argued, and I
conclude, that Applicant met all the requirements for MC 23(b). Applicant acknowledged
her past problems with alcohol, and took steps to reduce her consumption, and avoid
circumstances that had previously been troublesome for her.  Her regular use of AA6
tools (meetings, step program, and sponsor), utilizing no-alcohol social activities, and
removing alcohol from her home demonstrate that Applicant is committed to abstinence.
5
Alternatively, Department Counsel argued that Applicant did not meet the
requirements of MC 23(c) because, while she was a current employee who was
participating in a counseling or treatment program and was making satisfactory
progress, she had a significant history of previous treatment and relapse. In this
instance, I agree that the relapse history precludes application of this MC. Nevertheless,
Department Counsel argued that Applicant met the requirements of MC 23(d) because
she has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient counseling and demonstrated a
clear and established pattern of abstinence. However, I conclude that she has not met
the requirements of MC 23(d) she has not received a favorable prognosis from a
recognized alcohol treatment program. Given her diagnoses of alcohol dependence,
this factor is not easily overlooked.
Finally, the key moment in any ongoing recovery from alcohol dependence,
especially under the AA model, is the moment when an Applicant acknowledges alcohol
dependence and begins to accept that abstinence is the best way to mitigate alcohol
dependence. The conviction of that acknowledgment and the strength of that
acceptance are more important than any particular length of abstinence as long as the
length of abstinence demonstrates than an Applicant has acquired the tools necessary
to remain abstinent. And the length of abstinence is not affected by the length of past
abuse or dependence because, by definition, the past failed efforts are due to the
Applicant’s denial of her alcohol dependence. Applicant’s acceptance of her denial is
what opens the door to her acknowledgment of her alcohol dependence and
acceptance of abstinence as the key to her ongoing recovery. I conclude Applicant is
unlikely to abuse alcohol in the future.  Accordingly, I resolve Guideline G for Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-f: For Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance granted.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge