1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-04614
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Catie E. Young, Esquire
January 20, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On November 6, 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines G and E for Applicant.
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) (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On January 8, 2015, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested a hearing in this case. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge
on April 13, 2015. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice
of hearing on April 20, 2015, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on May 21,
2015. The Government offered Exhibits 1 through 7, which were received without
objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits A through X,
which were also admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing
2
(Tr) on May 29, 2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and the
testimony of Applicant, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record discussed
above, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of
fact: 
Applicant is 59 years old. He is divorced, and he has three children. He received
a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics. He attended the United States Military
Academy at West Point in 1975 and 1976. Applicant has been associated for two years
with a consulting firm that is a defense contractor. Prior to that he worked as a Senior
Manager for 30 years for another defense contractor until he retired in 2011. Applicant
is seeking a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense
sector.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption) 
The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has
engaged in excessive alcohol consumption, which leads to the exercise of questionable
judgement or the failure to control impulses. The following allegations are cited in the
SOR as tending to show that:
1.a. It is alleged in the SOR that on or about April 2002, Applicant was arrested
and charged with (1) Driving Under the Influence (DUI), and (2) Fight in a Public Place,
misdemeanors. Applicant pled guilty to (1) Driving with Blood Alcohol Content Level of
0.08% or Higher, and (2) Fight in a Public Place, both misdemeanors. He was placed on
probation for three years and fined approximately $1,080. 
At the hearing, Applicant admitted this allegation. He testified that he had
attended an office barbecue and he had been drinking during the event, although he did
not know the quantity. Ultimately he was involved in a vehicular accident, which resulted
in conflict with the other driver. Although Applicant is the one who called the police, they
saw beer in his truck and he was arrested for DUI. Applicant plead No Contest rather
than Guilty, as alleged in the SOR, and the rest of information in the SOR is correct.
Applicant also was required to attend a First Offender program and he had to perform
community service. Finally, he attended some anger management classes. Applicant
averred that this was his only arrest for DUI. (Tr at 48-52.) 
1.b. It is alleged in the SOR that from August 2003 to October 2003, Applicant
attended an alcohol treatment program. He left the program against medical advice and
prior to completion. Applicant was diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence by the staff at
the facility. 
Applicant testified that he had voluntarily entered himself in a treatment program,
in August 2003, specifically for alcohol. The treatment consisted of four weeks of
3
residential treatment, and then outpatient treatment for two weeks. At the hearing,
Applicant denied that he had left the program prior to completion. He did confirm that he
was diagnosed as Alcohol Dependent. (Tr at 51-57.)  Applicant submitted a letter from a
friend of his, who met Applicant in this program. The individual confirmed that Applicant
did finish the treatment program as prescribed. This person has remained friends with
Applicant, and he wrote that he and Applicant continue to attend the same Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) meetings together. (Exhibit D.) Applicant also submitted a letter from a
doctor, who is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the facility where Applicant received
treatment in 2003. He wrote that Applicant completed his initial phase of the program
and transitioned to a lower level of care. (Exhibit C.)  
1.c. It is alleged in the SOR that in May 2008, Applicant was arrested and
charged with (1) Public Intoxication, and (2) Resisting an Officer. In May 2009, Applicant
pled No Contest to Disturbing the Peace, and he was placed on probation for two years
and fined approximately $525. 
Applicant admitted this allegation during his testimony, and he explained facts
that resulted in this incident. Applicant had been drinking at his home with his son, who
was celebrating his 21  birthday, when they went to a bar. Applicant continued tost
consume alcohol and eventually he and his son were asked to leave the bar. He went
out of the bar, and was “exchanging words” with the manager and a bartender. The
police were eventually called and he was arrested.  As reviewed above, Applicant pled
No Contest to Disturbing the Peace, and he was placed on probation for two years and
fined approximately $525. (Tr at 60-65.) 
1.d. It is alleged in the SOR that after Applicant was diagnosed with Alcohol
Dependence in February 2003, he continued to consume alcohol, at times to the point
of intoxication, until at least January 2013. 
During his testimony, Applicant admitted that he identifies himself as an
“alcoholic.” He testified that he first began consuming alcohol when he was 13 or 14
years of age in 1969. Applicant continued to consume alcohol as he grew older, and he
described himself as a weekend binge drinker. He had not believed his drinking was an
issue until he entered his first rehabilitation in 1989, primarily for his cocaine abuse.
(See below.) After that, Applicant stopped drinking for about six months, and then he
started drinking alcohol again in a manner he described as “on and off,” until he went
through a rehabilitation program again in 2003. (Tr at 45-47.)  
Applicant testified that after his rehabilitation in 2003, he remained sober until
2006. He explained that in 2006, he began traveling more than he had previously, and
he stopped working his alcohol rehabilitation program as aggressively nor speaking to
his AA sponsor. He started drinking more and after an incident with his supervisor, he
began attending AA again and once more pursued sobriety. This occurred in June or
July 2006. (Tr at 58-60.) 
As reviewed above, Applicant consumed alcohol in 2008, which resulted in his
arrest and conviction for Disturbing the Peace. After that arrest, Applicant testified that
4
he remained abstinent from alcohol consumption until sometime in 2012, when he
began drinking again. He first started dating again and drinking wine during his dates.
This morphed into drinking vodka at home. Because he was unhappy with once again
consuming alcohol, he again enrolled in the same alcohol rehabilitation program he had
previously entered in 2003, this time from January 2013 to April 2013. Applicant testified
that he last consumed any alcohol on January 27, 2013. (Tr at 65-66.)     
1.e. It is alleged in the SOR that from January 2013 to April 2013, Applicant
attended an alcohol treatment program where he was diagnosed with Alcohol
Dependence. Applicant admitted this allegation. He testified that he still meets every
other week with seven other people who attended this treatment program to help each
other. (Tr at 66-67.) 
Applicant testified that he has had two sponsors since he became involved in AA.
The first was his sponsor for nine years before he passed away. He has had his current
sponsor almost three years and Applicant meets with him every week or every other
week. Applicant continues to attend three or four AA meetings each week. Applicant
also testified about changes he has made in his life. He now trains for sprint triathalons,
engaging regularly in swimming, running, and bicycle riding four or five times a week.
He also has been attending Bible study classes once a week for the last two years.
Applicant has been involved with a local university in raising student scholarships.
Applicant is also very involved in AA, not just attending meetings, but chairing meetings.
(Tr at 69-75.) Finally, Applicant through his activities has gotten himself healthier and
more at peace; he has lost 25 pounds and gotten off medications for high blood
pressure and high cholesterol. (Tr at 95-96.)  
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct) 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance
because he engaged in conduct that exhibited questionable judgement, unreliability,
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and untrustworthiness.  
         2.a. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s conduct as set forth in paragraph 1.,
above, is a concern under Guideline E.
2.b. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant used marijuana from 1970 to at least
1991, including after having been granted a DoD security clearance in 1984. Applicant
admitted this allegation. He testified that he did not use marijuana very often, as cocaine
was his drug of choice. (See 2.c., below.) He estimated there were a handful of uses. He
stated that he used marijuana one last time in 1991. (Tr at 38-41, 82.) 
2.c. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant used cocaine on multiple occasions
from 1978 to 1989, including after having been granted a DoD security clearance in
1984. Applicant admitted this allegation. He testified that he used cocaine from
approximately 1978 or 1979 to the last time in 1991. He estimated he used cocaine
approximately 12 to 25 times a year for a period of about 10 years, all while holding a
security clearance. He stopped using any illegal drugs in 1989, after successfully
5
completing a three month outpatient rehabilitation program, with the one exception of
drug use in 1991 at a wedding. He also stated that during the years that he was using
drugs, he only did it on weekends. Applicant testified that he has not used any illegal
substances since 1991, and he has no intention to ever use illegal drugs in the future.
Applicant also averred that he does not knowingly associate with anyone who uses
illegal drugs. (Tr at 41-44, 82-83.)  
Mitigation
Applicant submitted a number of documents in mitigation. These include but were
not limited to: eight  very positive and laudatory character letters (Exhibits E through L);
Applicant’s excellent performance evaluations at the company where Applicant was
employed for more than 30 years (Exhibits M and N); and awards, certificates and
recognition earned by Applicant (Exhibits R, S, T, and U).
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
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, which are useful in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c),
the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the
“whole-person concept.” The 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.
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 as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship
6
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 or safeguard classified
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as
to 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption) 
       The security concern relating to the guideline for Alcohol Consumption is set out in
AG ¶ 21:  
Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of
questionable judgement or the failure to control impulses, and can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. 
Applicant's alcohol consumption resulted in the criminal conduct and convictions
listed in subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.c. The Government established that Applicant was
involved in “alcohol-related incidents away from work,” and “binge consumption of
alcohol to the point of impaired judgement.” Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 22(a) and (c)
apply to this case. AG ¶ 22(e) and (f) also are applicable because Applicant has had
more than one relapse after being diagnosed as alcohol dependent. 
In reviewing the mitigating conditions, I find that ¶ 23(a), 23(b) and 23(d) are
applicable because Applicant’s last alcohol-related incident occurred in 2008, and
Applicant has completely abstained from alcohol consumption since January 2013. While
Applicant’s history of relapses are of a concern, I also find these mitigating conditions
apply because of the credible testimony of Applicant that he strongly intends not to
consume alcohol in the future, and the changes in Applicant’s life that demonstrate a
stronger commitment to sobriety than Applicant has ever shown before. Therefore, I find
Guideline G for Applicant.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15:
Conduct involving questionable judgement, 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 an
7
candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure
to cooperate with the security clearance process.
In reviewing the disqualifying conditions under Guideline E, I conclude that
Applicant’s history of alcohol usage, his continuing alcohol usage after being diagnosed
as alcohol dependent, and his illegal drug usage while holding a security clearance, is a
concern to the Government under Guideline E. While an argument could be made that
his conduct does “support a whole-person assessment of questionable judgement,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, . . . and unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations”under ¶ 16, I do not find it controlling. 
Applicant’s last usage of alcohol occurred almost two years ago, he testified
credibly that he does not intend to consume alcohol again, and he has taken strong
steps to insure that he will not consume alcohol in the future. Also, while Applicant’s drug
usage for many years while holding a security clearance is of great concern, it ended
almost 25 years ago in 1991. Therefore, I find that mitigating condition ¶ 17(c)  is
applicable because “so much time has passed” and “it [the conduct]  is unlikely to recur
and does not cast [current] doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment.” Also, ¶ 17(d) applies because Applicant “has acknowledged the behavior and
obtained counseling to change the behavior,” and “taken other positive steps to alleviate
the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other
inappropriate behavior.” I, therefore, resolve Guideline E for Applicant.
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 the 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited above
as to why the mitigating conditions apply and are controlling under Guidelines G and E,
together with Applicant’s positive recommendations and lifestyle changes supporting his
sobriety, I find that the record evidence leaves me with no significant questions or doubts
8
as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person
concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns
under the whole-person concept. 
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. through 1.e.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a. through 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 eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
        
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge