1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-04038
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Eric A. Eisen, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the security concerns generated by his history of problem
alcohol consumption. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On October 6, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing
security concerns under Guideline G, alcohol consumption. The action was taken under
Executive Order 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).
Applicant answered the SOR on October 7, 2014, admitting subparagraphs 1.a,
1.c, and 1.d, and admitting in part, and denying, in part, subparagraph 1.b. Also in his
response to the SOR, Applicant requested a hearing. On January 12, 2015, the case
2
was assigned to me. On January 21, 2015, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling
the case for February 13, 2015. At the hearing, I received four Government exhibits
marked as Government Exhibit (GE) 1 through 4, in addition to one Applicant exhibit
marked as Applicant’s Exhibits (AE A). I received the transcript (Tr.) on February 20,
2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 43-year-old married man. He graduated from high school in 1989
and entered the U.S. Air Force shortly thereafter. After basic training, he completed the
Airman Leadership School and was the class valedictorian. (Tr. 15) Applicant was
honorably discharged in 1998. (Tr. 17)
Since 1998, Applicant has worked in the electronics and avionics fields. (Tr. 18;
GE 1 at 13-17) In 2001, he joined the Air National Guard (the Guard). Over the years,
he has served in multiple overseas deployments, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Tr.
19-26) Applicant retired honorably from the Guard in 2013. (Tr. 44)
Applicant is highly respected by supervisors and coworkers in both his civilian
and military careers. His current program manager characterizes him as a superb
employee who often sacrifices comfort for mission. (AE A at 2) According to a previous
supervisor, he is a responsible individual with a great work ethic. (AE A at 6) According
to a manager of a project that Applicant supports, his “work product is at the top of the
pyramid” of the technical service engineers who support the project. (AE A at 7) Also,
Applicant is an extremely team-oriented individual who once took an overseas double
rotation over the Christmas holidays so that his fellow coworkers could spend the
holidays at home. (AE A at 7) According to his former Guard supervisor, Applicant’s
work “was always highly professional and of excellent quality.” (AE A at 1) 
In November 2003, Applicant failed a field sobriety test after being stopped by
the police. Subsequently, he was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle
under the influence of alcohol (DUI). (Tr. 21) The police officer did not administer a
breathalyser test until she took Applicant to the police station. There, Applicant’s blood
alcohol content measured below the legal DUI threshold. Consequently, the court
reduced the charge to public intoxication, a misdemeanor. (Tr. 21) Ultimately, Applicant
was awarded non-judicial punishment of a reduction in rank.  
In August 2006, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI after failing a
breathalyzer at a roadside checkpoint. (Tr. 23) His blood/alcohol content was .086. (Tr.
23) The following month, he was convicted. The court suspended his driver’s license for
45 days, fined him, and ordered him to attend alcohol abuse counseling. Applicant
attended the counseling, as ordered. The sessions were two nights per week for one
hour each night, over an approximately eight-week period. (GE 1 at 34) Applicant “got
nothing out of [the] counseling” because it focused primarily on hard drug abuse. (Tr.
24) 
3
One evening in August 2012, Applicant drank five to six beers over the course of
five hours while out with friends. (Tr. 26) Later, while riding home on his motorcycle in
the far right lane of an expressway, a car cut across three lanes to exit a ramp in front of
him. Enraged, Applicant exited the expressway at the same ramp, accelerated around
the car and cut in front of it. Unable to stop, the driver of the car hit Applicant’s
motorcycle from behind, throwing Applicant from the motorcycle. The automobile driver
then left the scene without stopping. Bystanders called the police. Applicant was taken
to the emergency room, administered a blood alcohol test, arrested, and charged with
DUI. (Tr. 28-30) In December 2012, Applicant was found guilty. His driver’s license was
suspended for 60 days and he was fined $818. (GE 4 at 1) Also, the court ordered
Applicant to attend alcohol abuse counseling. (GE 4 at 2)
Applicant attended the alcohol abuse counseling, as ordered. It lasted four to five
weekends and consisted of two sessions each weekend, lasting eight to nine hours per
session. (Tr. 37) Applicant considered it very productive. He learned that alcohol affects
one’s motor function, reaction time, and decision-making ability regardless of whether
one can subjectively feel its effects.  (Tr. 31) Applicant was never diagnosed as either
alcohol abusive or alcohol dependent. (Tr. 40)
Applicant reduced his alcohol consumption after the 2012 arrest. He no longer
drinks at bars, and he does not plan on ever drinking and driving again. (Tr. 36-37)
Although he did not express an intention to quit drinking entirely, he has not had an
alcoholic beverage in three months. (Tr. 34)
Applicant’s former Guard supervisor, a mental health counselor in his civilian
capacity, frequently travelled with Applicant on temporary duty assignments over the
course of seven years. During off-duty hours they would occasionally go out to dinner
and bars. His former Guard supervisor never saw him consume more than two alcoholic
beverages and never observed him intoxicated. (AE A)
Applicant’s former Guard supervisor also has a personal relationship with
Applicant, having lived with him for six months while in the process of relocating. During
this time, he never observed Applicant having a drink when he came home from work.
Although they sometimes went out to dinner and consumed drinks, his former Guard
supervisor never observed him drink more than two drinks per sitting and never
observed him intoxicated. 
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing
the complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in
the adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(a), 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.
4
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.” 
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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a security clearance.
Analysis
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
Under this guideline, “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). Applicant’s history of
alcohol-related criminal offenses triggers the application of AG ¶¶ 22(a), “alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving under the influence . . . ,” and 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.”
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 23(a) are potentially applicable:
(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); 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 . . . abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations, such as participation in
meetings of AA 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’s most recent alcohol-related arrest occurred approximately two and a
half years ago. After that arrest and subsequent conviction, he received approximately
80 hours of counseling over a four to five week period. After the arrest, he reduced his
5
alcohol consumption, and he currently has not consumed an alcohol beverage in three
months.
These facts, together with Applicant’s outstanding character references,
particularly the reference from his former Guard supervisor concerning his drinking
habits, lead me to conclude that all of the above-reference mitigating conditions 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 the 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.
Applicant’s alcohol-related offenses constitute serious misconduct. Because
Applicant was 30 when the first arrest occurred, age and immaturity are not mitigating
factors. However, Applicant’s modification of his drinking habits after attending
counseling, the length of time that has elapsed since the last offense, and his
outstanding character references compel me to conclude that he has mitigated the
security concern.
Formal 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.d: For Applicant
6
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                            
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge