1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 11-09208 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: William F. Savarino, Esq. 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On May 11, 2010, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to retain a security clearance required for a position 
with a defense contractor. The Department of Defense (DOD) granted Applicant access 
to classified information. In March 2011, Applicant had an alcohol-related incident that 
raised a security concern. Applicant’s employer provided an adverse information report 
of the incident for adjudication. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conducted 
an investigation, and DOD issued interrogatories to Applicant to clarify or augment 
information from the investigation. After reviewing the results of the background 
investigation and Applicant's responses to the interrogatories, DOD adjudicators could 
not make the affirmative findings required to continue Applicant’s access to classified 
information. On October 5, 2012, DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to 
Applicant detailing security concerns for alcohol consumption under Guideline G. This 
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information 
 
2 
 
 
within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense 
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as 
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective in DOD on 
September 1, 2006.  
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on November 7, 2012. He admitted some of the 
allegations in part and denied some of the allegations in part. Applicant requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed 
on January 4, 2013, and the case was assigned to me on January 11, 2013. DOD 
issued a Notice of Hearing on February 13, 2013, for a hearing on February 25, 2013. I 
convened the hearing as scheduled. The Government offered eight exhibits, which I 
marked and admitted into the record without objections as Government Exhibits (Gov. 
Ex.) 1 through 8. Applicant testified and offered five exhibits, which I marked and 
admitted into the record without objection as Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through E. I 
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on March 4, 2013. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact. Applicant’s admissions are included in my findings of 
fact.  
 
Applicant is a 36-year-old aircraft mechanic for a defense contractor. He is a high 
school graduate. He served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force as a F-16 crew chief 
from 1998 until 2009, and was honorably discharged as a technical sergeant (E-6). He 
is married with no children. (Tr. 20-22; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated May 11, 2010) 
 
The SOR alleges that Applicant was arrested for underage drinking of alcohol in 
1994 (SOR 1.a); that he was involved in an alcohol-related incident in 1998(SOR 1.b); 
and that he was charged with leaving the scene of an accident after consumption of 
alcohol in 2004 (SOR 1.c). There is also an allegation of an arrest and charge for 
malicious destruction of property after consumption of alcohol in March 2011 (SOR 1.d), 
and outpatient treatment for substance abuse and a diagnosis of alcohol dependence in 
April 2011 (SOR 1.e). It is also alleged that Applicant continued to consume alcohol 
after a diagnosis of alcohol dependence (SOR 1.f). Applicant admits the underage 
drinking allegation, denies the 1998 incident, and admits the incident in 2004 but denies 
that it was alcohol-related. He admits the destruction of property in 2011, and admits the 
outpatient treatment for substance abuse. He states that if he was diagnosed as alcohol 
dependent, he was never informed of the diagnosis. He admits he consumed alcohol 
after 2011, but has not consumed alcohol since September 2012.  
 
Applicant admits that in 1994 when he was 18 years old, he attended a party and 
drank alcohol as a minor. When he left the party, he was stopped by police and failed a 
field sobriety test. He was charged with underage drinking of alcohol, spent a night in 
jail, his license was suspended, and he paid a fine. (Tr. 22-24; Gov. Ex. 8, police report, 
dated October 30, 1994) 
 
3 
 
 
Applicant denies he was involved in an incident, alcohol-related or not, in 1998. 
In 1998, he was on active duty. The Government’s information on this offense is based 
on a comment in the OPM investigator’s report of his interview of Applicant. The report 
states that Applicant stopped drinking alcohol “after an underage drinking offense in 
10/1998.” Applicant did not correct this statement when he verified the report because 
he did not see that the date was not correct. In 1998, Applicant was no longer 
underage. I find that there was no alcohol-related incident in 1998. 
 
Applicant admits that in 2004 he was charged with leaving the scene of an 
accident. Applicant and a fellow airman went into a farmer’s field near the airbase where 
they were stationed to set-off fireworks on July 4. Their vehicle got stuck in the mud and 
they could not get it out. They left the field, went back to their on-base dormitory, and 
returned the next day to get the vehicle. The farmer called police. When Applicant 
returned to retrieve the vehicle, he was arrested for leaving the scene of an accident. 
He was sentenced to 90-days probation. He completed the probation without any 
problems. Applicant denied that he drank alcohol that night and that the incident was 
alcohol-related. (Tr. 26-28) 
 
The Government based its allegation that the offense was alcohol-related on 
Applicant’s answers to questions on two e-QIPs he submitted. On his May 2010 e-QIP, 
he checked the box asking if he had ever been charged with an offense related to 
alcohol and drugs, and listed the July 2004 incident. On an e-QIP he submitted earlier 
on July 16, 2007, he checked the box concerning felony convictions and listed the July 
2004 offense. He provided the same information on both forms listing the same police 
department, that the offense was for leaving the scene of an accident, and that he 
served probation for three months. (Tr. 53-55; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated May 11, 2010, 
at 43; Gov. Ex. 6, e-QIP, dated Jul 16, 2007, at 26) At the hearing, Applicant stated he 
did not know why he listed the July 2004 as alcohol-related or as a felony. He stated 
that it was difficult to complete the form and he was confused. (Tr. 55-56) I find that the 
July 2004 was neither a felony nor alcohol-related.  
 
Applicant and his wife, who also served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force, met 
when they were assigned from different air bases to Iraq. After returning from Iraq, they 
had a long-distance romance until they married in August 2004. They were eventually 
assigned to the same location. Applicant and his wife decided to leave the Air Force. 
Applicant was hired by the defense contractor and moved to their present location. His 
wife stayed at their last assignment location while a medical discharge was being 
processed. In March 2011, Applicant was living separate from his wife, and was working 
the overnight shift for the defense contractor as an aircraft mechanic. One evening, he 
came home from work and started to clean his apartment in the early morning hours. He 
was lonely without his wife so he started to drink alcohol. He admitted that he became 
intoxicated that night, had an argument over noise with a neighbor, and damaged the 
neighbor’s car. Police were called and he was arrested for alcohol intoxication, 
malicious destruction of property, and littering/dumping. Applicant appeared in court and 
was fined, paid for the car damage, and received probation before judgment. (Tr. 30-36, 
42-43, 56-57; Gov. Ex. 2, Response to Interrogatories, dated August 6, 2012, at 4-5) 
 
4 
 
 
The offense was expunged from his record by court order. (Gov. Ex. 2, Response to 
Interrogatories, dated August 6, 2012, at 168) 
 
After the alcohol-related incident in March 2011, and before going to court about 
the incident, Applicant, on the advice of his attorney, self-referred for evaluation and 
treatment at a substance abuse program. The admission diagnosis on April 12, 2011, 
was alcohol dependence based on clinical impressions with a recommendation for 
outpatient treatment. (Tr. 58-61; Gov. Ex.3, Clinical Report, dated April 12, 2011 at 1-4) 
Applicant attended a 13-week program consisting of two 15-minute individual 
counseling sessions and 11 weekly one-hour group counseling sessions. Applicant 
tested negative four times during the program for substance abuse. He completed the 
program and was discharged on August 4, 2011. The discharge profile clinical notes list 
the diagnosis as alcohol dependence. His prognosis was good based on his program 
completion and his compliance with treatment recommendations. No further treatment 
was recommended. (Gov. Ex. 3, Discharge Summary, dated August 4, 2011, at 1-4) 
However, the client discharge treatment summary does not note a diagnosis of alcohol 
dependence. It is also noted that Applicant’s substance abuse counselor, who 
completed all of the treatment documents, is listed as a trainee. (Gov. Ex. 3, Client 
Discharge Treatment Summary, dated September 2, 2011) 
 
The counselor never informed him during or after his treatment of an alcohol 
dependence diagnosis. Applicant did not drink alcohol after the diagnosis except on his 
birthday in April 2012, and his last promotion in September 2012. Applicant is not sure if 
there was another time he consumed alcohol. However, in response to the 
interrogatories, Applicant stated he may drink a six pack of beer once or twice a month 
while grilling. Applicant thought his response referred to his prior consumption and not 
his present consumption of alcohol. He stated his present alcohol consumption has 
been very infrequent. He and his wife do not keep alcohol in the house. He only 
consumes alcohol with his wife and not the work friends he had consumed alcohol with 
prior to his attendance at the substance abuse sessions. He cannot state that he will not 
drink alcohol in the future because the future is uncertain. (Tr. 42-43, 61-70) 
 
Prior to the hearing, Applicant was evaluated by a certified advanced alcohol and 
drug counselor. The counselor had four evaluation sessions with Applicant, and an 
evaluation session with Applicant’s wife. Applicant informed the counselor of all his prior 
alcohol-related incidents. The counselor also examined the records from the previous 
alcohol treatment program. The counselor opined that the information does not support 
a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. The counselor noted that an alcohol dependence 
diagnosis is based on a maladaptive pattern of drinking, leading to clinically significant 
impairment or distress manifested by three or more alcohol-related issues in a 12 month 
period. The alcohol-related incidents issues that could lead to alcohol dependence are a 
marked increase in the amount of alcohol needed to achieve intoxication or desired 
effect; a marked diminished effect from continued use of the same amount of alcohol; 
exhibiting characteristic withdrawal symptoms from alcohol consumption; drinking to 
relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms; drinking large amounts of alcohol; over a longer 
period of time; a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control drinking; 
 
5 
 
 
important social, occupational or recreational activities given up or reduced because of 
drinking; increased time spent in recovering from the effect of alcohol; and continued 
drinking in spite of persistent or recurring physical or psychological problem cause or 
exacerbated by drinking. Since Applicant has not exhibited any of these signs or 
conditions, the drug counselor concluded that the diagnosis of alcohol dependence is 
not sustainable. She opined that in March 2011, Applicant appeared to only be suffering 
from an adjustment disorder with a disturbance of conduct. (App. Ex. E, Evaluation, 
dated December 30, 2012) 
 
Applicant presented affidavits concerning his alcohol consumption and work 
performance. Applicant’s wife wrote that he is a decent, loyal, hard-working person, and 
he has never given her a reason to distrust him. Applicant has only been an occasional 
social drinker and never abused alcohol. She has never seen him intoxicated. She is 
aware of the March 2011 alcohol-related incident. Applicant has not been a problem 
drinker in the ten years she has known him. He stopped using alcohol in September 
2012 when alcohol-related security clearance issues were raised. Since he stopped 
drinking alcohol, they do not keep alcohol in the house. (App. Ex. A, Affidavit, dated 
February 21, 2013) 
 
A former supervisor and now co-worker wrote that he has worked with Applicant 
daily for over three years. Applicant’s performance has been exemplary. His 
professionalism is stellar and his job productivity is at a highlevel. He is a person of 
strong ethics and character. He is dependable, honest, and trustworthy. He has never 
seen Applicant abuse alcohol or be intoxicated. He has never heard Applicant talk of 
alcohol in a way to suggest he has an alcohol-related problem. (App. Ex. B, Affidavit 
dated February 14, 2013) 
 
Applicant’s work lead wrote that he has known Applicant since June 2010 and 
sees him five or six days a week. He never had a problem with Applicant’s work or 
attitude. He has a can-do and good attitude. He has strong ethics and character. He is 
dependable, honest, and trustworthy. He has never seen Applicant abuse alcohol, be 
intoxicated, or exhibit an alcohol-related problem. (App. Ex. C, Affidavit, date February 
14, 2013) 
 
Applicant’s first line supervisor wrote that he hired Applicant in September 2010. 
He sees him a few times a week on the job. He respects Applicant’s skill and knowledge 
of his job. He evaluated Applicant’s performance with an overall rating that merited a 
salary increase. He is on track to have his next rating to be the highest rating possible. 
Applicant is dependable, honest and trustworthy. He has never seen Applicant abuse 
alcohol or be intoxicated. Applicant does not speak of any alcohol-related problems. 
(App. Ex. D, Affidavit, dated February 14, 2013)  
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief 
 
6 
 
 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 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, the guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. 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.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based 
on the evidence contained in the record.  
 
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 for obtaining a favorable security 
decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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 protect 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Alcohol Consumption 
 
Excessive alcohol consumption is a security concern because it 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) 
  
Two alcohol-related incidents were established for Applicant; charges and 
convictions for underage drinking in 1994, and charges and convictions for destruction 
 
7 
 
 
of property and alcohol intoxication in 2011. He may have been diagnosed by an 
alcohol counselor as alcohol dependent. He was not informed of the diagnosis. 
Applicant's convictions and potential diagnosis are sufficient to raise Alcohol 
Consumption Disqualifying Conditions 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 AG ¶ 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). 
 
I considered Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 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); AG ¶ 23(b) (the individual 
acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of 
action taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if 
alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser)); and AG ¶ 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 licensed 
social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program).  
 
While there is no "bright line" rule for determining when conduct is recent or 
sufficient time has passed since the incidents, a determination whether past conduct 
affects an individual's present reliability and trustworthiness must be based on a careful 
evaluation of the totality of the evidence. If the evidence shows a significant period of 
time has passed without evidence of an alcohol issue, there must be an evaluation 
whether that period of time demonstrates changed circumstances or conduct sufficient 
to indicate a finding of reform or rehabilitation.  
 
 Applicant had two alcohol-related incidents in 17 years. He was diagnosed with 
alcohol dependence after the 2011 incident when he attended and successfully 
completed an alcohol treatment program. That opinion was rendered by an addiction 
counselor trainee based on two short individual sessions and 11 group therapy 
sessions. The diagnosis was questioned and disputed by another alcohol counselor. 
The second counselor, who provided an opinion on December 30, 2012, is a certified 
advanced alcohol and drug counselor who had four individual counseling sessions with 
Applicant and also had the benefit of information provided in an interview with 
Applicant’s wife. While I considered the opinions of both counselors, I find the first 
opinion to be tenuous and give greater weight to the opinion of the second counselor 
based on her experience and the information available to her. 
 
  I also find that Applicant was not informed of the first diagnosis of alcohol 
dependence. The client discharge treatment summary provided to Applicant did not 
 
8 
 
 
have a diagnosis listed. The client treatment summary only showed treatment 
completion and no further treatment needed. Applicant admits he drank alcohol at least 
twice after the diagnosis with his last consumption of alcohol in September 2012.   
 
 Applicant established a pattern of abstinence and has shown sufficient evidence 
of action taken to overcome his alcohol consumption problems. Applicant had two 
alcohol-related incidents away from work in 17 years. He did not have any work-related 
incidents or other alcohol-related symptoms, after-effects, or other issues. He 
completed alcohol counseling programs. The diagnosis of alcohol dependence is 
questionable. Applicant was not informed of the diagnosis. He drank alcohol only twice 
since the diagnosis in 2011. He has not had a drink of alcohol in eight months. His work 
is excellent and he is well regarded by his supervisors. All note that they have never 
seen him take a drink of alcohol or be intoxicated. He was evaluated by an advanced 
alcohol counselor who refuted the earlier evaluation and opined that Applicant is not 
alcohol dependent. He has a strong support system at home to keep him on track 
concerning his alcohol consumption. 
 
 A significant period of time has passed without evidence of an alcohol-related 
problem. He has consumed very little alcohol since March 2011. Applicant 
demonstrated a change in his circumstances and his conduct reflects a change in his 
life. He established that he can control his alcohol consumption impulses. The evidence 
shows that Applicant has been reformed or rehabilitated, and his history shows that he 
will continue to not consume alcohol to excess. I find that Applicant has mitigated the 
security concerns for alcohol consumption, and that he will not present a security 
concern based on his alcohol consumption. 
Whole-Person Analysis  
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and 
the relevant circumstances. An 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 a security clearance 
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
 
9 
 
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant’s 11 years of 
honorable service on active duty in the Air force. I considered that Applicant has 
successfully been eligible for access to classified information for over 15 years. I 
considered that Applicant has worked for a defense contractor for almost five years and 
is a good employee with an excellent job performance. Applicant was charged and 
convicted of two alcohol-related offenses in 17 years, underage drinking in 1994 and 
malicious destruction of property and alcohol intoxication in 2011. He volunteered for 
and completed alcohol counseling and treatment after the 2011 incident. The result of 
the treatment was a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. There is a 2012 diagnosis that 
challenges the basis for the earlier diagnosis and concludes that there is no alcohol 
dependence. I find that Applicant is not alcohol dependent. He has consumed alcohol 
on only two occasions since March 2011 and has not been intoxicated since that time. 
His supervisors have never seen him drink alcohol or be intoxicated. He has a strong 
support system at home.  
 
Applicant presented sufficient information to establish that he has been 
rehabilitated and ceased his consumption of alcohol. Applicant’s history shows that he 
is reliable and trustworthy and has the ability to protect classified information. The 
record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility 
and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has 
mitigated alcohol consumption security concerns.  
 
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 
 
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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge