1
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-06272
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Adrienne Strzelczyk, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s most recent alcohol-related criminal episode was nearly two and a
half years ago. He is no longer on probation, has successfully completed counseling,
and now recognizes the consequences of alcohol abuse. I conclude that he has
mitigated the security concerns. Clearance is granted. 
Statement of the Case
On January 6, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing
security concerns under Guidelines  J, criminal conduct, and 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)
implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.
2
 
Applicant answered the SOR on February 4, 2015, admitting the allegations and
requesting a hearing. The case was assigned to me on May 11, 2015. On June 10,
2015, DOHA issued a notice of hearing, scheduling the case for July 8, 2015. The
hearing was held as scheduled. At the hearing, Department Counsel made some minor
amendments to the SOR. (Transcript (Tr.) 8-9) Also, I received eight Government
exhibits (GE 1-GE 8), and seven Applicant exhibits (AE A-AE G). DOHA received a
transcript of the hearing on July 16, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 27-year-old single man. He has a high school education,
graduating in 2006. Since 2007, he has worked for a federal contractor as an
engineering technician. (GE 1 at 10) According to Applicant’s supervisor, who has
known Applicant for his entire life, he is a trustworthy person. (AE A) According to a co-
worker, Applicant is “dependable, loyal, and hardworking.” (AE C)
Applicant began drinking alcohol when he was 15 years old. (Tr. 35) Initially, he
drank once or twice per month. By his early twenties, he was drinking every weekend,
typically consuming 12 to 15 beers over an eight-hour period. (Tr. 36) 
One night in 2006, Applicant’s friend, who was transporting Applicant and some
other friends to a party, drove the car off the road  to “do donuts” in a field. (Tr. 30) They
had a case of beer in the backseat. Subsequently, the police stopped his friend’s car.
Upon searching the car, the police officer discovered the beer and administered
breathalyzer tests to each of the individuals in the car. (Tr. 30) Although everyone
passed the breathalyzer tests, they were each issued citations for being minors in
possession of alcohol. (GE 4) The police confiscated the beer and released Applicant
and his friends, who then continued to the party. (AE 4 at 2)
  On the evening of March 11, 2012, Applicant was driving home from a bar with
a friend and pulled the car to the side of the road so that his friend could urinate. (Tr.27)
He was then approached by a police officer who, after administering several roadside
sobriety tests, arrested and charged him with driving under the influence (DUI), failure to
attach front and rear registration plates, and driving while impaired per se.  When the
arrest occurred, Applicant’s blood-alcohol level was .14%. (GE 2 at 2) Under a plea
bargain, Applicant pleaded guilty to DUI and the other charges were dropped. (GE 2 at
2) He was fined $250, sentenced to probation before judgment with 20 days in jail
(suspended), and given three years of probation. (GE 2 at 2)
Shortly after the March 2012 arrest, Applicant voluntarily enrolled in a six-week
alcohol awareness class, consisting of one-hour group therapy sessions, once per week
(GE 2 at 3). Applicant completed the sessions. (GE 2 at 3) The record is unclear as to
whether he underwent an evaluation for alcohol abuse. 
3
 
In May 2013, while on probation from the March 2012 offense, Applicant was
arrested and charged with DUI, reckless driving in a wanton and willful disregard for the
safety of persons and property, negligent driving of a vehicle in a careless and
imprudent manner, and failure to stop at a stop sign line. (GE 2 at 3; GE 6 at 5) Earlier
that evening, Applicant had consumed between four and six beers at a bar. 
Shortly after the arrest, Applicant voluntarily resumed counseling. On May 22,
2013, a licensed counselor administered a standardized alcohol screening test which
indicated that he had “some alcohol abuse.” (AE E at 9) On May 28, 2013, Applicant
began counseling. He attended counseling sessions twice weekly through August 17,
2013. (GE 3 at 2) The counselor characterized his treatment as a success. (AE E at 9)
Per the counselor, Applicant was “now keenly aware of the negative consequences of
alcohol abuse” and was motivated not to drink and drive in the future. (AE E at 9)
On September 20, 2013, Applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted, fined $65,
ordered to spend ten days in jail over five weekends, and placed under two years of
supervised probation. (AE 6 at 1; Tr. 26) As part of Applicant’s probation, the court
required him to abstain from alcohol and to attend Alcoholic’s Anonymous (AA)
meetings for one year. Also, Applicant was ordered to install an ignition interlock system
in his car. (GE 6 at 7; GE 7 at 3; AE F; Tr. 40) 
Applicant attended AA, as ordered, once or twice per week from September 2013
to August 2014. (AE G) After a year, Applicant’s probation was reduced to
unsupervised. (Tr. 34) He continued attending AA classes voluntarily after the period of
court-mandated AA attendance ended, until the extensive travel requirements of his job
resumed, compelling him to stop. (Tr. 42). Applicant has not consumed any alcohol
since his DUI arrest in May 2013. (Tr. 43) He understands that if he gets another DUI
arrest, “there’s no more chances – no more excuses.” (Tr. 46) Applicant’s probation
ended on September 20, 2015. (GE 6 at 3)
According to a current co-worker and former roommate of Applicant, he has
matured considerably since his 2013 arrest. (AE D) Before the arrest, Applicant’s
insecurity and fear of “let[ting] people down,” led him to drive when he was legally
unable. (AE D) Now, he no longer succumbs to peer pressure. His self-confidence has
extended to work where he is more assertive. (AE D)
Policies
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 together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The
4
 
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.” 
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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Criminal Conduct
Under this guideline, “criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, 
reliability, and trustworthiness.” (AG ¶ 30) Also, “by its very nature, it calls into question
a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” (Id.)
Applicant’s history of criminal conduct triggers the application of AG ¶¶ 31(a), “a single
serious crime, or multiple lesser offenses.”  
Applicant was issued a criminal citation in 2006, and was charged and arrested
twice for DUI between 2012 and 2013. The second arrest occurred when he was still on
probation for the first offense. AG ¶¶ 31(a), “a single serious crime or multiple lesser
offenses,” and 31(e) “violation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-
mandated rehabilitation program,” apply.
Applicant’s probation just ended one month ago. However, there is substantial
evidence of rehabilitation. Applicant fulfilled the requirements of probation, and received
a positive prognosis from his alcohol counselor. He has strong references from his
supervisor, and some friends and coworkers. Under these circumstances, AG ¶ 32(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,” applies.
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 has a history of
excessive alcohol consumption. The following disqualifying conditions are applicable:
5
 
(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. 
Since Applicant’s 2013 arrest, he has successfully completed outpatient
counseling. He attended AA, as court-ordered, and continued attending AA after he was
no longer legally required to do so. Also, he has continued to abstain from drinking
alcohol. Gauging from Applicant’s introspective testimony and his positive character
references, he appears to have matured, and to have learned his lesson about the
dangers of alcohol abuse.  AG ¶ 23(d), as set forth below, applies:
(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.   
Whole-Person Concept 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows:
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.
Approximately two and a half years have elapsed since Applicant last was
arrested and since he last consumed alcohol. This is not that long given the intensity of
Applicant’s alcohol consumption before the arrest, and given that he had been arrested
and charged with DUI approximately a year earlier.  However, the negative ramifications
of the two arrests and the history of heavy alcohol consumption is mitigated by
6
 
Applicant’s youth when this behavior occurred, his successful participation in alcohol
counseling, including AA, and positive recommendations from his supervisor, friends,
and coworkers. Under these circumstances, I conclude that Applicant has mitigated the
security concerns. 
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 J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a: 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 eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge