1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 14-01806 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: William J. Camp, Esq. 
 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
DUFFY, James F., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline G 
(alcohol consumption). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On June 18, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications 
Facility (DOD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security 
concerns under Guideline G. DOD CAF acted 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) implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
On July 8, 2014, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing. The 
case was assigned to me on November 5, 2014. The Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on November 21, 2014, and the hearing 
was convened as scheduled on December 9, 2014. At the hearing, Department Counsel 
 
2 
 
offered Government’s Exhibits (GE) 1 through 7, while Applicant testified and offered 
Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) 1 through 7. The record was held open until December 23, 
2014, for Applicant to submit additional information. On December 15, 2014, Applicant 
submitted AE 8 and 9. All exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA 
received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on December 17, 2014.  
 
Findings of Facts 
 
Applicant is a 52-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He started working 
for his current employer in April 1985. He graduated from high school in 1980. He 
served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from June 1980 to June 1984 and 
received an honorable discharge. He has never been married and has no children. He 
has held a security clearance for over 30 years.1 
 
 The SOR listed ten Guideline G allegations. The allegations asserted that 
Applicant consumed alcohol at times to the point of intoxication from 1980 to at least 
March 2013 (SOR ¶ 1.a); that he received counseling for alcohol dependency from April 
to July 2010 and his prognosis was good if he maintained sobriety (SOR ¶ 1.b); that he 
was arrested for, or charged with, six alcohol-related driving offenses that occurred 
between 1992 and 2009 (SOR ¶¶ 1.c-1.f, 1.h, and 1.i); that he was charged with 
urinating in public in 1996 (SOR ¶ 1.g), and that he continued to consume alcohol 
notwithstanding his alcohol dependency diagnosis (SOR ¶ 1.j). In his Answer to the 
SOR, Applicant admitted each allegation. His admissions are incorporated as findings of 
fact.2  
 
 SOR ¶ 1.a. Applicant first consumed alcohol with his father when he was 18 
years old. This event occurred just before he started Marine Corps basic training in 
1980. He had no alcohol-related incidents in the Marine Corps and described his 
consumption of alcohol in the military as moderate. Following his military service, he 
indicated that he never consumed alcohol on a daily basis, but admitted that he 
engaged in binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impairment on occasion. Those 
episodes primarily occurred when he was socializing with coworkers or friends.3 
 
SOR ¶ 1.i. In December 1992, Applicant was arrested for driving under the 
influence of alcohol (DUI) and speeding. This arrest occurred while Applicant was on a 
business trip in State A. On that occasion, he attended a Christmas function at a 
restaurant with coworkers. Applicant and some of his coworkers later proceeded to a 
bar. Over a period of three to four hours, he consumed about seven to nine beers. He 
left the bar around midnight and thought that he was capable of drinking. After returning 
to the hotel, he decided to go out again to purchase some food. As he was again 
returning to the hotel, he was pulled over by the police for speeding and failing to stay in 
                                                          
1 Tr. 19-23, 146; GE 1, 2. 
2 Applicant’s Answer to the SOR. 
3 Tr. 23-29, 69-70, 80, 141-146; GE 2. 
 
3 
 
his lane. He failed a field sobriety test, was arrested, and was taken to the police 
station. A breathalyzer test indicated that his blood alcohol content (BAC) was about 
.15%. He hired an attorney to represent him in the court proceeding. Pursuant to a plea 
bargain, the DUI charge was reduced to reckless driving. He was sentenced as a first-
time DUI offender, which included a six-month suspension of his driver’s license, 
probation, a fine, and participation in a DUI prevention course. He successfully 
completed all of the court-ordered requirements.4 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.h. In January 1996, Applicant was charged in State B with operating a 
motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle without a 
license. This arrest occurred late at night after he consumed about four or five beers 
with food at a diner. Soon after leaving the diner, he was pulled over by the police for 
speeding and failing to stay in his lane. He failed a sobriety test. At the police station, he 
called an attorney’s office and obtained the attorney’s recorded message that advised 
callers not to take a breathalyzer test. Based on the attorney’s message, he refused to 
take a breathalyzer test.5 
 
 SOR ¶¶ 1.f-1.g. In October 1996, Applicant attended a birthday party at a 
billiards hall with friends. After leaving the billiards hall, he and a friend went to the same 
diner in which he ate before the January incident. During that evening, he consumed 
about five to six beers over a three to four hour period. After leaving the diner, he had a 
discussion with his friends in the parking lot. They attempted to reenter the diner to use 
the bathroom, but found it was closed. They decided to urinate in the back of the 
parking lot near a dumpster. This area was not well lit and was about 150 feet from the 
road. The police observed them and cited them for urinating in public. The police officer 
believed Applicant had been drinking alcohol, recommended that he not drive, and 
called him a taxi. The taxi arrived and was in a state of disrepair with only one headlight. 
Applicant declined the taxi service. He walked to a nearby motor inn to make a call, but 
found that building seedy. He thought about walking to his previous landlord’s house to 
request a ride home, but decided that walking through the nearby neighborhood was 
unsafe. He eventually decided to drive. Shortly after he started to drive, he was stopped 
by the police. He failed a field sobriety test. A breathalyzer test revealed his BAC was 
.218%. He was charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. 
The pending charges from the 1996 incidents were joined together in one court 
proceeding. He was convicted as a first-time DUI offender, but given double the 
punishment. He was sentenced to a two-year driver’s license suspension, fined, and 
ordered to complete community service.6  
 
As part of a security clearance inquiry in 2002, he signed an affidavit in which he 
stated:  
 
                                                          
4 Tr. 29-37, 121-122; GE 2, 3, 4. 
5 Tr. 37-52; GE 2, 4, 6, 7; AE 1.  
6 Tr. 37-52; GE 2, 4, 6, 7; AE 1.  
 
4 
 
I curtailed my drinking habits after my DUI’s because I didn’t want to even 
be put in the situation of possibly being arrested for DUI any more and 
because I wanted to stay healthy and drinking is not conducive to good 
health. I matured a lot and didn’t want my drinking to effect my job. 7 
 
 SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.e. In January 2003, Applicant was charged with DUI and 
improper lane change in State C. This occurred after an evening of eating, drinking, and 
watching football with coworkers and friends. He estimated that he consumed about six 
to seven beers over a five-to-six hour period. After he was pulled over by the police, he 
failed a field sobriety test. A breathalyzer test revealed his BAC was .16%. He retained 
an attorney and was able to postpone the court proceeding while he deployed overseas 
in support of the military. In December 2004, Applicant was arrested for DUI and 
weaving. On this occasion, Applicant first went to a friend’s house for dinner and then to 
a sports bar to watch football and socialize. Over a period of about six hours, he had 
five to six beers with dinner and two or three more at the bar. While driving after leaving 
the bar, he was pulled over by an off-duty state police officer. He failed a field sobriety 
test and refused a breathalyzer test based on advice from his attorney. The two charges 
were prosecuted in the same month. The January 2003 DUI charge was reduced to 
“occupy a seat C/F DUI,” and he was found guilty of the December 2004 DUI. He was 
sentenced to probation, fines, fees, and license suspension.8 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.c. In April 2009, Applicant was arrested for DUI in State C. After 
finishing work at 11:00 p.m., he attended a social gathering of coworkers and military 
personnel at a restaurant. He and the others were scheduled to deploy within a week. 
Over a three-and-a-half to four hour period, he consumed from five to seven alcoholic 
drinks. When driving home, he was pulled over by the police. He failed a field sobriety 
test. A blood-alcohol test revealed that his BAC was .16%. He was convicted of the DUI 
offense and was sentenced to 12 months of probation, 3 days of house arrest, 30 days 
of community service, and a fine. His driver’s license was suspended for a year. Since 
this was his second DUI in seven years, he was ordered to have an interlock system 
placed on his vehicle for six months upon reinstatement of his driver’s license. He was 
also required to undergo a “needs assessment” for alcohol treatment that resulted in his 
participation in a 17-week outpatient alcohol treatment program.9 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.b. As part of the court-ordered “needs assessment,” Applicant 
completed a questionnaire, and a determination was made that he needed further 
evaluation. He next met with a clinical evaluator who was a National Certified Addiction 
Counselor (NCAC II). The clinical evaluator interviewed him and had him fill out another 
questionnaire. This evaluation took about one-and-a-half hours. According to Applicant, 
no clinical testing was performed. The clinical evaluator diagnosed Applicant as alcohol 
dependent, but never informed Applicant of that diagnosis. He was not provided a copy 
                                                          
7 GE 4.  
8 Tr. 52-59; GE 2, 3.  
9 Tr. 59-64; GE 2, 3, 5; AE 3.  
 
5 
 
of the report. The report indicated that Applicant stated that he would no longer drink 
and drive. After that diagnosis, Applicant attended a 17-week alcohol treatment program 
from April to July 2010. A Certified Addiction Counselor II with a Ph.D. degree treated 
Applicant who successfully completed the program. In a letter dated November 14, 
2014, the addiction counselor stated: 
 
[Applicant] did well in the program and made successful strives towards 
gaining sobriety as a goal. When he completed the program, he [had] the 
tools and knowledge to make sound decisions in reference to consuming 
alcohol. The diagnosis can be updated to Alcohol Dependency, in 
Remission. However, only [Applicant] can testify to this.10 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.j. This SOR paragraph alleged, “You continue to consume alcohol 
notwithstanding your treatment for a condition diagnosed as Alcohol Dependency, as 
set forth in [SOR] subparagraph 1.b, above.” As noted above, Applicant admitted this 
allegation in July 2014 in his Answer to the SOR.  
 
 During an interview with an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator 
in March 2013, Applicant reportedly stated that he “realized the error of this [alcohol] 
use, and does not drink to excess, or drink and drive presently.” He further reportedly 
stated: 
 
[Applicant] could not recall who he first used alcohol with, or who supplied 
the alcohol. When he went into the military in 1980, [he used] more. He 
used weekly, mainly beer, on a Friday or Saturday night. He would drink to 
intoxication once a month on average. He had a designated driver, and 
was with friends, names not recalled. He continued this until 2002. He 
began to use less, as he was being sent to the Middle East in support of 
the war effort. He went months without drinking and had no alcohol 
dependence. He will consume one to two beers on the weekend at a 
cookout currently, and does not use to intoxication. He will continue this 
use into the future. He stated intoxication to him will be feeling the effects 
of alcohol so that he would not drive. He would have to have over four 
beers or more to become intoxicated. He has no intent to misuse alcohol, 
and he had no change in behavior, and no complaints about his use of 
alcohol.11 
 
 In response to his counsel’s questions about the OPM interview, Applicant 
testified as follows: 
 
[Applicant’s Counsel]: Well, now, isn’t it true that you stated previously to 
the OPM investigator that you do occasionally drink? 
                                                          
10 Tr. 64-75; GE 2; AE 2. Applicant first saw the clinical evaluator’s report as part of this security 
clearance proceeding. See Tr. 71-75.  
11 GE 2.   
 
6 
 
[Applicant]: The question he had asked was, if you do drink, what do you 
drink, how much. Now, at the time I had the interview with the OPM 
investigator, I had the interlock installed on my car. Obviously, the answer 
then was no, none, or zero. We were referring to drinking in general, my 
consumption, is where that question was, and where it came from. 
 
[Applicant’s Counsel]: Okay. Now [Applicant’s first name] --  
 
[Judge]: Well, let me ask you this question. When’s the last time you had 
any alcohol? 
 
[Applicant]: Any alcohol, sir, was about 16 months. 
 
[Judge]: You haven’t had a drink in 16 months? 
 
[Applicant]: Yes, sir.12 
 
Later during cross-examination, Applicant testified: 
 
[Department Counsel]: I know your comment that you haven’t had a drink 
in 16 months. 
 
[Applicant]: Yes, sir. 
 
[Department Counsel]: When was the last time you drank an alcoholic 
beverage, and what were the circumstances? 
 
[Applicant]: The circumstances I had an alcoholic beverage were – I 
believe it was a birthday party for my sister. 
 
[Department Counsel]: Okay. And was this at your home or someplace 
you drove to? 
 
[Applicant]: At her home. 
 
[Judge]: What month was that and year? 
 
[Applicant]: September. 
 
[Judge]: Of 2013? 
 
[Applicant]: Actually that would have been September 2012. So we’re – 
that’s what I was saying. We’re talking – it was over 18 months. 
 
[Judge]: Well, September 2012 is over two years ago. Right? 
                                                          
12 Tr. 80-81. 
 
7 
 
[Applicant]: Twenty-four months. Yes, sir. I think I said earlier 18, but it’s – 
 
[Judge]: You said 16 earlier. Why 16 months you said earlier, and now 
you’re giving us a different date? Can you explain that? 
 
[Applicant]: Yes. The date I was referring to was whenever we were taking 
about the consumption. I had also used alcohol in cooking meals as well 
as providing alcoholic beverages. Now, going back to the last time frame 
where I consumed alcohol purely as consumption was on her birthday. I’m 
sorry about the month, but I believe it was that time frame. 
 
[Judge]: So let me ask you this question. 
 
[Applicant]: Yes, sir. 
 
[Judge]: Have you had a drink of beer, wine, any other type of alcohol 
since September 2012? 
 
[Applicant]: No, sir. 
 
[Judge]: And the reason why you told us 16 months earlier, which is an 
earlier – more recent date, is because you consumed alcohol because you 
used it for cooking purposes? 
 
[Applicant]: Yes, sir.13 
 
 When asked questions to authenticate the summary of his OPM interview, 
Applicant again reiterated that his car had an interlock system installed at the time of the 
interview. The device was installed about two weeks before the interview. He stated that 
device was very sensitive and could detect if an individual consumed alcohol in the 
previous 12 hours. He stated that he was not consuming any alcohol at the time of the 
interview. He also testified that he told the investigator that he was using alcohol for 
cooking purposes, but that comment was not noted in the summary of the interview. He 
further testified that he had not been informed that he had been evaluated as alcohol 
dependent before that interview.14 
 
 In November 2014, Applicant was evaluated by a licensed psychologist who had 
a Ph.D. and was board certified in forensic psychology and neuropsychology. During 
this latest evaluation, Applicant completed interviews, questionnaires, and testing. The 
psychologist noted that neither the clinical evaluator nor the addictions counselor that 
examined Applicant earlier had the legal authority to diagnose a mental illness in that 
state. The psychologist reported that Applicant “denies any alcohol consumption in over 
                                                          
13 Tr. 113-115. 
14 Tr. 80-81, 118-121. 
 
8 
 
a year (2013) and any daily use of alcohol in the past.” In the report of his evaluation, 
the psychologist stated:  
 
[Applicant’s] score on the AUDIT was ‘5’ suggesting the episodic use of 
alcohol use in the past, but, no current use, nor a history of alcohol use 
that would indicate dependency on alcohol. His AUDIT score indicates 
that his is low risk for continued alcohol related issues. He would be 
considered a hazardous drinker, but not dependent on alcohol.  
 
The psychologist further stated “the following diagnosis is most descriptive of his alcohol 
related issues: F10.10 Alcohol Use Disorder, mild, in sustained remission since 2013.”15 
 
In a post-hearing affidavit, the psychologist indicated that, during Applicant’s 
evaluation, he was applying the standards set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical 
Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). This latest version of the DSM 
apparently no longer uses the diagnosess of “alcohol abuse” or “alcohol dependence.” 
He explained his diagnosis by stating: 
 
The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) was developed by 
the World Health Organization to screen for excessive drinking and in 
particular to help professionals identify people who would benefit from 
reducing or ceasing drinking. The AUDIT assists the professional in 
identifying whether the person being assessed has hazardous (or risky) 
drinking, harmful drinking, or alcohol dependence. Results of the AUDIT 
are consistent with ICD-10-CM and DSM5 definitions of alcohol use 
disorders and potentially harmful alcohol use. An AUDIT score of 5 
suggests that the individual is not currently suffering from any symptoms 
that would lead to being diagnosed as suffering from an Alcohol Use 
Disorder without a significant history of alcohol related issues. His DSM5 
(305.00) and ICD-10-CM (F10.10) diagnoses are the same: Alcohol Use 
Disorder, Mild, In Sustained Remission. “In Sustained Remission” means 
that the criteria necessary to diagnose an alcohol use disorder has been 
met in the past, but, none of the criteria for alcohol use disorder has been 
met at any time during a period of the last 12 months or longer. Thus, he 
is not currently experiencing any alcohol related psychiatric disorder that 
would result in questionable judgment or impact his ability to be reliable 
and trustworthy. 
 
Hazardous drinking is considered a pattern of alcohol consumption that 
increases the risk of harmful consequences for the user at the time the 
consumption occurs. Typically, individuals who are classified as having a 
hazardous drinking pattern do not present with symptoms characteristic of 
a diagnosed alcohol related disorder because the consumption is episodic 
in nature and does not cause clinically significant distress or regular 
impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. 
                                                          
15 Tr. 76-90; AE 4.   
 
9 
 
In this case, he has acknowledged that consequences of his hazardous 
drinking and realizes that any continued alcohol use has significant 
consequences for his occupational placement. Thus, he has established a 
current pattern of abstinence from alcohol as well as successfully 
completed all legally required and mandated programs because of his DUI 
history. He does not appear to be a significant risk of continuing to 
consume alcohol, exercise questionable judgment, or experience any 
failure to control his impulses.16  
 
Applicant disclosed his DUI charges and convictions in his Electronic 
Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) dated February 25, 2013. He 
testified that he self-reported each DUI incident to his supervisor after they occurred. He 
acknowledged that he had an alcohol problem, but he did not consider himself an 
alcoholic. He has had no alcohol-related incidents at work. He stated that he was not 
presently participating in any type of alcohol treatment program, including attendance at 
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. He indicated that the last time he participated in 
an AA meeting was four or five years ago. No evidence was presented that he 
participated in an employee assistance program. He testified that his intent was to not 
drink alcohol in the future.17 
 
 Applicant has worked for his current employer for almost 30 years. Over the 
years, his work performance appraisals reflect that he consistently “exceeds 
expectations.” He has received certificates and plaques recognizing his outstanding 
contributions. He has deployed overseas on a number of occasions, including to 
Kosovo and the Middle East, in support of U.S. military operations.18   
  
Applicant submitted a number of letters of reference from coworkers and friends 
attesting to his professionalism, reliability, and trustworthiness. His manager noted that 
Applicant’s job consists of traveling to remote, sometimes dangerous locations around 
the world. Two of the letters talked about his attendance at AA meetings. He has also 
been active in various community projects.19  
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
                                                          
16 Tr. 76-90; AE 4, 8, 9. See National Institutes of Health comparison between DSM–IV and DSM-V at 
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/dsmfactsheet/dsmfact.pdf. DSM–IV described two distinct disorders 
- alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence - with specific criteria for each. DSM–5 integrates the two DSM–
IV disorders, alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, into a single disorder called alcohol use disorder 
(AUD) with mild, moderate, and severe sub-classifications. 
  
17 Tr. 59, 123-126, 141-146; GE 1, 2. 
18 Tr. 90-113; AE 5, 6, 7. 
19 Tr. 90-113; AE 7. 
 
10 
 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions that are to be used 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable 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 safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about 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 Executive Order 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: 
 
11 
 
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. 
 This guideline notes several disqualifying conditions that could raise 
security concerns under AG ¶ 22. Four are potentially applicable in this case:  
(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving under the 
influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other  
incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as 
in 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 (e.g., physician, 
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol 
dependence; and  
 
(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. 
 
Between 1992 and 2009, Applicant committed six alcohol-related driving 
offenses that resulted in multiple DUI or reckless driving convictions. He acknowledged 
that he engaged in binge consumption of alcohol. In November 2009, a National 
Certified Addition Counselor (NCAC II) who performed evaluations as part of a court-
ordered alcohol “needs assessment” evaluated Applicant as alcohol dependent.20 A 
Certified Addiction Counselor from the 17-week treatment program also evaluated him 
as alcohol dependent. Later, a licensed psychologist diagnosed Applicant with alcohol 
use disorder, mild, in sustained remission.21 All of the above disqualifying conditions 
apply in this case.  
 
 AG ¶ 23 sets forth four alcohol consumption mitigating conditions: 
 
(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it 
happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or 
                                                          
20 See ISCR Case No. 07-00558 (App. Bd. Apr. 7, 2008) for a discussion of the terms “medical 
professional” and “licensed social worker.” AG ¶¶ 22(d) and 22(e) “contemplate a broad range of 
providers who, by education and by position, are qualified to diagnose and treat alcohol dependence and 
other substance abuse disorders.” In applying the guidelines, “[j]udges must be guided by common sense 
and with a view toward making a reasoned determination consistent with the interests of national 
security.” Applying that standard, AG ¶ 22(e) encompasses the alcohol dependence evaluations 
conducted by the National Certified Addiction Counselor and Certified Addiction Counselor. 
21 See note 15 above.   
 
12 
 
does not cast doubt on the individual's 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 health professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a 
staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.  
 
Applicant’s six alcohol-related driving offenses occurred over a period of 17 years 
when he was between the ages of 30 and 47. Almost six years has passed since his 
last DUI arrest. Nonetheless, given his long history of alcohol-related offenses including 
significant periods between arrests, the passage of time since the last arrest is not so 
long ago as to conclude that recurrence is unlikely. His alcohol-related driving offenses 
continue to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. AG ¶ 23(a) 
does not apply. 
 
Following his last DUI, Applicant successfully completed a 17-week alcohol 
treatment program. A certified addiction counselor indicated that Applicant did well in 
that program and made successful strives towards gaining sobriety. The counselor 
updated Applicant’s diagnosis to alcohol dependence in remission. At the time of the 
hearing, Applicant was not attending AA meetings and had not done so in four or five 
years. He had no alcohol-related incidents since completing the treatment program. 
Furthermore, a psychologist recently concluded that Applicant was not alcohol 
dependent, but diagnosed him with alcohol use disorder, mild, in sustained remission. 
Based on his evaluation, the psychologist concluded that Applicant “does not appear to 
be a significant risk of continuing to consume alcohol, exercise questionable judgment, 
or experience any failure to control his impulses.” 
 
Applicant’s varying statements about when he stopped drinking alcohol are 
troubling. Based on an interview in March 2013, an OPM investigator reported that 
Applicant was then consuming one or two beers on the weekend at a cookout and 
would continue such use in the future. At the hearing, Applicant indicated that he was 
not drinking at the time of that interview because he had an interlock device installed on 
his vehicle two weeks earlier. In his Answer to the SOR in July 2014, he admitted that 
 
13 
 
he continued to consume alcohol.22 Based on a November 2014 evaluation, a 
psychologist apparently thought that Applicant stopped consuming alcohol in 2013, i.e., 
more than a year before the evaluation with no specific date mentioned. In a less than 
convincing manner, Applicant testified that the last time he drank alcohol was in 
September 2012. His explanation for some of the varying statements, i.e., he last drank 
alcohol in September 2012 and he last consumed alcohol in cooked food 16 or 18 
months before the hearing, was not persuasive. His inconsistent statements undercut 
his claim that he has abstained from drinking alcohol since September 2012. Based on 
the record evidence, I find that Applicant failed to establish a pattern of abstinence.  
 
As part of a security clearance inquiry in 2002, Applicant signed an affidavit 
stating that he had matured and curtailed his drinking habits because he did not want to 
place himself in a situation where he could possibly be arrested for DUI. He obviously 
did not follow through on that declaration because he subsequently committed three 
more DUI offenses. His driving offenses are egregious and demonstrate a significant 
lack of reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. From the evidence presented in 
this hearing, I find that additional time is needed for Applicant to establish a pattern of 
abstinence or responsible use of alcohol so that he can demonstrate convincingly that 
his alcohol problems are behind him. AG ¶¶ 23(b) and 23(d) partially apply. AG ¶ 22(c) 
does 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. 
 
                                                          
22 The verb “continue” in SOR ¶ 1.j was written in the present tense. Of note, Applicant’s 
statement that he was never informed that he was diagnosed as alcohol dependent until receipt of the 
SOR is believable. Since the gravamen of SOR ¶ 1.j was that Applicant continued to consume alcohol 
after an alcohol dependence diagnosis, I find in favor of Applicant on that allegation.     
 
14 
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my 
comments under Guideline G in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 
2(a) were addressed under that guideline, but some warrant additional comment.  
 
Applicant served in the military for four years. He has been a valued employee of 
a defense contractor for almost 30 years. In his civilian position, he deployed overseas 
on a number of occasions in support of the U.S. military operations. Nevertheless, 
Applicant has a long history of alcohol-related offenses. Sufficient evidence was not 
presented to establish that his alcohol-related problems are behind him. Despite the 
presence of some mitigation, alcohol consumption security concerns remain.  
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the alcohol consumption security concerns.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings 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.i:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.j:   For 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. 
                                                
    
________________________ 
James F. Duffy 
Administrative Judge