1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-03986
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Rhett Petcher, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant regularly consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication from 1988 to
May 2015. He was convicted of child cruelty in 2008 and driving under the influence of
alcohol in 2012. He successfully completed an outpatient alcohol treatment program in
February 2016, after relapsing following three previous programs. The evidence is
insufficient to mitigate resulting security concerns. Based upon a review of the
pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is
denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86) on January 25,
2013, in connection with the periodic reinvestigation of a security clearance he has held
almost continuously since 1989. On June 29, 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD)
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
2
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information,
effective within the Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing (AR) on August 25, 2015, and initially
requested a decision based on the administrative record, without a hearing. Applicant
subsequently changed his mind and requested a hearing before an administrative
judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on December 21, 2015. The case
was assigned to me on January 21, 2016. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on February 12, 2016, scheduling the hearing for
February 26, 2016. I granted Applicant’s February 22, 2016 request for a continuance to
enable him to retain an attorney to represent him. He subsequently chose not to retain
legal counsel. DOHA issued another Notice of Hearing on April 13, 2016, setting the
hearing for April 28, 2016, and I convened the hearing as scheduled, Department
Counsel participated in the hearing via video teleconference. The Government offered
exhibits (GE) 1 through 6, which were admitted without objection, and Hearing Exhibit
(HE) I, a Government exhibit list. Applicant testified on his own behalf and offered
exhibit (AE) A, which was admitted without objection. I granted the parties’ request to
leave the record open until May 12, 2016, for submission of additional documentary
evidence and a potential Government motion to amend the SOR. Applicant submitted
no additional evidence while the record remained open. Department Counsel submitted
Government Exhibit 7, which had been identified on the record, but he did not move to
amend the SOR. Government Exhibit 7 was admitted without objection and the record
closed as scheduled. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on May 23,
2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He is divorced, with
one 16-year-old daughter. He earned a one-year vocational technical degree after
graduating from high school, and has no prior military service. (GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 7, 55.)
In his answer, Applicant admitted the truth of all factual allegations in the SOR and
provided additional information about himself. Applicant’s admissions, including his
statements in response to DOHA interrogatories (GE 3), are incorporated in the
following findings.
Applicant admitted that he regularly consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to
the point of intoxication, from approximately 1988 to at least May 2015, when he tested
positive for alcohol. In March 2008, he was arrested for Willful Cruelty to a Child when
he passed out on his couch while he was supposed to be supervising his daughter and
her friend. The children left the house and went to a store to obtain candy. A Sheriff
Department officer took or followed the children home and found Applicant unconscious
after having consumed alcohol and medicine. Applicant served two days in jail, was
sentenced to four years of probation, and fined. (AR; GE 1; GE 3; GE 5; Tr. 32-36.)
During the first half of 2012, Applicant’s drinking became so excessive that he
missed a lot of work, and his mother and brother often had difficulty trying to
3
communicate with him. His family members finally intervened on his behalf and
convinced him to enroll in a detoxification and inpatient treatment program, where he
was diagnosed with alcohol dependence by a duly qualified medical professional in July
2012. Following that month of treatment, he was enrolled in an outpatient program at a
different facility where he was also diagnosed with alcohol dependence by a duly
qualified medical professional in August 2012. (AR; GE 1; GE 3; Tr. 40-42.)
During October or November 2012, Applicant relapsed and resumed binge
drinking. On December 22, 2012, he was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI),
and Operating without Insurance. He entered into a deferred prosecution agreement
under which he was on probation for five years, fined $1,600, and required to restart
and complete alcohol treatment while remaining abstinent. On April 9, 2015, his
probation officer reported to the court that Applicant had suffered two relapses and
failed to comply with the terms of his probation. On about May 8, 2015, he tested
positive for alcohol consumption and was discharged from that outpatient treatment
program. His deferred prosecution agreement was vacated and he was convicted of,
and sentenced for, the DUI offense. (AR; GE 3; Tr. 42-47, 61-67) 
On May 20, 2015, Applicant entered another intensive outpatient alcohol
treatment program, in which he was also diagnosed as alcohol dependent. He
successfully completed that treatment program on February 12, 2016, with the
recommendation that he continue regular participation in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).
He has remained sober since early May 2015 and has continued active AA
participation. (AE A; GE 7; Tr. 47-52, 65-69.)
Applicant submitted neither evidence concerning his work performance, nor
character references from those who know him. His testimony was forthright and
sincere, and he appeared motivated to continue his sobriety.
  
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.
4
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.”
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; 
5
(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 (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol
dependence;
(f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion
of an alcohol rehabilitation program; and
(g) failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education,
evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.
Applicant admitted to habitual and binge consumption of alcohol to the point of
intoxication on a regular basis from 1988 to May 2015, with a few periods of sobriety
followed by relapses. He was convicted of committing the alcohol-related offenses of
Willful Cruelty to a Child in 2008 and DUI in 2012. He completed inpatient and
outpatient alcohol treatment programs in 2012, but relapsed shortly thereafter. He failed
to complete his court-ordered treatment in 2015 when he violated the court order and
program requirement to remain abstinent. These incidents raise security concerns
under AG ¶¶ 22(a), (c), (d), (f), and (g).
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
6
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 problems, leading to a series of
failed treatment programs and criminal charges under circumstances demonstrating bad
judgment. Given his pattern of drinking in violation of treatment program requirements
and a court order, and his relatively short period of sobriety, 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 successfully completed an intensive outpatient treatment program in
February 2016. He said that he intends to continue abstaining from alcohol
consumption, but offered no evidence of a favorable prognosis concerning future
alcohol abuse. His successful treatment program completion and ongoing participation
in AA provide a commendable start to establishing mitigation. However, this current
period of abstinence follows multiple relapses and violation of a court order, and has
occurred under the ongoing supervision of his probation officer. Accordingly, Applicant
failed to establish mitigation under the terms of AG ¶¶ 23 (b), (c), or (d).
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 appeared to be a
sincere and earnest individual, but did not take the opportunity to introduce evidence of
his good character, reliability, or trustworthiness. He is a mature individual who is
accountable for his choices and actions. His history of alcohol-related misconduct dates
back more than 25 years. Given that history, and his pattern of previous treatment
failures, the completion of his latest treatment program is too recent to conclude that
7
recurrence of alcohol abuse is unlikely. The potential for exploitation or duress is
undiminished. Overall, the record evidence creates 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 G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.g: Against Applicant
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