DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 14-02360
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
After a review of the SOR, Applicant’s SOR answer, the exhibits, and the testimony,
I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns generated by the alcohol
consumption guideline. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP), Government’s Exhibit (GE) 2, on December 11, 2013. On January 21,
2015, 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
2
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as 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 February 9, 2015. The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on August 24,
2015, for a hearing on September 21, 2015. The hearing was held as scheduled. Six
Government exhibits (GE) 1-6 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant and
one witness testified. The transcript (Tr.) was received on September 29, 2015. The record
closed on the same day. 
Rulings on Procedure
On June 15, 2015, the Government filed a motion to amend the SOR as follows:
1) In subparagraph 1.d, add the following three sentences:
You missed several days of work and important deadlines due to your alcohol
consumption. In lieu of termination, your employer offered you an opportunity
to participate in their employee assistance program (EAP). This was your
second violation of your employer’s drug and alcohol policy.
As verification of his admission to the amended SOR 1.d, Applicant encircled “admit”
and placed his initials next to the encircled word. He provided his signature and date (June
23, 2015) on the second page of the motion to amend. The motion was granted. The two-
page motion and Applicant’s two-page attachment are admitted in evidence as Hearing
exhibit (HE 1) (Tr. 9-10). 
Findings of Fact
The SOR alleges four allegations under the alcohol consumption guideline. Applicant
admitted consuming alcohol occasionally since the age of 17 or 18 to at least January 2014
(SOR 1.a). He admitted driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in May 1996
(SOR 1.b) and March 2010 (SOR 1.c). He acknowledged that an alcohol relapse in January
2014 caused him to miss work assignments; his employer offered him an opportunity
(which he accepted) to participate in the employee assistance program instead of being
terminated from employment for a second violation of the employer’s drug and alcohol
policy (SOR 1.d). 
Applicant is 47 years old and single. After receiving a bachelor’s degree in
December 1990, he joined the U.S. Navy. In 1992, he received his Navy pilot certification
and completed two deployments. He received a master’s degree in May 1999. In February
3
2001, he received an honorable discharge from active duty, and joined U.S. Navy Reserve
in the same month. He has held several positions over the past 14 years in the Reserve.
He has been a senior analyst and program manager for a defense contractor since
December 2006. In that position, he supports the U.S. Navy at three locations. He holds
several positions in the Reserve. Applicant has held a security clearance since April 1993.
(GE 1 at 14, 31; Tr. 32-34, 43-44) 
When Applicant was 17 or 18 years old (1985), he began drinking infrequently. While
in college between 1986 to 1990, his drinking increased though he could not remember his
consumption pattern. He opined that he could not have consumed much alcohol given his
scholastic achievements. Between 1990 and 1996, Applicant’s drinking pattern was every
other weekend either in a group setting or alone. After his 1996 DUI, he abstained for a
period, but then resumed consumption (at the frequencies discussed below) until at least
January 2014. (SOR 1.a) (Tr. 35, 41-46)
In May 1996, Applicant was driving to visit his family at their residence. At the
hearing, he denied that he was drinking in his car, but his sworn statement (June 1999)
indicates that he had a six-pack in his car and consumed four or five beers over a period
of about two hours. He stopped drinking about 30 minutes before a deer jumped in front
of his car. When he tried to avoid the deer, he lost control of his car and it flipped over. He
was charged with DUI, amended to reckless driving (SOR 1.b). He was found guilty of
reckless driving and fined, ordered to perform community service, and put on six months
probation. His license was suspended for six months and he was ordered to attend driving
school. He completed the conditions of his sentence. He also attended Navy counseling.
He was not ordered for treatment and received no alcohol evaluation. He testified that he
abstained for about two years after the 1996 DUI. However, he indicated in his June 1999
statement that he remained sober for about seven months. (GE 5 at 1, 3; Tr.36, 46-48)
Applicant resumed drinking after the 1996 DUI because he enjoyed the taste of beer.
According to his 1999 statement, he drank about two or three beers every other evening
at home. If he was attending social events, he would drink only two or three beers if he was
driving home. Occasionally when he drank five or six beers at a friend’s house, he would
sleep at that location overnight. He would also become intoxicated about once every six
weeks at a friend’s house. (GE 5 at 3; Tr. 49)
In roughly a two-year period prior to Applicant’s March 2010 DUI arrest, his father’s
health was deteriorating due to a serious medical condition that caused him to act
strangely. His father’s bizarre behavior, which prompted his mother to contemplate divorce,
upset Applicant and caused him to increase his alcohol consumption. Because he did not
go out to drink, he was spending more time drinking at home. (Tr. 50-54)
 Applicant has been close friends with the recently retired HRD since 2006. (Tr. 70)1
 The vice president recalled Applicant stating that on the plane ride home, he started drinking. (GE 3 at 7)2
4
On the day of Applicant’s March 2010 DUI arrest (SOR 1.c), he consumed four or
five mixed drinks and a prescribed sleeping pill, then drove to his mailbox which is less than
a block from his home. Later in his testimony, he indicated that he had not taken a sleeping
pill. Rather, he testified that he was still experiencing the residual effects of the sleeping pill
that he had taken the preceding day. He had talked with his doctor about the adverse
effects of mixing sleeping pills with alcohol and recalled seeing the warning sign on the
bottle of sleeping pills, but did not sense a concern since he had not taken the sleeping pill
on the day of the arrest. Applicant could not comprehend why he needed to drive the short
distance to his mailbox. (Tr. 36-37, 54-56)
Applicant pleaded guilty to the March 2010 offense. He received probation before
judgment and the remaining three related offenses were dismissed. He was sentenced to
a court fine, a suspended jail sentence, one year unsupervised probation, and ordered to
complete counseling and aftercare that was recommended. He did not recall whether he
abstained while on probation, but claimed that he consumed no alcohol for 9 to 12 months
following his March 2010 arrest. During court-ordered outpatient counseling, which he
completed in July 2010, he discovered he had an alcohol problem, but he was unaware of
being evaluated with an alcohol-related condition. He initiated participation in Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) for the first time. In 2011, he resumed drinking about six beers every
other weekend while watching sporting events. (GE 1 at 30-31; GE 4; Tr. 38-39, 56-59)
Applicant had an alcohol relapse in January 2014 that resulted in not reporting for
work and enrollment in his employer’s employee assistance program (EAP). (SOR 1.d) The
relapse was triggered by becoming upset after observing his unhappy and seriously ill
father during an otherwise joyful Christmas holiday with his cousins and mother. When
Applicant did not appear at work on January 6, 2014, with technical information necessary
for a contract, company employees made repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact him
over three days. The former human resources director (HRD) and the vice president of his
employer went to Applicant’s house on January 9, 2014, to determine why he had not been
to work.  The HRD indicated that during a discussion with Applicant, he told the HRD that,1
“at some point [Applicant] drank several beers and concluded he could handle alcohol.2
Apparently, when he arrived home after leave, he continued with his belief of being able
to handle the alcohol and downed a fifth of liquor in the course of two days.” (GE 3 at 5)
Applicant denied drinking any alcohol while he was with his mother and cousins. When he
returned home, he felt he needed something to settle his nerves so he purchased and
drank a fifth of liquor in a three-day period. Applicant agreed to return to work the following
Monday, January 13, 2014. (GE 3 at 5, 7; Tr. 60-67, 69)
5
The HRD submitted a report on January 14, 2014, chronicling the unsuccessful
efforts to contact Applicant and the discussion the HRD had with him on January 9, 2014.
At the conclusion of the report, the HRD stated that since Applicant had previously been
through an investigation about alcohol-related issues, he was aware of what was going to
happen and how to respond. The HRD was not confident in Applicant’s commitment to
achieve and maintain successful rehabilitation. Applicant did not believe the HRD’s opinion
was correct. (GE 3 at 5, 7; Tr. 60-67, 69)
At work on January 13, 2014, Applicant signed his employer’s “Last Chance
Agreement.” Instead of being terminated from employment for drug and alcohol violations,
the agreement, “provides the employee a final opportunity to agree to comply with all
company policies and procedures.” Applicant agreed to abstain from alcohol use while
employed by his employer (the second section of the agreement). Since signing the
agreement, Applicant has consumed a can of beer at a baseball game in 2014. He had a
second can of beer after someone purchased a can of beer for him at another baseball
game some time later in 2014, choosing not to reveal his “disease” to the people who
purchased the beer. The third time he consumed alcohol was in 2015, when he tasted a
mixed drink in response to a request from a female friend. He did not have his own drink
because he was driving that night. (GE 3 at 2; Tr. 64-66) 
After his January 14, 2014 relapse, Applicant resumed AA meetings on a regular
basis. He provided logs of attendance between January and October 10, 2014. His
attendance became occasional when he discovered he was not getting the desired benefit
from regular attendance. He found that contacting his sponsor was more effective, though
he did not contact his sponsor after the three drinking incidents in 2014 and 2015. His most
recent AA attendance was the week before the hearing, and three times in July 2015. He
attributed the reduced attendance to his work schedule requiring him to travel frequently.
Applicant has completed the 12 steps of the AA program. When dealing with emotional
stressors like his father’s recent passing, he has contacted his sponsor or attended
additional AA meetings. Applicant considered the effective strategy for dealing with alcohol
consumption is not buying for his own consumption or “just actively not drinking alcohol.”
(GE 3 at 16-23; Tr. 40, 65-67, 71) 
Character Evidence
The president of Applicant’s employer participated in his hiring in 2006. He has
observed Applicant every other day at work except when he is traveling on work
assignments. The president is familiar with Applicant’s March 2010 alcohol-related driving
offense. After Applicant’s relapse in January 2014, the president afforded him a last chance
to continue employment. Except for the January 2014 incident, the president did not recall
Applicant missing work because of alcohol use, or reporting to work in an intoxicated
condition. In a recent conversation with Applicant about alcohol, he indicated that he had
6
a beer when offered at a baseball game. The president recommends Applicant for a
position of trust because of his exceptionally detail-oriented performance, his honesty, and
his professionalism. (GE 3 at 2; Tr. 19-31)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of the AG. These conditions
must be evaluated in the context of the nine general factors known as the whole-person
concept to bring together all available, 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.
AG ¶ 22 lists six conditions that may be disqualifying:
(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work regardless of whether the
individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent;
(b) alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting to 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; 
7
(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;
(e) evaluation of alcohol abuse or  alcohol dependence by a licensed clinical
social worker who is a staff member of a recognized treatment program; and
(f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion
of an alcohol rehabilitation program.
Applicant has been consuming alcohol since he was 17 or 18 years old. His
consumption initially was infrequent, but gradually increased until his first DUI in May 1996,
followed by seven months of sobriety. I conclude the seven-month period of sobriety is
more credible than Applicant’s testimonial two-year claim because it appears in a signed
sworn statement generated about three years after the 1996 offense. Then, Applicant
resumed drinking every other weekend until the 2008-2010 time frame, before his second
DUI in March 2010, when his consumption increased to every weekend. In 2011, 9 to 12
months after the March 2010 DUI arrest, he resumed drinking on every other weekend. In
early January 2014, Applicant did not report to work for the week of January 6, 2014,
because of binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. AG ¶¶ 22(a)
and 22(c) apply. AG ¶ 22(b) also applies even though Applicant neither reported to work
in an intoxicated condition, nor was drinking on the job. His employer was expecting him
at work on January 6, 2014, to present technical information for a contract. AG ¶¶ 22(d),
22(e), and 22(f) do not apply. There was no diagnosis of alcohol abuse or alcohol
dependence and no relapse after a diagnosis of abuse or dependence and completion of
an alcohol rehabilitation program. 
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
8
(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 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.
AG ¶ 23(a) has only limited application. In early January 2014, less than two years
before the hearing, Applicant had a significant alcohol episode triggered by his father’s
serious illness. Though he has reduced his alcohol consumption to a sporadic level since
then, the fact that he still is consuming alcohol after signing his employer’s January 2014
last chance agreement to abstain from future alcohol use while working for his employer,
raises continuing concerns about his good judgment and trustworthiness.
Applicant receives some mitigation under AG ¶ 23(b) for successfully completing
outpatient treatment following his March 2010 DUI. Though he realized in 2010 that he had
a problem with alcohol, which he described as a “disease” that he did not want to disclose,
he has not taken persuasive action that demonstrates he comprehends the full scope and
seriousness of his alcohol problem. 
Applicant receives limited mitigation under AG ¶ 23(d) because he completed the
outpatient treatment program in 2010 and began AA participation in the same year. The
other elements of the condition do not apply because there is a lack of independent
evidence to support a finding of a clear pattern of modified consumption and a favorable
prognosis for the future by a medical professional or a duly qualified licensed clinical social
worker. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
alcohol consumption. 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
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.
There is positive evidence supporting Applicant’s security clearance. He received
his bachelor’s degree in December 1990 and joined the U.S. Navy where he became a pilot
in 1992. After obtaining his master’s degree in May 2009, he received an honorable
discharge from the Navy in February 2001. He has held several positions in Navy Reserve
since February 2001. The president of his employer recommends Applicant for a security
clearance because of his honesty and favorable job performance. 
The evidence supporting a denial of Applicant’s security clearance is more
substantial. Applicant committed an alcohol-related driving offense in May 1996, followed
by seven months of abstinence. Though about 14 years passed before Applicant committed
a second alcohol-related offense, he continued to consume alcohol every other weekend
or every weekend until the 9 to 12-month period of abstention in 2010 and 2011. 
The January 2014 alcohol episode has been discussed. Though the former HRD,
a close friend of Applicant since 2006, was not confident about Applicant’s resoluteness
for long-term rehabilitation, Applicant agreed to certain conditions offered by his employer
so that he could continue employment. Applicant’s continued use of alcohol, albeit at a
sporadic frequency, violates an essential condition of the agreement. Since Applicant’s
regular AA attendance between the January 2014 episode and October 2014, his recent
AA attendance has decreased dramatically, specifically between July and September 2015.
The reduced AA attendance undercuts his testimony of going to more AA meetings. He did
not contact his sponsor about the three drinking incidents in 2014 and 2015. Considering
the totality of the evidence, Applicant’s evidence in mitigation falls short of overcoming the
ongoing security concerns based on the alcohol consumption guideline. 
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.d: Against  Applicant
10
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