1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-04916
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the security concerns generated by her two alcohol-related
arrests. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On January 17, 2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing
security concerns under Guideline 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).
In an answer dated February 11, 2016, Applicant admitted the allegations and
requested a hearing.  On June 6, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On June 20,
2016, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case for August 15, 2016. At the
2
hearing, I received seven Government exhibits marked as Government Exhibits (GE) 1
through 3, and 17 Applicant exhibits marked as Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A through Q.
DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on August 24, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 30-year-old married woman with a 12-year-old stepchild whom she
legally adopted. She graduated from college in 2009, majoring in environmental
science. In 2016, she earned a master’s degree in the field of geographic information
science. (Tr. 15) Since finishing college, she has worked as a remote imaging
geographic spatial analyst. (GE 2 at 3)
Applicant is highly respected on the job and in the community. A coworker
characterized her as an exemplary person who pays an acute attention to detail and
“demonstrate[s] an extreme amount of pride and professionalism in [her] work.” (AE H)
A cartographer, who befriended Applicant at a social outing and subsequently attended
several networking conferences together, characterized Applicant as “an incredible
mentor.” (AE K) According to her supervisor, Applicant is an industrious employee who
achieved milestones “well in advance [of] the mandated due dates . . .” (AE B at 2) Her
competency ratings consistently are exceptional. (AE B and C)
In September 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving while
intoxicated (DUI). She pleaded no contest to the charge, whereupon the court
suspended her license for three months, ordered her to perform 100 hours of
community service, and ordered her to be subject to random urinalyses during
probation. (Tr. 18) This arrest occurred a few months after Applicant finished college. 
In January 2015, Applicant was stopped by the police after an improper lane
change. After she failed a sobriety test, she was arrested and charged with DUI and
disregarding traffic lane markings. The court suspended her driver’s license and ordered
her to complete driver safety classes. She completed the classes, as ordered, and her
license has been restored. (Tr. 19)
Per Applicant, these episodes of drinking and driving were the result of poor
stress management rather than a drinking problem. Specifically, when the first arrest
occurred, Applicant had just finished college and had yet to find a full-time job, and was
getting discouraged. She attributes the second arrest to a failure to balance her rigorous
job duties with the task of planning her wedding. (Tr. 19) Currently, Applicant drinks
primarily at home and avoids “mixing it with business.” (Tr. 19) When she does drink
outside of the home socially, she uses public transportation or cabs to get home. (Tr.
20)
In April 2016, Applicant voluntarily attended counseling. After four sessions, the
counselor concluded that Applicant was not alcohol dependent, but that “the two
incidents . . . denoted poor judgment and that by definition [constituted] alcohol abuse in
isolated events, with no clinical concern that the patient’s pattern of drinking will lead to
3
dependence.” (AE P) He advised her that there was no need for her to engage in any
further counseling. (AE P)
Applicant has been promoted three times since beginning her job in 2009. (Tr.
22) Now a supervisor, she is able to control work-related stress by delegating more of
her tasks. (Tr. 22) Also, her stress is further controlled because her schedule is more
family-friendly than it was previously, as she now teleworks three days per week. (Tr.
23)
Policies
The adjudicative 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(a), 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.” 
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 to obtain a security clearance.
Analysis
Guideline G, 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’s history of
alcohol-related criminal offenses triggers the application of AG ¶¶ 22(a), “alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving under the influence . . . ,” and 22(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.”
Applicant’s counselor’s diagnosis of alcohol abuse triggers the application of AG ¶
22(e), “evaluation of alcohol abuse . . . by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff
member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.”
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 23(a) are potentially applicable:
(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
4
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).
Applicant’s last alcohol-related offense occurred fairly recently. However, six
years elapsed between Applicant’s two alcohol-related crimes, she complied with the
court orders on both occasions, she voluntarily sought counseling after the second
arrest, and her counselor told her after the fourth session that she had no current
alcohol problem, and did not need any further counseling. AG ¶ 23(a) and AG ¶ 23(b)
apply.
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.
Applicant’s first alcohol-related arrest was partially attributable to immaturity, as
she was a 24-year-old, recent college graduate when it occurred. Since then, she has
gained a job and her career has thrived, as her employer has promoted her three times.
Moreover, she has completed a master’s degree, gotten married, and legally adopted
her stepchild. These facts, together with her proactive decision to consult a counselor,
and her outstanding character references compel me to conclude that she has mitigated
the security concerns.
5
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-1.b: 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