1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 14-03556
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has a long history of serious and excessive alcohol consumption. He has
relapsed after a diagnosis of alcohol dependence and completion of alcohol rehabilitation
programs. The last two periods of sobriety before relapse have been less than four years.
The most recent relapse was in November 2012. Applicant’s evidence in mitigation falls
short of overcoming the security concerns associated with his excessive alcohol
consumption. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
On September 30, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under alcohol consumption (Guideline G), The
action was taken pursuant to 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
2
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the Department
of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant’s answer to the SOR was signed and notarized on October 14, 2014. He
requested a hearing. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) mailed a notice
of hearing to Applicant on January 9, 2015, scheduling a hearing for February 13, 2015.
The hearing was held as scheduled. The Government’s exhibits (GE 1-5) and Applicant’s
exhibits (AE A-B) were admitted without objection. On February 24, 2015, the transcript
was received and the record in this case closed. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR identifies two allegations under alcohol consumption (Guideline G).
Applicant admitted that he was diagnosed with alcohol dependence in 1988 and 1998. He
admitted that after his diagnosis of alcohol dependence and completion of various alcohol
rehabilitation programs, he relapsed, as recently as November 2012. 
Applicant is 60 years old and has been living with his common law wife since 1987.
They have no children. He has lived at his current address since December 1997, which
also is his work location. Applicant served in the U.S. military from 1972 until his honorable
discharge in 1981. In 1978, he began employment at his current job. Over the next three
years, he attended school full time and worked full time. He received a bachelor’s degree
in electrical engineering in 1981. (Tr. 38-39)
Applicant was born into a family of alcoholics. He began drinking when he was about
five years old. He drank in high school with friends. He was 17 years old when he joined
the U.S. Navy and did not have opportunities to drink. (Tr. 21)
In 1975, he was discharged from the Navy, and he enrolled at a university. He began
drinking a fifth of whiskey on a daily basis, and drank at that frequency until 1988. He was
arrested and convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWI) in 1986. After
completing a safety action program offered by the state division of motor vehicles, he
realized that he had to stop. He investigated different treatment programs and entered a
30-day inpatient treatment program in June 1988. He was diagnosed as alcohol dependent.
He attended seven outpatient aftercare meetings, began taking antabuse, and completed
90 Alcoholics anonymous (AA) meetings in 90 days. He promised not to use alcohol in the
future. He abstained for a little over a year. However, having stopped AA, and with no
sponsor, he resumed drinking. (GE 3 at 4, GE 4 at 5; Tr. 22)
In the early 1990s, he began drinking every day. He engaged in “maintenance
drinking,” or drinking a sufficient amount of alcohol to keep inevitable withdrawals at bey.
Though he was drinking essentially the same amount of alcohol daily, the withdrawals
became more intense. He drank until midnight and did not feel withdrawals until completion
of the following workday. He realized that he needed help so he sought treatment in April
1998. He was admitted into a hospital with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence and treated
3
in the detoxification unit for four or five days. Then he completed a comprehensive
addiction program and received a good prognosis. He was prescribed antabuse which
made him sick if he drank alcohol. He attended an outpatient treatment program. He
attended ten weeks of aftercare, meeting two nights a week with a licensed clinical social
worker (LCSW). During aftercare, a medical professional provided an updated diagnosis
of alcohol abuse and dependence. Applicant’s future intentions were to abstain from
alcohol use. He resumed his attendance in AA and was taking antabuse. He understood
he needed to continue with AA, antabuse, and his sponsor for the remainder of his life. In
the spring of 2000, Applicant was diagnosed with another serious medical condition and
advised to stop drinking or he could die, to which he stated, “That is reason enough not to
drink.” (GE 4 at 4-5; Tr. 22-24)
Between 2000 and July 2001, while taking antabuse, Applicant consumed small
amounts of alcohol on three occasions. The July 2001 incident occurred when Applicant
was on temporary duty in another part of the state. In the evening, he decided to let his
“ego” take over to determine whether he could control drinking. He explained that the “ego”
materializes when he becomes content with the AA program after a long period of sobriety.
He begins to feel confident and independent from AA and believes that one or two drinks
will not hurt him. He wants to be able to relax with his friends and drink socially. But when
the alcohol effect leaves his body, the withdrawals begin and he drinks more to keep the
withdrawals at a minimum. He consumed a bottle of wine in his hotel room. He departed
the next morning about eight a.m. for his official duty location. About noon at home,
Applicant began experiencing withdrawals so he drank two more bottles of wine. He
contacted his doctor who told him to contact the April 1998 comprehensive addiction
program for additional treatment. His AA sponsor advised him that he would receive the
same instruction within AA on how to maintain sobriety. At his sponsor’s recommendation,
Applicant increased his AA attendance from two or three meetings a week to three or more
meetings a week. (GE 4 at 8-9; Tr. 25-26, 31-32) 
Between July 2001 and 2009, Applicant consumed no alcohol. In 2009, with no
precipitating event, he let his “ego” steer him into another attempt at controlled drinking. He
started by consuming three one-ounce whiskey bottles the first day. He felt a little
uncomfortable the next day so he drank three more one-ounce bottles. When his drinking
increased to ten one-ounce bottles a day, he told his sponsor and his wife, and he entered
treatment at a hospital. He completed detoxification and reentered AA. He maintained
sobriety until November 2012 when he let his “ego” induce him into a controlled drinking
experiment. He started with three one-ounce bottles the first day and by the tenth day, he
was consuming ten one-ounce bottles at a frequency of about one bottle an hour to curb
the withdrawals. (Tr. 25-27, 30)
Following the tenth day of alcohol consumption, Applicant informed his sponsor and
his wife, and the three went to the hospital in November 2012, where Applicant was treated
for four days in the detoxification unit. Next, he successfully completed 22 weeks of
aftercare. His sponsor recommended that Applicant attend AA meetings more frequently
and speak to other AA groups about the reasons for his relapses and the steps he was
4
going to take to avoid a future recurrence. The sponsor had Applicant record the reasons
why he had his relapse. (Tr. 27-28, 53)
From 1998 to the present, Applicant has been in AA and performed volunteer work.
He is a local representative of the national AA organization. He has always attended AA
meetings even during his alcohol relapses. Neither his sponsor nor his wife could detect
his alcohol use during these relapses because the smell vanishes so rapidly. During
Applicant’s teleworking at home, he indicated it was possible that he used alcohol.
(Response to SOR; Tr. 32-34)
Applicant does not believe he will let his “ego” drive him to experiment with
controlled drinking in the future because he is committed to total sobriety like two older
members of his AA group who have been sober for 30 to 40 years. As he had stated in his
June 2002 statement, he views himself as a member of AA for the rest of his life. The major
lifestyle adjustments that Applicant has made since 1991 have been: (1) all his friends are
AA members; (2) he has successfully maintained his career without using alcohol; and (3)
he possesses a more mature outlook on life having become more secure spiritually. (Tr.
32-35, 45, 51-52)
Character Evidence
Applicant submitted two character references: one from his sponsor; and one from
the Chief operating officer (COO) and facility security officer (FSO). On January 21, 2015,
the sponsor indicated that he has held that position with Applicant since 1998. The sponsor
is aware that Applicant has been advised not to drink because of the risk of severe
withdrawals and seizures. The sponsor knows about Applicant’s relapses in 2001, 2009,
and 2012. Notwithstanding the relapses, Applicant has attended two AA meetings twice a
week since 1998. He has held various positions in AA. He has maintained abstinence for
up to eight years. The sponsor believes Applicant is committed to continuing recovery. (AE
A)
On January 9, 2015, the COO indicated he has worked with Applicant since October
2011. The company’s government customers  vouch for Applicant’s work product and his
subject matter expertise that he developed over the last 37 years. The COO has never
observed Applicant under the influence of alcohol. (AE B) 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to
classified information.
The disqualifying and mitigating conditions should also be evaluated in the context
of nine general factors known as the whole-person concept to bring together all available,
5
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision for security clearance eligibility. Such decisions entail a certain degree
of legally permissible extrapolation as to the potential, rather than actual, risk of
compromise of classified information.
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 of establishing that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him a security clearance. 
Analysis
Alcohol Consumption 
AG ¶ 21 sets forth the security concern for 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.
The disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 22 are:
(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 of alcohol abuse or
alcohol dependence; and 
(f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion
of an alcohol rehabilitation program.
Applicant has consumed alcohol since the 1960s. Upon his military discharge in
1975, he began drinking a fifth of whiskey a day until June 1988, when he admitted himself
to inpatient treatment in June 1988 for alcohol dependence. After a little over a year,
Applicant’s relapse lasted until April 1998, when he was treated for alcohol dependence.
The diagnosis was made by a duly qualified medical professional. Following detoxification,
treatment, aftercare, beginning participation in AA and taking antabuse, Applicant relapsed
twice in 2000 and learned that he had a serious life-threatening medical condition if he did
not stop drinking. He had a relapse in July 2001. Following an eight-year of abstinence, he
had a relapse in 2009 and November 2012. AG ¶¶ 22(c), 22(d), and 22(f) apply. 
6
The conditions under AG ¶ 23 that potentially mitigate Appellant’s alcohol
consumption are:
(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 an inpatient or outpatient
treatment counseling or rehabilitation along with any required after care, 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 started problematic drinking alcohol in the 1960s and continued to drink
with periods of abstinence of up to eight years between 2001 and 2009. He received
alcohol dependence diagnoses in 1988 and 1998. He received detoxification, treatment and
aftercare on three occasions in 1988, 1998, and November 2012. His sponsor increased
his AA meetings and instruction on three occasions, which were in July 2001, 2009, and
November 2012. He has completed the 12-step program and has been consistently
attending AA since 1998. Applicant’s current period of abstinence and ongoing attendance
in AA weigh in his favor. However, given his long history of alcohol dependence and his
relapses after completing three treatment programs and increased AA involvement, I am
unable to apply AG ¶ 23(a). Applicant receives some mitigation under AG ¶ 23(b) for
acknowledging his alcoholism and his 27-month period of abstinence. The mitigation he
receives under AG ¶ 23(d) is significantly reduced by his past failed rehabilitative efforts
and the absence of a recent favorable prognosis from qualified medical professional. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
the alcohol consumption guideline. I have also weighed the circumstances within the
context of nine variables known as the whole-person concept. In evaluating the relevance
of an individual's conduct, the administrative judge should consider the following factors:
AG ¶ 2(a) (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
7
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 the participation was 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 a commonsense judgment based on careful consideration of
the guidelines and the whole-person concept.
Applicant received an honorable discharge from the Navy in 1975. He began
working for his current in employer in 1978 and received his electrical engineering degree
in 1981. His one alcohol-related conviction occurred in 1986. He provided supportive
statements from his sponsor and his COO. He has been abstinent for 27 months and is
attending AA meetings twice a week. 
Applicant has a long history of excessive alcohol consumption. He exercised good
judgment in 1988 by initially seeking treatment to stop his dependence. However, he
realized that his failure to make a lasting connection with AA and a sponsor were primary
reasons for his resumption of excessive alcohol consumption in the early 1990s. However,
he resumed AA fellowship in 1998. He also began taking antabuse which makes one ill if
taken with alcohol. In the spring of 2000, Applicant learned he had a medical condition that
posed additional health problems. Yet, his “ego” led him into three additional relapses in
2001, 2009, and November 2012, even with his continuous AA attendance and guidance
from his sponsor since 1998. In light of his history of excessive alcohol consumption and
repeated relapses, it is still premature to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance
at this time. Having weighed the disqualifying evidence with the mitigating evidence, and
in the context of the whole-person concept, Applicant has not fully mitigated the security
concerns associated with the alcohol consumption guideline. See 2(a)(1) through 2(a)(9).
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): AGAINST APPLICANT
      Subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b: Against Applicant
8
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge