1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
          DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 14-02751
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant was arrested four times between 1993 and 2012 for driving while
impaired or driving while intoxicated. She also intentionally withheld information about
her alcohol-related arrests from her most recent security clearance application.
Applicant still consumes alcohol despite being advised by her counselor to abstain from
alcohol and despite her own admission that she is an alcoholic. Applicant’s request for a
clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On June 1, 2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to obtain or renew a security clearance required for
her employment with a defense contractor. After reviewing the results of Applicant’s
background investigation, adjudicators for the Department of Defense (DOD) could not
determine that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s
 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.1
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented on September 1, 2006. These guidelines were published in2
the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). 
 An index listing each exhibit is included in the record as Hx. 1.3
 SOR 1.d originally alleged that Applicant was arrested in April 2012. Department Counsel at hearing moved4
to amend the date to comport with the evidence that showed an August 2012 arrest. W ithout objection, I
granted the motion to amend. (Tr. 6 - 9)
 SOR 3.a originally alleged that Applicant had also omitted the August 2012 arrest alleged in SOR 1.d.5
However, that arrests occurred after Applicant submitted her EQIP. Accordingly, I amended SOR 3.a at
hearing to reflect that only the arrests at SOR 1.a - 1.c had been omitted. (Tr. 97 - 98)
2
access to classified information.  On October 28, 2014, DOD issued to Applicant a1
Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns addressed in
the adjudicative guidelines (AG)  for alcohol consumption (Guideline G), criminal2
conduct (Guideline J), and personal conduct (Guideline E).
Applicant timely answered the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. The case
was assigned to me on May 4, 2015, and I convened a hearing on May 27, 2015. The
parties appeared as scheduled. Department Counsel presented Government’s Exhibits
(Gx.) 1 - 5.  3
Applicant testified on her own behalf, and I granted her request to hold the record
open after the hearing to afford her time to submit additional relevant information.
DOHA received a transcript (Tr.) of the hearing on June 4, 2015. The record closed on
June 19, 2015, when I received Applicant’s post-hearing submissions consisting of a
single-page letter from her licensed professional counselor (Applicant’s Exhibit (Ax.) A),
and 18 pages of character reference letters and various forms of recognition for
Applicant’s job performance (Ax. B). All exhibits were admitted without objection.
Findings of Fact
The Government alleged under Guideline G that Applicant was arrested and
charged with driving while impaired by alcohol (DWI) in June 1993 (SOR 1.a), October
1997 (SOR 1.b), June 2004 (SOR 1.c), and August 2012 (SOR 1.d).   Under Guideline4
J, the Government cross-alleged as criminal conduct the alcohol-related arrests alleged
in SOR 1.a - 1.d (SOR 2.a). Applicant admitted these allegations. (Answer)
The Government alleged under Guideline E, that Applicant intentionally made a
false official statement when she omitted the arrests alleged in SOR 1.a - 1.c,  by5
answering “no” to the following question in EQIP Section 22: 
Police Record (EVER): Have you ever been charged with an offense
involving alcohol or drugs? (SOR 3.a).
3
Applicant denied having the requisite intent to make a false statement when she
submitted her EQIP.
Applicant’s admissions to SOR 1.a - 1.d, and 2.a are incorporated in my findings
of fact. Having reviewed the response to the SOR, the transcript, and exhibits, I make
the following additional findings of fact.
Applicant is 42 years old. Since late 2004, she has worked in the logistics
management field for DOD and Department of State contractors in support of military
and diplomatic missions. Except for the period between April 2011 and November 2014,
almost all of her work over the past ten years has been performed at job sites overseas.
In November 2014, Applicant was hired by her current employer and returned to an
overseas job site. She appeared at her hearing while in the United States on leave, and
has since returned to her job site. (Gx. 1; Tr. 43, 85 - 86)
Applicant’s first DWI arrest occurred on June 26, 1993, after Applicant had been
drinking while out to dinner. She was detained at a police station until her stepfather
came to pick her up. She later pleaded guilty, was fined and given a 90-day suspended
jail sentence, her driver’s license was suspended, and she was ordered to complete 72
hours of community service. Applicant was unable at hearing to recount these details
and claimed she thought the charges had been dismissed. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 4; Tr. 53
- 59)
On June 20, 1997, Applicant again was arrested and charged with DWI. She was
driving home from a bar and had, by her estimation, two or three drinks. She was
stopped for not braking through a turn and her blood alcohol content (BAC) was found
to be .08. As she was being pulled over, Applicant sprayed perfume in her mouth to try
and mask the smell of alcohol on her breath. She did not have any gum or mints at the
time. Available information does not reflect a disposition of that charge, which Applicant
claims was later dismissed. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 4; Tr. 59 - 65)
On June 20, 2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with DWI. Applicant had
consumed at least four glasses of wine at a friend’s house and was stopped for
swerving on the way home. She was taken to a nearby police station where she was
fingerprinted and photographed before being released after several hours. After three
continuances, this charge was dropped because the arresting officer did not appear for
the prosecution. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 4; Tr. 66 - 71)
Applicant was most recently arrested and charged with DWI on August 14, 2012.
After consuming three or four mixed drinks, she ran a red light and collided with another
car. Applicant was arrested after she registered a .12 BAC at the scene. In December
2012, Applicant was convicted of DWI, given a 30-day suspended jail sentence and
fined, her driver’s license was suspended for 12 months, and she was ordered to
complete an alcohol safety awareness program (ASAP). Applicant was subsequently
allowed to drive to and from work, to and from her ASAP classes, and for other court-
ordered travel. However, an interlock devise was also installed on her car to prevent her
from driving the vehicle if she had consumed alcohol. (Answer; Gx. 3; Gx. 5; Tr. 46, 71
- 76, 102 - 103)
4
Applicant started drinking in about 1990, when she was 18 years old. Until age
21, she drank less than five times a year. She claims she did not drink very much
between 1993 and 2006, but that since 2007, she consumes about three or four glasses
of wine in a single sitting. Applicant stated to government investigators in 2012 that it
takes her more than five glasses of wine to become intoxicated, which happens at least
three times a year. Applicant also stated that she feels she has a problem with alcohol
and that she does not feel she can consume alcohol like a normal person. At her
hearing, she admitted that she is an alcoholic. In April 2013, Applicant admitted to
another investigator that there is a pattern to her problems with alcohol, but she also
claimed that she was no longer drinking. Applicant admitted at her security clearance
hearing that she is an alcoholic, but acknowledged that she had consumed alcohol as
recently as May 2015 at a wedding just before her hearing in this matter. (Gx. 2; Gx. 3;
Tr.  83 - 85, 86 - 87, 108 - 110)
As part of her 2013 ASAP requirement, Applicant’s alcohol use was assessed
and she was referred for alcohol treatment for six months. She received individual and
group counseling, and attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. Of her own
volition, Applicant also met with her ASAP counselor for additional sessions. That
counselor’s report at the end of Applicant’s court-ordered counseling, viewed Applicant
as an enthusiastic participant in AA and in counseling, and that she was determined to
establish a lifestyle supportive of sobriety. Her counselor gave her an excellent
prognosis. (Ax. A; Tr. 76 - 81, 103 - 106)
After Applicant’s 2012 DWI arrest, she consulted three or four times with a
therapist who specializes in addiction. Applicant has not been formally diagnosed with
alcohol addiction or dependence, but she feels she must abstain from alcohol. (Gx. 3;
Tr. 81 - 83, 106 - 107)
Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation in the workplace. The letters and awards
she submitted after her hearing laud Applicant for her professionalism, her hard work,
and her reliability. Supervisors and co-workers from her current and previous employers
noted that Applicant is an expert in her field and that she has such command of the
complexities of federal acquisition regulations and property management that she is
able to mentor other more senior personnel in their assigned duties. (Ax. B)
Applicant did not disclose any of her DWI arrests that occurred before she
submitted her June 2012 EQIP. In response to allegations that she intentionally tried to
conceal that information from the government, and in her hearing testimony, Applicant
has claimed alternatively that she thought she only had to disclose those arrests if she
was convicted. Alternately, Applicant claimed she thought she only had to disclose the
arrests if they had occurred in the preceding seven years. Further, she stated that she
did not answer the question correctly because she was being rushed to complete the
questionnaire. When Applicant was interviewed in July 2012, she did not acknowledge
that she had been arrested or charged with DWI until the investigating agent presented
her with the arrest information obtained during the background investigation records
check. Having heard her testimony on this issue and observed her demeanor while
testifying, I find that Applicant was not credible. Applicant remembered the general facts
and circumstances of her arrests. On all three occasions before June 2012, she knew
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).6
 Directive. 6.3.7
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.8
5
she was being arrested and that she had to appear in court to answer the charges. Any
reasonable person in her position knew or should have known that she was being
charged with DWI. Given her expertise in a complex field such as logistics and
acquisitions, and in light of her conflicting rationales for not disclosing her arrests, I
conclude that she understood what was being asked in the Section 22 question at
issue, and that she knew at the time she submitted her EQIP that her answers were
false and that she intended to deceive the government about her use of alcohol and her
arrest record. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 3; Tr. 41 - 44, 48 - 52, 98 - 101, 113 - 118)
Policies
A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent  with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to6
have access to classified information. Each decision must be a fair, impartial, and
commonsense determination based on examination of all available relevant and
material information,  and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policies7
in the adjudicative guidelines. Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors
listed in ¶ 2(a) of the new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person”
concept, those factors are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific applicable guidelines should be followed whenever a case
can be measured against them as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government’s case.
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  8
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).9
6
has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her
own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of
any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the
Government.9
Analysis
Alcohol Consumption
Applicant began drinking when she was 18 years old. Between the ages of 21
and 39, she was arrested and charged with DWI four times. Her most recent arrest
occurred after she drank enough to have a .12 BAC and ran a red light causing an
accident. Applicant feels she has a problem with alcohol and that she may be an
alcoholic. This information raises a security concern about alcohol consumption that is
articulated at AG ¶ 21 as follows:
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.
More specifically, information about Applicant’s alcohol use requires application
of the following AG ¶ 22 disqualifying conditions:
(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; and
(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.
I also have considered the following AG ¶ 23 mitigating conditions, which may be
pertinent to these facts and circumstances:
(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 modified consumption or
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, such as
7
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 partially benefits from both of these mitigating conditions; however that
benefit is limited by a lack of information showing she has and will continue to abstain
from alcohol consumption. In the course of Applicant’s 2013 court-ordered ASAP
counseling, Applicant was evaluated by a licensed counselor. According to a letter
submitted by Applicant’s counselor, she had an excellent prognosis for continued
sobriety. His statements were based on Applicant’s enthusiastic participation in the
ASAP sessions and AA meetings. The record in this case does not contain a formal
diagnosis of alcohol dependence or abuse. However, the clear implication of the
counselor’s letter at Ax. A, and Applicant’s own acknowledgments, to investigators and
at her hearing, about her drinking problem, is that she should no longer drink. However,
Applicant has continued to consume alcohol as recently as May 2015. On balance,
Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns about her consumption of alcohol.
Criminal Conduct
Applicant’s four DWI arrests between 1993 and 2012 constitute serious and
repetitive criminal conduct. Her conduct in this regard raises security concerns about
her ability or willingness to comply with the rules and regulations, such as those
governing the safeguarding of classified information. The security concern about
criminal conduct is expressed at AG ¶ 30:
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.
More specifically, available information requires application of the disqualifying
conditions at AG ¶¶ 31(a) (a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses) and 31(c)
(allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was
formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted). Applicant was convicted of two of
the four DWI charges. Her description of the circumstances of the charges that were
dismissed or for which there is no information about the disposition shows, nonetheless,
that she had been drinking before she decided to get behind the wheel. 
Of the AG 32 mitigating conditions, the following are at least pertinent to these
facts and circumstances:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or
does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment;
(c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense; and
8
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited
to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or
constructive community involvement.
I conclude that none of these mitigating conditions apply. Applicant has a history
of alcohol-related criminal conduct that spans her entire adult life. Her last DWI occurred
in 2012, but she had the pattern of DWI arrests in this record shows that much more
time must elapse before it can safely be concluded that her conduct will not recur. The
fact that Applicant was not convicted of all of her offenses does not constitute evidence
that she did not commit those offenses. Because her criminal conduct is a result of her
alcohol consumption, successful rehabilitation can only be found through information
that establishes Applicant will not drink in the future. While the letter from her counselor
was encouraging, it was not informed by the fact that Applicant has recently consumed
alcohol. On balance, Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns about the
criminal aspects of her alcohol-related conduct.
Personal Conduct
Applicant deliberately omitted three of her arrests from her EQIP in 2012. This
information is sufficient to raise a security concern about her personal conduct, which is
addressed at AG ¶ 15, as follows:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
Specifically, the record requires application of the following AG ¶ 16 disqualifying
condition:
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.
Applicant’s explanations for her omissions of that information are inconsistent
and were not credible. Despite her denial of SOR 3.a, the circumstances surrounding
her omissions form a sufficient basis on which to find that she intended to make a false
statement to the Government. Applicant’s denial essentially rests on her claim that she
did not understand that the question was not limited to the previous seven years, or that
she only had to disclose convictions, or that she was rushed into completing the EQIP.
Such an interpretation of the question might be plausible from a less sophisticated
applicant. But the Applicant in this case is a seasoned professional capable of
administering complex logistics requirements and managing large budgets on behalf of
9
her government clients. Additionally, her claim regarding the plain meaning of “charged”
fails because she was, in fact, convicted of DWI in 1993. 
By contrast, only the mitigating condition at AG ¶ 17(a) (the individual made
prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before
being confronted with the facts) is potentially applicable. However, Applicant did not
make any corrections to her answer until her July 2012 subject interview. Unfortunately,
those corrections occurred after she had confirmed her negative response in the EQIP
and was confronted with the information from her arrest record. AG ¶ 17(a) does not
apply. 
I conclude that all of the information probative of Applicant’s intent when she
submitted her EQIP shows that she tried to conceal her DWI arrests to protect her own
interests, namely, the acquisition of a security clearance required as a condition of her
employment. Applicant has not mitigated the resulting security concern about her
honesty, judgment, and trustworthiness.
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts presented and have applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guidelines E, G, and J. I have also reviewed the record
before me in the context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is
now 39 years old and has established an excellent professional reputation for her
expertise, hard work, and dedication to the missions she has supported in difficult
conditions. However, all of the positive recommendations submitted on her behalf are
not likely informed of the adverse information about her alcohol-related misconduct or
her false statements to the Government. That adverse information established doubts
about Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. It then fell to Applicant
to resolve those doubts; however, her continued consumption of alcohol and her false
statements remain of concern. Because protection of the national interest is the
principal goal of these adjudications, any remaining doubts must be resolved against
the Applicant. 
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.d: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
10
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
for Applicant to have access to classified information. Request for a security clearance
is denied.
                                         
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge