1
                                                              
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 11-07732
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                           
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On January 23, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under Guideline G (Alcohol
Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The action was taken under
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February
20, 1960), 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
September 1, 2006. 
On February 4, 2013, Applicant responded to the SOR. He admitted seven of the
eight allegations raised under Guideline G and four of the five allegations raised under
Guideline E. He also requested a decision without a hearing. On March 14, 2013,
Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), which included 10
attached items. Applicant timely responded in a letter dated April 11, 2013. The case
was assigned to me by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) on April
26, 2013. Based on a review of the case file, I find Applicant failed to meet his burden
regarding the security concerns raised in the SOR. Security clearance is denied.
 See Answer to the SOR and FORM, Item 7 (Facility records).      1
 FORM, Item 5, Back page (Letter of Apr. 3, 2008).      2
 Answer to the SOR.      3
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 35-year-old custom engineer who submitted a security clearance
application (SCA) on January 10, 2011. He has been continuously employed since
June 2002, shortly before he received a  bachelor’s degree. He is single and has no
children. 
Starting in 1993, when he was about 15 years old, to at least July 2010, when he
was 32 years old, Applicant consumed alcohol. He often drank alcohol to the point of
intoxication. In September 1997, he was charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI),
then convicted of Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI) in January 1998. As a result,
his license was revoked and he was fined approximately $300. 
In February 2005, Applicant was charged with DWI. In April 2005, he pled guilty
to the charge, had his licensed revoked, and was fined approximately $500. In July
2007, Applicant was charged with DWI, a felony, and Operating Motor Vehicle 0.08 of
1%, a felony. During the summer of 2007, he used marijuana and cocaine. In February
2008, he pled guilty to the DWI charge, was sentenced to five years of probation, and
fined $2,500. In addition, he lost his driver’s license for one year, was required to attend
alcohol counseling, and was prohibited from consuming alcohol while on probation. 
From August 2007 to January 2008, Applicant attended outpatient alcohol
treatment at a qualified medical treatment facility, where he was diagnosed with Alcohol
Dependence and Cannabis Dependence. While there, he tested negative for alcohol,
marijuana, and cocaine.  He was unhappy with that facility’s group approach. For that1
reason, as well as personal financial issues and limitations on his health insurance, he
looked for one-on-one treatment elsewhere.  From April 2008 to August 2008, Applicant2
received outpatient alcohol treatment from a licensed psychologist, who diagnosed him
with Alcohol Dependence. 
In July 2010, Applicant broke up with his girlfriend and consumed six beers and
four shots of liquor in a five-hour period. In doing so, he violated the terms of his
probation by consuming alcohol. He has not consumed alcohol since that time. In
August 2010, he started attending an outpatient alcohol treatment program. 
During his initial assessment at the outpatient alcohol treatment facility, Applicant
mentioned his two most recent drunk driving incidents, but forgot to note the one from
1997. He denied having ever used cocaine because he considered the 2007 incident to
be a “one time incident” and because he was concerned it would change the way he
was treated at the facility.  In addition, although he had used marijuana over 100 times3
between 1993 and 2008, he stated that he had only used the drug two or three times
 Response to the FORM, dated Apr. 11, 2013.      4
3
between 1999 and 2000. Applicant does not recall how he arrived at those numbers.
The medical facility diagnosed him with Alcohol Dependence.
On his January 10, 2011, SCA, Applicant answered “Yes” to Section 22(e)
(“Have you EVER been charged with any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs,”) then
noted the 2005 and 2008 convictions noted above. He failed, however, to disclose the
1997 DUI charge and resultant DWAI conviction. Applicant denies that he intentionally
tried to mislead with his answer. He argues that the question “asked specifically
‘respond for the timeframe of the last 7 years.’” That question does have such a
timeframe limitation on one page, before it continues with several subsections onto the
next page. The FORM, however, informed him that, based on the way the question is
worded, the time restriction is limited to subsections a and b of Section 22, and it does
not apply to subsection e, Applicant now understands the phrasing and stresses that he
merely misunderstood the question, and did not mean to mislead.
Shortly after completing his SCA, Applicant successfully completed his outpatient
treatment in March 2011. Later that year, he was approved for early discharge from
probation. Applicant attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) for at least two years before
quitting. He quit after he lost his sponsor, who relapsed. Today, he remains alcohol-
free. His life is focused on work, church, his godson, his nephews and nieces, and a
house he recently purchased. He recognizes that he has to be – 
responsible enough to not lose them. I am not perfect and I have
made my share of mistakes. I can only ask that you understand
where I am in life and that I will not ever put anyone or myself in
danger and if that means not drinking alcohol and losing
people/places or things because of it, then that is how it mus t be
and I am OK with that. I continue with my certifications and will
never stop learning. . . . [U]nderstand that I have changed.4
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. 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 the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this
process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-
person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all 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
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      5
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
 Id.      8
 AG ¶ 21.      9
4
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. The Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is5
something less than a preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion
is on the applicant.  6
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
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.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information). The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access7
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such information.8
Analysis
Guideline G – 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.  In this case, Applicant is a 35-year-old man9
who used, and at times, abused alcohol from the time he was 15 until he was 32.  He
was convicted for drinking and driving in 1998, 2005, and 2008. He was diagnosed as
alcohol dependent during three different treatments in 2007-2008, 2008, and 2010-
2011. These facts are sufficient to raise Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions
 AG ¶ 15.      10
 Id.      11
5
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), AG ¶ 22(c) (the 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), AG ¶ 22(d) (diagnosis by a qualified medical
professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or
dependence) and AG ¶ 22(f) (relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence
and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program). Consequently, the burden shifts to
Applicant to mitigate related security concerns.
Applicant has provided scant facts about his attainment and maintenance of
sobriety. Based on his information, he has been sober for less than three years. This
period follows nearly 17 years of alcohol abuse and at least three attempts at outpatient
treatment for alcohol dependence. However, he acknowledges his past problems with
alcohol. He disclosed that he quit drinking after a fight with a girlfriend in August 2010.
He writes that he attended AA until his sponsor relapsed. He also wrote that he now
spends his time devoted to family and his new home. Although these statements would
be more persuasive with some form of corroborating documentary evidence, I find them
sufficient to raise Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 23(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)). Lacking evidence that he
has since received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional or
licensed clinical social worker, or that he is currently in counseling, however, none of
the other mitigating conditions apply.
Guideline E – Personal Conduct 
Security concerns arise from matters of personal conduct because 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.  In addition, any failure to10
provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process is of special interest.  11
In addition to the personal conduct issues related to Applicant’s abuse of alcohol,
the SOR alleges that Applicant deliberately concealed or misled investigators and
medical providers with answers he provided at a 2010 initial assessment at a treatment
facility and on a 2011 SCA. If true, Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶
16(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,
6
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary
responsibilities) would apply.
Applicant’s explanation as to how he listed two, but not all three drinking and
driving convictions on his SCA is plausible. As written and as spread out over two
pages, one could mistakenly conclude that all the subsections set forth under question
22 were restricted to a certain time frame. Regardless, by disclosing his two most
recent convictions, he put investigators on notice that this was an issue. 
With regard to his medical initial assessment disclosure of marijuana use in 2010
of two to three times a year between 1999 and 2000, in the context of having used it
over 100 times between 1993 and 2008, Applicant has no recollection as to what the
actual number was. There is no evidence indicating that he used marijuana more than
two to three times during that particular year (1999-2000), which was but one year
during a 15-year period (1993-2008). The evidence only suggests that his use must
have been higher during that one year because he otherwise admitted to using
marijuana over 100 times during a 15-year period. Given that it would take six to seven
uses of the drug over 15 years to arrive at an excess of 100 uses, a single year with
only two to three uses would not be outside the realm of possibility. Regardless, there is
no evidence he intended to conceal or falsify in giving this answer. Similarly, there is no
evidence he intentionally tried to conceal his first of three alcohol-related convictions
during that initial assessment. His information gave sufficient notice to medical
personnel of the issue by providing information about his most recent two convictions
The only evidence of intentional falsification is Applicant’s admission that he
denied using cocaine during the initial assessment. He explained that he did so
because he considered it to have been an isolated incident and because he thought it
would alter the treatment center’s therapy plans. This is the sole incident in which the
evidence shows intentional falsity. It is an isolated incident. But for this incident, the
record reflects that Applicant has been fully candid. There is little likelihood that
Applicant would ever again seek to conceal information. Under these facts, I find that
Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 17(c) (the offense is so minor, or so much
time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) and AG ¶ 17(e) (the individual has taken
positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or
duress) apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate
determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall
commonsense judgment based on careful consideration of the guidelines and the
whole-person concept. 
7
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is a 35-year-old custom engineer who has been continuously employed since
June 2002. He has earned a bachelor’s degree. He is single, has no children, and
recently purchased a home. After abusing alcohol intermittently from age 15 to age 32,
Applicant has been sober since July 2010. 
Several allegations were raised suggesting that Applicant intentionally falsified
certain information on a medical intake form and on his SCA. However, there is
insufficient evidence to show that his answers, while deficient, were the result of a
deliberate act to conceal or falsify. Only one answer has been shown to be the result of
intentional concealment, and it stands isolated as a singular incident unlikely to be
repeated.
Applicant’s narrative regarding his attainment of sobriety since July 2010 is brief
and plausible, but is incomplete. His explanation would be more persuasive had he
supplemented the record with recommendations or some other documentary evidence
corroborating his narrative. Without such supporting documentation, it is hard to discern
whether a period of sobriety of less than three years is sufficient to establish that
Applicant has successfully found sobriety without an undue risk of relapse. This is
particularly true given the length of time his drinking took place, and the fact he has
previously failed to stay sober after treatment. Applicant is clearly on the right track.
However, without corroboration as to his efforts to become and remain sober, I find that
there is insufficient evidence to mitigate alcohol consumption security concerns. As
previously noted, any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed
access to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such information.
Clearance is denied.
                                                                                                                                           
                                                        F  o   r m al 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.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.f-1.i: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.e: For Applicant
8
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL
Administrative Judge