Item 3.1
1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-01569
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline E. Heintzelman, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant was arrested and charged with four alcohol-related criminal offenses
between the early 1990s and 2013. He was found to be severely intoxicated at work in
2011. He relapsed following his completion of intensive outpatient alcohol treatment
programs in both 2010 and 2011. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated.
Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86) on November 6,
2007, and was subsequently granted a clearance for the first time in connection with his
current employment.  On September 30, 2015, the Department of Defense1
Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
Item 1.2
Item 2.3
Department Counsel submitted seven Items in support of the SOR allegations. Item 6 is the summary of an4
interview from an OPM Report of Investigation. It was neither attested to nor adopted by Applicant, and no
witness authenticated the document. Accordingly, it is inadmissible per Directive ¶ E3.1.20 and will not be
considered in determining Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. There is no information in Item 6 that
would reasonably support mitigation of security concerns raised by the facts alleged in the SOR, and any
relevant adverse information in Item 6 is cumulative with information contained in Items 1 through 5 and Item
7. 
See footnote 4, above, concerning the irrelevance and inadmissibility of Item 6. 5
Item 2.6
Item 2.7
2
to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption).  The2
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 that came into effect in
the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR on November 7, 2015, and
requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on3
January 26, 2016. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was4
received by Applicant on February 3, 2016, and he was afforded an opportunity to file
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of
his receipt of the FORM. Applicant submitted additional documents in response to the
FORM during the time provided, to which Department Counsel had no objection. They
are admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit (AE) A. Applicant did not object to the
admissibility of any Item attached to the FORM. Items 1 through 5 and Item 7 are
admitted into evidence.  I received the case assignment on April 22, 2016.5
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 45 years old. He has worked for a major defense contractor since
2002. He attended college from 1993 to 1995. He never served in the military. He has
held a security clearance during his current employment since 2008. He has never
married, and had one adult child.  6
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the allegations in SOR ¶¶
1.a through 1.g, with some explanations. Applicant’s admissions and explanations are
incorporated in the following findings.7
Item 1; Item 2.8
Item 1; Item 2; Item 3; Item 4.9
Item 1; Item 2; Item 4; Item 7 at 16, 23.10
Item 5.11
Item 5; Item 7.12
Item 4. He admitted the 2013 DW I in this response, but the record contains no further details about it.13
Item 2.14
3
On two different occasions in the early 1990's, Applicant was arrested and
charged with Public Intoxication.  In 1998 he was convicted of Driving While Intoxicated8
(DWI), and sentenced to serve probation and perform community service.  9
Applicant entered an intensive outpatient treatment program at a local hospital
for alcohol dependence in October 2010. He then abstained from alcohol consumption
until February 2011 when he relapsed and resumed alcohol consumption.  10
On September 21, 2011, Applicant tripped and fell in his work area. The
coworker who came to his assistance smelled alcohol and called security personnel,
who responded with medical assistance. The responders also detected alcohol on his
breath, and  subsequent tests revealed that Applicant had blood alcohol content (BAC)
levels of .274 and .28. He was then referred to, and required to participate in, his
company’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for substance abuse, and to perform
random testing for two years.   11
As required by the EAP, Applicant underwent another period of intensive
outpatient treatment at the same local hospital from October 3, to November 11, 2011.
During that program he was diagnosed, by a staff licensed clinical social worker, as
being alcohol dependent. He enrolled and participated in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA),
and was advised to continue that program and abstain from alcohol consumption upon
his discharge from outpatient treatment.12
Applicant was arrested and charged with DWI again in 2013. On December 29,
2014, he stated in a sworn interrogatory response that he was not participating in AA, or
a similar organization, to help him abstain from drinking. He further stated that he had
last consumed alcohol on August 21, 2014, but no longer drank alcohol and did not
intend to do so in the future.  In his response to the SOR, he said that the date of his13
last alcohol consumption was in September 2014.14
Applicant said that he was not participating in AA, or receiving other counseling
for his issues with alcohol, because he found those methods for recovery were not right
for him. He said that, instead, he has been attending his church on a regular basis, and
participating in its governance, for more than two years to help him recover and abstain
AE A.15
4
from alcohol. His pastor wrote a letter describing their two families’ close connections
over the past thirteen years. Their daughters are close friends, and the pastor trusted
Applicant to care for his daughter when she would accompany Applicant’s family over
those years. The pastor also confirmed Applicant’s recent involvement in church
activities.  15
The record lacks any evidence concerning the quality of Applicant’s professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. I was unable
to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person since he elected to have his
case decided without a hearing.  
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the 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, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
5
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter into a
fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon 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 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.
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. The DCs raised by the allegations in the SOR and record evidence are:
(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;
(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; and
(f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion
of an alcohol rehabilitation program.
Applicant has been arrested and charged with multiple incidents of public
intoxication and DWI since the early 1990s. He was also found to be severely
intoxicated at work in September 2011. He underwent and completed intensive
outpatient treatment for his alcoholism in October 2010, and again from October to
November 2011 following his first post-treatment relapse in February 2011. He failed to
follow his counselor’s recommendation to continue AA participation after his 2011
6
outpatient treatment, and was charged with another DWI in 2013. These incidents raise
significant security concerns under AG ¶¶ 22(a), (b), (e), and (f).
AG ¶ 23 provides conditions that could mitigate alcohol consumption 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);
(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.
Applicant has a lengthy history of alcohol-related offenses, leading to a series of
criminal charges under circumstances demonstrating bad judgment. His latest
documented incident was in 2013, following his second period of intensive outpatient
treatment. Given this pattern, his relapses after completion of two treatment programs,
and his decision not to continue participation in AA or a similar aftercare program, it
cannot be determined that recurrence is unlikely or that doubts concerning his judgment
and reliability are resolved. Applicant failed to meet his burden to establish mitigation
under AG ¶ 20(a). 
Applicant says that he has abstained from alcohol consumption since August or
September 2014. However, this current period of abstinence follows multiple relapses
after completing two previous intensive outpatient treatment programs, and is most
likely connected to some level of monitoring following his 2013 DWI charge.
Accordingly, Applicant failed to establish mitigation under the terms of AG ¶¶ 23 (b), (c),
or (d).
7
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 relevant 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
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant did not take the
opportunity to introduce evidence of his good character, reliability, or trustworthiness,
other than a letter from his pastor describing their families’ friendship and Applicant’s
recent participation in their church. He is a mature individual who is accountable for his
choices and actions. His history of alcohol-related misconduct dates back more than 20
years. Although he claims abstinence since August or September 2014, his latest DUI is
too recent, and his post-treatment relapses are too numerous, to conclude that
recurrence of alcohol abuse is unlikely. Overall, the record evidence creates significant
doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance, and
such doubt must be resolved in favor of the national security. Although Applicant has
begun to establish a recent record of responsible conduct, he did not meet his burden to
mitigate the security concerns arising from his alcohol consumption.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.g: Against Applicant
8
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge