Applicant answered the SOR in February 2013. A discussion concerning the age of the case can be found      1
in the Tr. Pages 22-23. I received the case on April 27, 2015.
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-06357
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Jacob Ranish, Esq.
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A, Administrative Judge:
On January 4, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline G (Alcohol
Consumption and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions). The action was taken under
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February
20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in September
2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing before an
administrative judge.  A notice of hearing was sent on June 1, 2015, scheduling the1
hearing for July 14, 2015. The Government submitted 19 exhibits (GX 1-19), which
were admitted into the record. Applicant submitted six exhibits (AX A-G), which were
2
admitted into the record. Four witnesses testified on behalf of Applicant. Based on a
review of the pleadings, submissions, testimony and exhibits, I find Applicant met his
burden regarding the security concerns raised. Security clearance is granted.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations under
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), with the exception of SOR 1.c. He admitted the
factual allegations under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), with the exception of
SOR 2.b.
Applicant is a 39-year-old industrial security specialist working for a defense
contractor. He served in the United States Navy from 1999 until 2005. (GX 1) He
attended a military academy but did not graduate. He received his undergraduate
degree in 2002. He is single and has no children. He has worked in the defense
contracting field since 2001. He held a security clearance while in the military and from
2006 until the present time.  Applicant has been employed with his current employer
since April 2006. (GX 1)
The SOR 1.a alleges that Applicant began abusing alcohol from approximately
age 20, and continued drinking although the alcohol abuse resulted in his termination
from a military academy. He admits that he began abusing alcohol from age 20. He was
feeling hung over at times when he reported to work. As to allegation 1.b, Applicant
admitted he continued to abuse alcohol until 2009, habitually drinking to the point of
impaired judgment, including between and after various hospitalizations and medical
advice to remain abstinent from alcohol. He reported that he began drinking again in
2011. (SOR 1.c) In 2012, Dr. M evaluated Applicant and concluded that his alcohol
dependence was in early full remission. (SOR 1.d)
Alcohol Consumption 
Applicant is a recovering alcoholic. He confirms the record of drinking to abuse
since he was about 20 years old. His drinking escalated to the point of alcoholism until
about age 35, when he admits drinking a liter of scotch per day and more on the
weekends. In 2007, he voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital for toxic effects of
alcohol. His early diagnosis revealed he was a dual diagnosis patient.  He received a
diagnosis of alcoholism and major depression.
Applicant stopped drinking in 2010. However, he did not have the tools
necessary for recovery. He drank again, but in November 2011, he stopped drinking,
and was successful with abstinence. He attributes this to AA. He was not physically well
in 2011. He was encouraged to attend AA. He was surrounded by people who cared.
He knew that he was dying of his addiction.(Tr. 61) He has gone to AA daily since 2011.
He has a sponsor. He often goes to AA multiple times a day.(Tr. 62) He knows that he
cannot drink in moderation. He remains abstinent from alcohol. He knows this is a
disease which could kill him. He reports that he does not engage in negative
3
compulsive thinking. (Tr. 64) He credibly stated that sobriety is the center of his life. He
acknowledged that without sobriety, his life will be severely damaged. He now has
coping strategies to deal with stress that may have contributed to his poor decisions to
drink excessively. (Tr. 95)
Applicant was evaluated in 2012 by Dr. M, who is a duly qualified psychologist, at
the request of the Government. Dr. M diagnosed Applicant with Major Depressive
Disorder, Recurrent, Severe, Without Psychotic Features, and a substance related
disorder of alcohol dependence, early full remission. He noted that these conditions
may impair Applicant’s judgment, reliability or trustworthiness due to the episodic nature
of the psychiatric conditions, and personality traits that may make maintenance of these
conditions  vulnerable to destabilizing factors in his environment. (GX ) At this point in
time, Applicant was sober for only one year.
Dr. M noted that Applicant admitted that his pattern of drinking had been on and
off during the years, and that he continued to drink after the hospitalizations. He drank
every night until he passed out and went to bed.
Applicant’s current licensed therapist, who is also a licensed substance abuse
specialist, testified that he evaluated Applicant in January 2014. Mr. S. reviewed
Applicant’s past medical history records. He has seen Applicant weekly over a period of
eleven months. (Tr. 31) The therapist testified that Applicant is not drinking. He has not
consumed alcohol in three and a half years. Applicant has been active in the therapy
sessions. He is emotionally stable and open to looking at his issues. He has daily AA
meetings and has a sponsor. He readily admits that he is a recovering alcoholic.
Applicant has appeared honest and reliable. His therapist recommends Applicant for a
security clearance. Applicant’s therapist diagnosed him with major depressive disorder,
in partial remission when he first started treating him. (Tr. 35) At this juncture, the
diagnosis is minimally depressed with alcohol abuse disorder, severe, in sustained
remission. Mr. S. stated that Applicant’s prognosis is good due to continued treatment
and participation in AA.  Applicant is not on any medications. Applicant’s therapist also
confirms that Applicant sees a psychiatrist on a regular basis. In summary, Applicant
presents as consistent with treatment, reduction in anxiety, and strong commitment to
AA.
 Applicant has been under the medical care of a psychiatrist since October 2007.
He was treated for mood disorder and borderline personality disorder. He noted that
Applicant has been consistent in following his treatment plan. He stated that Applicant
has a history of alcohol dependence which has been in full remission since 2011. (AX
A) Applicant’s psychiatrist had prescribed lithium for Applicant, but determined that
Applicant did not have bipolar disorder and stopped the medication.
Psychological Conditions
Applicant was hospitalized in 2007 and 2008 based on his severe depression.
He was diagnosed with many disorders by several mental health institutions. During this
period he was evaluated by mental health professionals with a number of different
4
diagnoses. He suffered a major trauma in May 2006 when his brother committed
suicide at home. Applicant found his brother dead. Applicant was very close to his
younger brother and states that this has been the most traumatic event in his life. He
admits that he did not cope well and had negative coping strategies, such as drinking.
He also began to experience symptoms of PTSD such as intrusive thoughts, flashbacks
to the incident, numbing and detachment. He avoided people by locking himself into his
room and drinking to numb the pain. (GX 1) 
In addition to his brother’s suicide, Applicant reported a history of growing up
with emotional and physical abuse by his mother. Applicant and his family lived around
the world due to his father’s work. (Tr. )
Applicant voluntarily admitted himself to the hospital in 2007. At that time he was
not able to process the grief of his brother’s untimely death. He experienced suicidal
ideation. He left the hospital and continued drinking. He does not recall the
hospitalization in 2008, but a report notes a 2008 hospitalization and outpatient
treatment. Notably, all the diagnoses were part of a dual-diagnosis condition, meaning
that he suffered from alcohol dependence in addition to the mental health conditions.
Applicant started seeing a psychiatrist in 2007. He has continued to see him. He
lives with his parents and has reconciled with them. He helps care for his elderly, ill
father. (Tr. 76)
Applicant was evaluated in 2015 by another psychologist. The psychologist gave
Applicant the MMPI-2RF. This is a detailed instrument which is the most widely used
and well-researched psychological test. It is composed of 33 true/false questions. (Tr.
43) Dr. W. testified that Applicant approached the test accurately and fairly. He made
no effort to either exaggerate mental problems or no effort to under report problems.
He was honest and cooperative during the interview.  Dr. W. Found no evidence of
current mental illness, especially no thinking problems, no thought disorder and no
psychosis. He was not concerned that Applicant would act inappropriately in any way.
(Tr. 45 They discussed the past suicidal ideation. Dr. W opined that Applicant’s
problematic mental history began with the alcohol problem. Dr. W. maintained that
Applicant is a dual-diagnosis patient. In other words, he has a substance abuse
problem and a mental health disorder. If the substance abuse clears up, the primary
mental health diagnosis can go away. (AX E) Dr. W. stated that looking at Applicant’s
functioning over the past four years since he has been sober, he no longer shows signs
of debilitating mental illness. (Tr. 47) As long as Applicant remains sober, it is not likely
that he would have a psychiatric problem. Dr. W. believes that the 2012 report from Dr.
M is no longer relevant in 2015. (Tr. 50)  
In 2012, Applicant’s evaluation by Dr. M, with respect to his major depressive
condition, was that the prognosis was fair. The report notes that Applicant was not
receiving psychiatric care at the time and thus he is vulnerable to destabilizing events in
his life. Dr. M recognized that Applicant was in AA and had been sober since November
2011. He also noted that Applicant had a sponsor. He commended him for his recent
progress with his alcohol recovery.
5
Dr. M. Also noted that Applicant was cooperative during the session in 2012 and
though his affect was anxious, his mood was good. He did not display paranoid ideation
during the interview nor thoughts of self harm, nor of wanting to harm others. His
thought process was grossly intact. (GX 1 )
The latest evaluation, dated July 6, 2015, given by a licensed social worker and
clinical substance abuse counselor, stated that due to the traumatic event of Applicant’s
brother’s suicide in 2006, Applicant’s drinking was exacerbated. He went to AA in 2011
and stopped drinking. He has embraced the program.  He is engaged in weekly therapy
sessions. The social worker opined that in her professional opinion, Applicant’s
recovery is genuine and long lasting. He has a high probability of enjoying long term
sobriety, which will alleviate a mental illness.  (AX B) Applicant does not pose any threat
to public safety or to national security. According to the social worker, Applicant is
sincerely penitent of the damage rendered by his drinking until 2011. He is engaged in
a meaningful process of recovery and has every assurance of success for long term
sobriety. He is trustworthy and she recommends him for his security clearance. (AX B)
Character References
Applicant submitted nine letters of recommendation. His senior manager, who
has known him since 2010, knows the challenges that Applicant has faced in the past
with alcohol and depression. He states that Applicant is a man of integrity, honesty, and
professionalism. Applicant can be relied on to complete tasks in a timely manner and
with quality. Applicant’s manager has spoken to Applicant about the support groups and
counseling that Applicant engages in. Applicant’s manager trusts him to continue his
sobriety and maintain his reliability with his work duties. He recommends Applicant for a
continuation of his security clearance without hesitation. (AX A)
Applicant’s facility security officer (FSO) has known Applicant for almost seven
years. He works with Applicant on a daily basis, and states that Applicant is a
consistent high-performer and dedicated professional. He noted that Applicant has
received numerous awards for his outstanding service skills. The FSO stressed that
Applicant self-reported his alcohol and mental health issues years ago. Since that time
Applicant has regularly attended AA meetings, therapy, and has remained sober for
almost four years. He strongly recommends Applicant for the retention of his security
clearance.
A contractor special security officer (CSSO) wrote on Applicant’s behalf stating
that she interacts with him on a weekly basis. She understands the issues at hand
regarding security concerns and has never seen anything that questions his honesty
and reliability. She describes Applicant as honest and forthcoming about his struggles.
He has demonstrated maturity and strength in seeking appropriate help and support for
his situation. Applicant displays hard work and commitment in his position. 
Applicant’s AA sponsor has known him for the last four years. Applicant’s
sponsor has seen Applicant change and grow in terms of his willingness to remain
sober. Applicant attends many meetings and calls his sponsor regularly. Applicant has
6
matured, embraced the AA program, and is honest with his issues. He recommends
him highly for the retention of a security clearance.
The president of a substance abuse treatment facility, who has known Applicant
for about three years, describes Applicant as a very intelligent, kind and compassionate
person who has taken his recovery from alcohol abuse seriously. He has seen
significant positive changes in Applicant. He attests to the fact that Applicant attends
AA meetings consistently.
Several friends commented on Applicant’s unwavering commitment to his
recovery from alcohol abuse. Applicant’s friends who see him at AA meetings comment
that he demonstrates recovery principles of honesty, openness and willingness to face
his issues with candor and tenacity. Applicant has befriended people in the AA
community and proven to be a support for others. The friends who wrote on his behalf
also hold security clearances and have never seen Applicant engage in any
questionable behavior.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
The United States Government must present evidence to establish controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and
other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
7
proven by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather
than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
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.”
AG ¶ 22 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
8
(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;
(b) alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in
an intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on the job, regardless of
whether the individual is diagnosed as an 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;
(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;
(f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and
completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program; and
(g) failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education,
evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.
Applicant admits he is an alcoholic. He drank to excess from about the age of 20
until age 34. He consumed alcohol away from work on a daily basis. He disclosed his
alcoholism and self-referred to a hospital in 2007. He was given a diagnosis of alcohol
abuse and alcohol dependence. He stopped drinking for a time in 2010, but it was not
until November 2011, that he became completely abstinent. AG ¶¶ 22 (a),(c), (d), (e)
and (f) apply.
AG ¶ 23 provides conditions that could mitigate 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);
9
(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.
While there is no bright line rule for determining when conduct is recent or
sufficient time has passed since incidents, a determination whether past conduct
affects an individual’s present reliability and trustworthiness must be based on a careful
evaluation of the totality of the evidence. If the evidence shows a significant period of
time has passed without evidence of an alcohol issue, there must be an evaluation
whether that period of time demonstrates changed circumstances or conduct sufficient
to indicate a finding of reform or rehabilitation.
The mitigating conditions apply. Applicant used alcohol as way to deal with
stress. After his brother’s suicide in 2006, he drank every day and to the point of
intoxication. However, he tried to stop drinking. In 2010, he temporarily stopped
drinking. It was not until November 2011, that with the help of AA, he stopped drinking.
He has been sober since then. He admits that he is a recovering alcoholic. He attend
AA meetings multiple times a day. He has a sponsor. He has a support group. He has
taken responsibility for his actions. He has a 2015 evaluation that states that he is in
remission. His prognosis is favorable. He continues to see a psychiatrist and a
therapist.  After considering the mitigating conditions, I find that, given the information in
this record, he has mitigated the alcohol concern.
Guideline I, Psychological Conditions
AG ¶ 27 expresses the security concern pertaining to psychological conditions:
Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is
not required for there to be a concern under this guideline. A duly qualified
mental health professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist)
employed by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government,
should be consulted when evaluating potentially disqualifying and
mitigating information under this guideline. No negative inference
concerning the standards in this Guideline may be raised solely on the
basis of seeking mental health counseling.
10
AG ¶ 28 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(a) behavior that casts doubt on an individual's judgment, reliability, or
trustworthiness that is not covered under any other guideline, including but
not limited to emotionally unstable, irresponsible, dysfunctional, violent,
paranoid, or bizarre behavior;
(b) an opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the
individual has a condition not covered under any other guideline that may
impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness; and 
(c) the individual has failed to follow treatment advice related to a
diagnosed emotional, mental, or personality condition, e.g., failure to take
prescribed medication.
Applicant’s medical record shows that he has a history of depression and other
diagnosed mental illness. He admitted the allegations under Guideline I with the
exception of SOR 1.b. He voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital in 2007. He has had
a dua-diagnosis throughout the years with depression, bipolar condition and alcohol.
These conditions impair judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness under 28(b)  He
acknowledges suicide ideation. He has been prescribed lithium, but he is no longer on
the drug or needs the drug according to his psychiatrist. He had an earlier diagnosis
that stated he did not have consistent therapy to deal with his issues. AG ¶¶ 28(a), and
(b), apply.
AG ¶ 29 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(a) the identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the
individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the
treatment plan;
(b) the individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment
program for a condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual
is currently receiving counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis
by a duly qualified mental health professional;
(c) recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed
by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government that an
individual's previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a
low probability of recurrence or exacerbation;
(d) the past emotional instability was a temporary condition (e.g., one
caused by death, illness, or marital breakup), the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional
instability; and
11
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.
Applicant sought therapy and continues to engage in therapy weekly. He sees a
psychiatrist who notes that he is compliant with his treatment plan His physician notes
that he is reliable and that his history of alcohol dependence is in full remission since
2011. He has embraced AA. He has a sponsor. He has a support network. His recent
psychological evaluation states that Applicant has no problem with cognition or
judgment. He is neither a danger to himself or others. He is free from defensive
behaviors that impair his judgment. He received a current diagnosis that he does not
suffer from any mental health conditions that impair his judgment. He has been sober
for four years which has allowed him to function without the assistance of medication.
He has submitted evidence that mitigates the concerns under  Guideline I.  
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 an 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. 
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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is 39 years old. He has worked for his current employer since 2006. He has
held a security clearance since that time without incident. He was honest about his
history of alcohol and mental health issues. He discussed his hospitalizations and his
symptoms. He has been cooperative and has been evaluated in 2015. He is not on any
medication. His current diagnosis is good. He has been sober since 2011. He sees his
therapist and psychiatrist consistently.
Applicant takes full responsibility for his actions. He knows he is a recovering
alcoholic. He attends AA daily and has a sponsor. He recognizes that sobriety is the
center of his life. He has changed his behaviors. He has a support network. His
12
depression is not what it was given the fact that he is now sober. He has mitigated the
alcohol and psychological security concerns.
Applicant’s references describe him as a cooperative, genuine, trustworthy man.
He has not had any incidents with the holding of a security clearance for the past years.
He is an extremely dedicated professional and a high performer. He has received
numerous work awards. He has been candid about his alcohol issues. He remains
dedicated to his sobriety and uses his therapy and a wide network of support to guide
him.
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
Paragraph 2, Guideline I: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.c: For Applicant
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 a security clearance.
Clearance is granted.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge