1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-08629
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Sean R. Dunn, Esquire
December 13, 2013
______________
Decision
______________
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge:
Applicant engaged in a series of alcohol-related and criminal violations from 1980
to 2010. 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
On February 8, 2013, the Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons
(SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
and Guideline J, Criminal Conduct. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO)
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 (AG) effective September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR on March 18, 2013, and did not request a hearing.
He subsequently requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was
2
assigned to me on October 11, 2013. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on October 16, 2013, scheduling the hearing for
November 4, 2013. Applicant requested a continuance and based upon good cause it
was continued to November 20, 2013. The hearing was convened as scheduled. The
Government offered Exhibits (GE) 1 through 6. GE 1 through GE 3, GE 5, and GE 6
were admitted without objection. Applicant’s Counsel objected to the admission of GE 4
because the police report was redacted to conceal the identity of the victim. I overruled
the objection. Applicant offered Exhibits (AE) A through F, which were admitted without
objection. (Tr. 29-35.) Applicant testified on his own behalf and called one witness.
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on December 3, 2013.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 55 years old. He served on active duty in the Navy 1979 to 1985,
and achieved the rate of petty officer first class (E-6). He has been working for as a
government contractor since 1985. He has held a security clearance since joining the
Navy in 1979. He is divorced and has two adult children. He is engaged to be married to
his current girlfriend, who testified on his behalf. (AE  4; Tr. 42-47, 63-64, 66-67, 141.)
Applicant began consuming alcohol when he was in high school. He consumed
beer at home on the weekends. Eventually, he altered his drinking habits to include
consuming bourbon as well as  beer at home on the weekends. He indicated he did not
drink socially and did not frequent bars. He explained that it took him two cans of beer
to get buzzed and he felt intoxicated after five cans of beer. (GE 4.)
Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in
February 1980. Applicant’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) was .12%. He was found guilty
of DUI and fined $200. The Navy also required Applicant to complete a Naval Alcohol
Safety Action Program. (GE 3; GE 4; Tr. 64, 106.)
Applicant was arrested for DUI in approximately October 1981. He was found
guilty, fined, and his driver’s licenses was suspended for three years. (GE 3; GE 4; Tr.
65-66.)
Applicant was arrested for DUI in 1992. He indicated his BAC was .19%. He was
found guilty of DUI. He was sentenced to serve two days in jail and was fined
approximately $1,600. His drivers license was suspended. He attended a court ordered
alcohol-awareness class twice a week for three months after this incident, according to
his statement to an investigator. He was also required to participate in 10 Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) meetings. (GE 3; GE 4; Tr. 69, 81, 107, 109.)
Alcohol also played a role in Applicant’s divorce and child custody agreement
with his first wife. Applicant’s custody agreement required him to “attend AA meetings”
and “begin therapy to address substance abuse issues.” Applicant testified that he went
to AA as required by the court in order to see his children, but that he continued to
consume alcohol.  (GE 5; Tr. 83-86, 110-112.)
3
In February 2010 Applicant was arrested and charged with “hit and run w[ith]
injury” and “DUI w[ith] injury,” a felony. Applicant pled guilty to the reduced charge of hit
and run with property damage, a misdemeanor, and the remaining charges were
dismissed. He was fined $800, required to perform 40 hours of community service, and
placed on probation for three years. Applicant is still on probation for this offense. He
testified that this was not an alcohol-related offense, but admitted to becoming
intoxicated at his home after he committed the hit and run violation. His BAC was .20%.
(GE 4; GE 6; AE A; AE B; AE C; Tr. 71-72, 96-104, 120-128
After Applicant’s February 2010 arrest, he abstained for alcohol use for over one
year. However, he decided to resume alcohol use sometime after he met with an
investigator regarding his clearance in April 2011. He testified:
For the year--almost a year--I think about that--after the "hit and run," I
went on the wagon type a thing. But it was on my own. I did it by myself.
After a while I thought, I'm no alcoholic, you know. That's--it's
embarrassing to admit something like that. It means that I don't have
control, and I don't have the power, and to--to--I don't have the will-power.
So I can have a beer to drink at lunch . . . (Tr. 77-79.)
Similarly, in Applicant’s Answers to Interrogatories dated July 20, 2012, Applicant
indicated he had resumed alcohol consumption. However, in January 2013, Applicant
joined AA and testified he has not consumed any alcohol since then. His sobriety date is
January 31, 2013.  He participates in AA once a week. A letter from his sponsor
indicated that Applicant “actively participates” and “is on a successful path to continued
sobriety.” He acknowledged that he is an alcoholic and is powerless over alcohol.
Applicant has not participated in any counseling or rehabilitation program, but testified
he will seek professional help if  he relapses. He testified that he has no intent to drink
alcohol again, but could not guarantee abstinence. (Answer; AE D; Tr. 73-76, 87-95,
107, 113-119, 136-140.)
Applicant is well respected by those who know him, as verified by the witness
who testified on his behalf. Additionally, Applicant presented letters of recommendation
that attest to the high quality of his character and lack of security clearance violations.
Applicant has been presented a number of achievement awards for his exceptional
performance. (AE E; AE F; Tr. 42-59.)
Policies
W hen 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 and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
4
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines 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(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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance
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
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 EO 10865 provides that adverse 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).  
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.
5
AG ¶ 22 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The DCs raised by the evidence are:
(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
(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.    
 
Applicant was convicted of three DUI incidents spanning from 1980 to 1992. He
also was alleged to have been intoxicated when he committed the hit and run violation
in 2010. W hether or not he was intoxicated at the time of the 2010 incident, he was
intoxicated at the time of his arrest. Applicant has a 30-year history of making poor
decisions after becoming intoxicated. These incidents raise security concerns under AG
¶¶ 22(a) and 22(c).
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 very lengthy history of frequent alcohol abuse, leading to a series
of criminal charges and other incidents of bad judgment. He previously tried to abstain
6
from alcohol for at least one extended period, but resumed abusive consumption. Not
enough time has passed to determine that Applicant will be successful in his efforts to
abstain from alcohol use. I cannot hold that recurrence is unlikely or that doubts
concerning his judgment and reliability are resolved. Mitigation was not established
under AG ¶ 20(a). 
Applicant claims sobriety since January 31, 2013, but not enough time has
passed to establish a pattern of abstinence. He has maintained his recent sobriety for
less than one year. He has experienced longer periods of abstinence, but resumed
drinking alcohol. W hile he now has the assistance of AA, he has been to AA in the past,
such as when he was court ordered to attend in 1992 and 2000. Applicant failed to
participate in any extended formal counseling, although it appears he attended court
ordered counseling as a result of the custody agreement and relapsed. Accordingly,
Applicant failed to establish mitigation under the terms of AG ¶¶ 23 (b), 23(c), or 23(d).
Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 30 expresses the security concern pertaining to criminal conduct:
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.
AG ¶ 31 describes conditions that could generate a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The conditions potentially raised by the evidence are AG ¶ 31:
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; and
(d) individual is currently on parole or probation.
Applicant has been arrested four times, between 1980 and 2010, for multiple
serious offenses. Additionally, he is currently on probation for his 2010 conviction. AG
¶¶ 31(a) and 31(c) are raised by the record. 
AG ¶ 32 provides conditions that could mitigate criminal conduct security
concerns. They are as follows:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur
and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment; and
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited
to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or
constructive community involvement.
7
Applicant’s DUI’s occurred because he has a problem with alcohol. Similarly, his
judgment during his arrest in 2010 was impaired as a result of his alcohol consumption.
As noted above, while Applicant has been sober since January 31, 2013, he has not yet
demonstrated that future instances of criminal behavior are unlikely to recur. He has not
yet demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation. Nor has sufficient time without recurrence
passed, given that Applicant’s violations span a 30-year time frame. AG ¶¶ 32(a) and
32(d) do not apply.
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. 
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 provided exceptional
service to the United States during his Navy service and subsequent employment as a
government contractor. He is well-respected by those that know him. However,
Applicant is a mature individual who is accountable for his choices and actions. He built
a 30-year-long pattern of criminal infractions, most of which were alcohol-related. The
potential for exploitation or duress is undiminished, and insufficient time has passed
since his last arrest in February 2010 and last drink in January 2013 to conclude that
recurrence is unlikely. 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
criminal conduct.
8
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.e: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
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.
                                              
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Administrative Judge