DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of:                                           )
                                                                    )
----------------------------------                  )     ISCR Case No. 14-03887
                                                          )
                                                                     )
Applicant for Security Clearance                  )
Appearances
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
 Decision
______________
WESLEY, Roger C., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I conclude that
Applicant mitigated the security concerns regarding her alcohol consumption.  Eligibility
for access to classified information is granted. 
Statement of the Case
On October 2, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated
Adjudications facility (CAF), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, which detailed reasons why DOD adjudicators could not
make the affirmative determination of eligibility for a security clearance, and
recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether her clearance
should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. The action was taken under Executive
Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information 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 (AGs) implemented by DOD on September 1, 2006.  
2
Applicant responded to the SOR on October 17, 2014, and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on December 5, 2014. The case was scheduled for
hearing on January 15, 2015, by video teleconference. A hearing was held on the
scheduled date for the purpose of considering whether it would be clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant, continue, deny, or revoke Applicant’s security clearance. At
the hearing, the Government's case consisted of two exhibits (GEs 1-2); Applicant relied
on one witness (herself) and six exhibits (AEs A-F). The transcript (Tr.) was received on
January 26, 2015. 
Summary of Pleadings
Under Guideline G, Applicant allegedly was charged with (a) multiple alcohol-
related incidents (four in all) between December 2009 and January 2011 and (b) failure
to comply with police/flagman/fire fighter and obstruct law enforcement in August 2009
Under Guideline E, Applicant allegedly (a) indicated in a subject interview with an
authorized investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in June 2013
that he stopped consuming alcohol following his 2010 DUI arrest, after which he was
charged again for an alcohol-related arrest in 2011.
In her response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the alcohol-related allegations of
subparagraphs 1.c and 1.d, and in addressing subparagraph 1.e, she admitted to being
arrested for failure to comply and obstruction. But she denied the allegations contained
in subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b. She claimed that the 1.a and 1.b allegations did not
involve new alcohol-related incidents, but only court processing related to her 2010 DUI
incident. Addressing the allegations in subparagraph 2.a and 2.b, Applicant admitted the
incorporated alcohol-related allegations in subparagraphs 1.c-1.d and to the incorporated
allegations of subparagraph 1.e as revised, but denied the allegations related to
subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b. She repeated her claims that she was not involved in any
separate alcohol-related incidents in 2011.
Procedural Issues
Before the opening statements and presentations of evidence, Department
Counsel moved to withdraw the allegations contained in subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b and
2.a and 2.b. There being no objections, and for good cause shown, Department
Counsel’s motion was granted. 
Prior to Applicant’s presentation of her evidence, Department Counsel moved to
incorporate Applicant’s opening statement in her case-in-chief. There being no
objections, and for good cause shown, Department Counsel’s motion was granted. 
      Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 30-year-old mobile assistant station manager for a defense
contractor who seeks a security clearance. The allegations covered in the SOR and
3
admitted by Applicant are adopted as relevant and material findings.  Additional findings
follow.
Background
Applicant married in July 2008 and separated from her husband in January 2013.
(GEs 1 and 2)  At the time of her separation, she was deployed abroad by her current
employer. (GE 2) Her divorce was finalized in September 2013. (Tr. 28)  She has no
children from this marriage. 
Applicant attended college between May 2007 and May 2009 and earned a
bachelor’s degree in May 2009 from a recognized university. She earned college credits
in 2011 and 2012 in pharmacy technician training and is currently pursuing a master’s
degree from a recognized university. (GE 1; Tr. 27) 
In her employment as an assistant station manager for a world-wide disaster relief
organization, Applicant works with volunteers, service members, and the community.
(GE 1; Tr. 41, 54-55) She requires a security clearance in her current deployment for
access to installation processing for locating military members on service networks. (Tr.
55-56) She has been employed by her current employer for four years. (Tr. 29)
Alcohol history
Applicant was introduced to alcohol at age 17 by high school friends. (GE 2) By
the age of 21, she frequently engaged in binge drinking, once or twice a week on tequila,
either at home or in bars. (GE 2) Alcohol consumption would often make her irrational
and emotional. Still, Applicant did not think she had an alcohol problem. In retrospect,
she recognizes that she was drinking excessively. (GE 2; Tr. 26) She attributed her
excessive drinking to poor self esteem. Alcohol affected her home life. (GE 2)
In August 2009, Applicant was arrested for making false statements and
obstruction of law enforcement.  She had consumed alcohol and became intoxicated at
home. (GE 2) After falsely calling police and telling the responder she had been
attacked, she told police who arrived at her house that she had not made the call and
verbally abused the investigating police officer. (GE 2) She was then arrested and
transported to a local police station for processing.  After holding Applicant for two days,
she was released without any filed charges. (GE 2)
Four months later (in December 2009), Applicant was arrested and charged with
driving under the influence (DUI). (GE 2) She had been out with a friend at a bar and
became intoxicated. While driving home, she was stopped by police and administered a
field sobriety test.  Therefter, the arresting officer transported her to a local police station
where she was administered a Breathalyzer test. After recording a .28 BAC, she was
charged with DUI, processed, and released to a friend.  When she appeared in court,
she pled guilty to the charge and was placed on two years probation, with the possibility
4
the charge would be dropped if she did not commit a repeat offense within a two-year
period. (GEs 1 and 2) 
Applicant continued to consume alcohol, and in November 2010, she was
arrested and charged with DUI.  She was out drinking and became intoxicated.  While
driving, she was pulled over by police. When she refused roadside sobriety and
Breathalyzer tests, she was transported to a local police station and charged with DUI-
Gross Misdemeanor. (GE 2) 
When Applicant appeared in court with her retained attorney in January 2011 to
answer the 2010 DUI charges, she was granted deferred prosecution status and ordered
to attend an intensive outpatient treatment program for alcohol dependency. (GE2 and
AEs E and F) Applicant was placed on four years of supervised probation, with the
possibility that the charge would be dropped if she did not commit any repeat offenses
within her two-year probation period. (GE 2 and AEs E and F) 
Applicant’s probation conditions included a five-year interlock requirement. (AE E)
When preparing for an overseas assignment in 2011, she removed the interlock from her
car and turned in her driver’s license. (AE E; Tr. 45) In August 2012, her driving
privileges were reinstated, subject to continued interlock requirements. (Tr. 45-46)  Since
relocating to her overseas post, though, she no longer has an interlock device on her
car. (Tr. 46-47) 
In January 2011, Applicant entered a two-year outpatient program for persons
with alcohol problems and received a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. (GE 2 and AEs
A-D; tr. 27) Her treatment plan included group psychotherapy sessions and individual
counseling. (AE A) She completed a prime for life course (12 hours of alcohol and drug
information), classes with a victim impact panel, and alcohol and drug education
sessions. And she attended 12-step sober support group sessions. (AE B) 
Applicant’s treatment records confirmed that she was fully compliant with her
treatment plan and completed her two-year plan with a diagnostic impression of alcohol
dependence, in early full remission, in June 2012. (AE C). She was counseled to follow
up with counseling and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings once she returned to the
United States. (AE C) During her two years of outpatient treatment, she remained
abstinent and expressed no intention to resume drinking.
Once Applicant returned to the United States, she self-referred herself to a
licensed substance abuse counselor for a comprehensive clinical assessment. (AE D)
After briefing her counselor on her alcohol history and outpatient treatment, her
substance abuse counselor recommended that she address issues related to alcohol
dependence. (AE D) Her counselor credited her with being completely cooperative,
open, honest, and motivated to manage her life and address her daily stressors. He
noted her initiated efforts to reach out to her community for support and to involve herself
with her local AA chapter. (AE D) He credited her with complying with all treatment-
related requirements.
5
Applicant attributed many of her most recent alcohol problems to her ex-husband.
She characterized their relationship as one “built around alcohol.” (Tr. 52) Her ex-
husband was never supportive of her recovery efforts and continued his drinking in her
presence without her approval. (Tr. 53-54) His continued drinking around her presented
an ongoing challenge to her own recovery efforts. (Tr. 53-54)
Applicant’s mother (a therapist and educator in the substance abuse field) and
stepfather have remained very supportive of Applicant’s recovery. (Tr. 49-51) The
mother credited Applicant with making “great strides in her recovery, building a life that
demonstrates great promise of contributing to our society and our world.” (AE F) She
expressed confidence in Applicant’s compliance with her court-imposed conditions
associated with her 2010 DUI charges and corroborated her participation “in group and
individual counseling as well as attending AA meetings.” (AE F) 
Applicant continues to practice abstinence. She has not consumed alcohol since
November 2010. (Tr. 44, 58-59) She has completed an AA-sponsored 12-step program
with the support of her sponsors and found her AA participation to be very helpful in her
efforts to maintain her abstinence. (Tr. 60) She participates in meetings with AA support
groups when she is not working abroad.  And she is confident in her ability to avoid any
future slips or relapses. (Tr. 61-62) Although she remains under the court’s five-year
probation order, she has no more reporting requirements to fulfill. (Tr. 47-48)
Endorsements 
Applicant is well regarded by her station manager who credits her with an
exceptional work ethic and a demonstrated desire to grow professionally. (AE F) She
praised Applicant for overcoming obstacles with grace and courage and characterized
her as a strong, kind, gracious friend who she can depend on. Colleagues and
volunteers who know and have worked with Applicant extolled her strong character and
demonstrated stellar moral guidance and professional judgment. (AE F)
Policies
The AGs list guidelines to be used by administrative judges in the decision-
making process covering DOHA cases. These guidelines take into account factors that
could create a potential conflict of interest for the individual applicant, as well as
considerations that could affect the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to
protect classified information. These guidelines include "[c]onditions that could raise a
security concern and may be disqualifying” (disqualifying conditions), if any, and many of
the "[c]onditions that could mitigate security concerns.”  
These AGs must be considered before deciding whether or not a security
clearance should be granted, continued, or denied. The guidelines do not require
administrative judges to place exclusive reliance on the enumerated disqualifying and
mitigating conditions in the guidelines in arriving at a decision. Each of the guidelines is
to be evaluated in the context of the whole person in accordance with AG ¶ 2(c) 
6
In addition to the relevant AGs, administrative judges must take into account the
pertinent considerations for assessing extenuation and mitigation set forth in AG ¶ 2(a)
of the revised AGs, which are intended to assist the judges in reaching a fair and
impartial commonsense decision based upon a careful consideration of the pertinent
guidelines within the context of the whole person. The adjudicative process is designed
to examine a sufficient period of an applicant’s life to enable predictive judgments to be
made about whether the applicant is an acceptable security risk. 
When evaluating an applicant’s conduct, the relevant guidelines are to be
considered together with the following ¶ 2(a) factors: (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 chances; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence.
Viewing the issues raised and evidence as a whole, the following adjudication
policy concerns are pertinent herein:
Alcohol Consumption
The Concern: 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. AG ¶ 21.
    
Burden of Proof
Under the Directive, a decision to grant or continue an Applicant's request for
security clearance may be made only upon a threshold finding that to do so is clearly
consistent with the national interest. Because the Directive requires administrative
judges to make a commonsense appraisal of the evidence accumulated in the record,
the ultimate determination of an applicant's eligibility for a security clearance depends, in
large part, on the relevance and materiality of that evidence. As with all adversarial
proceedings, the judge may draw only those inferences which have a reasonable and
logical basis from the evidence of record. Conversely, the judge cannot draw factual
inferences that are grounded on speculation or conjecture.
The Government's initial burden is twofold: (1) It must prove by substantial
evidence any controverted facts alleged in the SOR; and (2) it must demonstrate that the
facts proven have a material bearing to the applicant's eligibility to obtain or maintain a
security clearance.  The required showing of material bearing, however, does not require
the Government to affirmatively demonstrate that the applicant has actually mishandled
or abused classified information before it can deny or revoke a security clearance.
7
Rather, consideration must take account of cognizable risks that an applicant may
deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information.
Once the Government meets its initial burden of proof of establishing admitted or
controverted facts, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant for the purpose of
establishing his or his security worthiness through evidence of refutation, extenuation or
mitigation of the Government's case.  Because Executive Order 10865 requires that all
security clearances be clearly consistent with the national interest, “security-clearance
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” See Department of the
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).
Analysis
Applicant is a conscientious and dependable mobile assistant station manager for
a world-wide disaster relief organization who presents with a considerable history of
alcohol-related arrests (three in all) over a two-year period spanning 2009 and 2010.
Principal security issues raised in this case center on Applicant’s history of alcohol-
related offenses. While not alleged in the SOR, her ensuing alcohol dependence
diagnosis raises additional security concerns.
Applicant’s recurrent problems with abusive drinking and alcohol-related arrests
(three in all) over a two-year period raise initial concerns over her risk of recurrent
alcohol abuse. On the strength of the evidence presented, two disqualifying conditions
(DC) of the AGs for alcohol consumption (AG ¶ 21) may be applied: DC ¶ 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;” DC ¶ 22(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;” and DC ¶ 22(d), “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical
professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or
dependence.  
Once she was diagnosed as alcohol dependent in her outpatient program for
substance abuse, Applicant accepted comprehensive group and individual therapy
sessions over the course of the ensuing two years. Her faithful commitments to her
outpatient program earned her praise from her treatment counselors and ultimately her
certification of completion of her two-year substance abuse counseling program. 
Applicant’s successful treatment efforts and sustained abstinence for over four
years entitle her to the benefit  of MC ¶ 23(a) of Guideline G, “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,” and MC ¶ 23(c), “the individual is a current
employee who is participating in a counseling or treatment program, has no history of
8
previous treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress,” MC ¶ 23(a) and
MC ¶ 23(c) are fully applicable to Applicant’s situation.
Depending on the diagnosis, Applicant’s continued abstinence or drinking at light
to abusive levels could be an important consideration in determining what weight to
assign to her reformed drinking claims. See ISCR Case 02-03186 (App. Bd. Feb. 16,
2006); ISCR Case 01-20579, at 5 (App. Bd. Apr. 14, 2004). In Applicant’s case, she was
diagnosed alcohol dependent, accepted her diagnosis, and pursued counseling and
treatment of her condition. Her probative years of abstinence over a four-year period is
impressive and reflects a concerted determination on her part to remain alcohol-free. Her
completion of her two-year counseling program and continued abstinence with the aid of
support groups (i.e, AA and family networks) augur well for her in her commitments to
avert any future recurrence.
Considering Applicant’s demonstrated rehabilitation efforts over a sustained
period  of time, her favorable prognosis, and the absence of any recurrent alcohol-
related arrests since 2010, she may take advantage of two additional mitigating
conditions: MC ¶ 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),” and  MC ¶ 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 a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff
member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.”
Historically, the Appeal Board has emphasized the importance of a strong
rehabilitation program and a seasoned track record. See ISCR Case No. 06-17541 (App.
Bd. Jan. 14, 2008); ISCR Case No. 04-10799 (App. Bd. Nov. 9, 2007); ISCR Case No.
05-16753 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Aug. 2, 2007). Applicant has met these requirements with an
impressive showing of outpatient treatment and sustained abstinence over a four-year
period with the aid of her AA and family support groups.
Taking into account both Applicant’s history of alcohol abuse and incidents away
from work and corresponding solid probative evidence of a seasoned track record of
abstinence (both with and without probation reporting requirements), the applicable
guidelines, and a whole-person assessment of her avoidance of alcohol following her
latest DUI in 2010, it is safe to conclude that Applicant’s alcohol dependence diagnosis is
in full remission and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
Based on both Applicant’s showing of sustained abstinence, aided by counseling
and continued support from her AA and family networks and a whole-person assessment
of Applicant’s overall trust and reliability with her colleagues and family, conclusions are
9
warranted that Applicant has mitigated security concerns over her history of abusive
drinking.
Formal Findings
   
In reviewing the allegations of the SOR in the context of the findings of fact,
conclusions, and the factors and conditions listed above, I make the following separate
formal findings with respect to Applicant's eligibility for a security clearance.
GUIDELINE G ( ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION):      FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b:    Withdrawn 
Subparagraphs 1.c-1.e:               For Applicant
GUIDELINE E (PERSONAL CONDUCT)    WITHDRAWN
Subparagraphs: 2.a and 2.b:                     Withdrawn               
                    
Conclusions
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant's security clearance.
Clearance is granted.
                                  
Roger C. Wesley
Administrative Judge