KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline E; Guideline J
DIGEST: The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  Applicant failed to rebut
the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASE NO: 11-12875.a1
DATE: 09/17/2013
DATE: September 17, 2013
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 11-12875
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
February 13, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline E (Personal
Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2,
1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June 10, 2013, after the hearing,
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied
Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28
and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
2
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant is an employee of a Federal contractor.  He served in the U.S. military from 1989
to 1995.  Applicant has a history of alcohol-related conduct.  He was charged with DUI in 1998, his
blood alcohol concentration (BAC) measuring .11% and .12%.  His sentence included three years
of probation.  This incident was not alleged in the SOR.
In 2002, Applicant was again arrested and charged with DUI.  This time his BAC was .18%
and .19%.  His sentence included summary probation, 14 days confinement, a fine, and 18 months
of restricted driving privileges.
In 2011, he was arrested and charged with DUI, his BAC measuring .20% and .22%.  His
sentence included summary probation and 96 hours confinement, which was stayed.  
In 2012, Applicant was cited for public intoxication, his BAC measuring .29%.  He had been
celebrating his birthday at a neighbor’s house.  Local law enforcement authorities concluded that
he was unable to exercise care for his own safety and the safety of others.  Applicant did not report
this incident to probation officials.   
Applicant stopped drinking in December 2012 and was last intoxicated the previous July.
He attends alcoholics anonymous (AA) on an irregular basis.  He has two sponsors in AA, one of
whom is his brother.  
The Judge’s Analysis
Concluding that Applicant’s problems with alcohol raised security concerns under each of
the Guidelines alleged in the SOR, the Judge decided that Applicant had failed to meet his burden
of persuasion regarding mitigation.  He cited to evidence of the long-standing nature of Applicant’s
alcohol problems, the circumstances underlying his criminal charges, and the relative recency of his
efforts at sobriety.  He noted that Applicant remained on probation at the close of the record.  
Discussion
Applicant cites to matters outside the record, which we cannot consider.  Directive ¶ E3.1.29.
He also cites to evidence of his AA attendance and his commitment to sobriety.  He argues that he
has established a clear pattern of abstinence.  The Judge discussed the favorable aspects of
Applicant’s record. However, given evidence of the frequency and seriousness of Applicant’s
alcohol-related infractions and that two of Applicant’s offenses occurred after a two-year effort at
abstinence (Tr. at 39-40; Government Exhibit 2, Answers to Interrogatories, at 8), the Judge’s
conclusion that Applicant had not been abstinent for a period sufficient to demonstrate genuine
rehabilitation was supportable.  Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the Judge
considered all of the evidence in the record or that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 11-06157 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 20, 2012).
3
The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general standard is that a clearance may
be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”  Department
of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt
concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor
of the national security.”  
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan          
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields               
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody               
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board