DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-07811
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
January 17, 2017
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
dated July 3, 2014.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On May 10, 2014, the Department of
Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guideline G 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), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense for SORs
issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on June 6, 2016, and requested a hearing
before an Administrative Judge. The case was assigned to the undersigned
Administrative Judge on August 8, 2016.  A notice of hearing was issued on August 30,
2016, scheduling the hearing for October 12, 2016.  The Government offered seven
exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 7, which were received without
objection.  The Applicant presented five exhibits at the hearing, referred to as
Applicant’s Exhibits A through E, which were admitted without objection.  Applicant also
testified on his own behalf.  The transcript of the hearing (Tr.) was received on October
21, 2016.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 54 years old, and divorced with two children.  He has a Bachelor’s of
Science degree in Electronic Engineering.  He is employed by a defense contractor as a
Section Manager and is applying for a security clearance in connection with his
employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption).  The Government alleges that
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he abuses intoxicants.
Applicant admitted both of the allegations set forth in the SOR.  (Applicant’s
Answer to SOR.)  He started consuming alcohol at the age of 21, while in community
college.  At that time, he drank beer socially on the weekends with friends.  He normally
averaged about six beers over the course of a weekend.  Applicant states that he would
normally not drink to the point of intoxication, nor would he drive a vehicle after
consuming alcohol.  He states that he has maintained this level of consumption to the
present.  (Government Exhibit 3.)  Applicant has worked for his current employer, moving
through company transitions, and interrupted by several lay-offs, for about 28 years.  He
has held a security clearance most of that time without incident.  
     
In 2009, Applicant and his wife separated, and to fill his time, he consumed
alcohol, about once or twice during the mid-week at a bar.  On these occasions he drank
to the point of intoxication, consuming three or four beers.  (Tr. pp. 35-36.)  Applicant
explained that he never drank alcohol at home alone.  He was never a daily drinker, but
described himself as more of a “binge drinker.”  (Tr. p. 43.)  Applicant went to the bar in
the evenings once or twice a week and on the weekends to avoid loneliness.  He
consumed alcohol at the bar as a social thing, where he met people, and watched
sporting events on television.       
On August 19, 2010, Applicant was arrested and charged with, among other
things, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.  He explained that in August 2010, he was
still recovering from a ski injury in March 2010, where he broke his leg.  He had been
bedridden at home for months with his leg elevated and in a wheel chair while at work. 
On the day in question, his foot had been removed from the cast, and he was able to
walk and drive.  Applicant explained that went alone to the bar where people were happy
to see him.  At the bar, he consumed six beers in a three hour time frame.  He decided
to drive home because he felt he was sober enough to do so.  On his way home, he was
pulled over by a police officer who saw him cross over the center divider with his vehicle. 
Applicant was given a field sobriety test and failed.  He was then administered a
breathalyzer test, and blew over the legal limit.  After being taken to jail, Applicant blew a
.12 putting him over the legal limit again.  Applicant was held in jail over night.  He pled
nolo contendere to the DUI charge, and was found guilty.  He was fined $390; required
to attend a 6 month alcohol awareness classes; attend 6 Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
2
meetings; and 1 Mother’s Against Drunk Driver’s class.  (Government Exhibits 4 and  7.) 
Applicant satisfied all of the courts sentencing requirements imposed as a result of this
DUI.
Following this arrest Applicant stopped consuming alcohol for about six to eight
months.  (Tr. p. 37.)  He then returned to socializing at the one particular bar he
frequented.  He met friends there, and returned to consuming alcohol.  
On January 27, 2015, Applicant went to the bar to watch a basketball game.  He
explained that on that day he was told that he was being promoted on the job to Section
Manager.  He told his friends at the bar, and to celebrate, they bought him drinks.  (Tr. p.
47.)  Applicant consumed about six or seven beers before driving that night.  (Tr. p. 48.) 
Applicant was pulled over by the police, and arrested and charged, among other things,
for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.  This time, Applicant spent 4 days in jail.  He
pled nolo contendere to the DUI charge, and was found guilty.  He was sentenced to 4
years probation, 5 days in jail, 241 hours of community service, an 18-month licensed
second offender alcohol and drug education and counseling program, and fined $2,488. 
(Government Exhibit 6.)  
Applicant states that he is highly motivated to follow all court orders related to his
second DUI.  At the present time he completed the 18-month substance abuse treatment
program and driver benefits program on July 21, 2016.  He has completed his 5 day jail
sentence.  He has also completed the superior court hospital and morgue program
classes.  (Applicant’s Exhibit C.)  Applicant remains on probation for this offense until
April 3, 2018.  He has installed the state DMV required ignition interlocking devices on
both of his vehicles.  (Applicant’s Exhibit D.)  He still owes the court a total of $2,388 in
fines, assessments, and costs.  He has also volunteered to take random urinalysis tests
on his own time and at his own expense.  Applicant states that he has not consumed
alcohol since his DUI arrest in 2015.  
Applicant does not believe that he is an alcoholic.  He admits that he is a binge
drinker, but not an alcoholic.  (Tr. p. 51.)  A letter from the alcohol awareness course that
Applicant is currently attending characterizes the Applicant as a “self-admitted alcoholic
relating traditional symptoms of alcoholism, including loss of control over intake once
drinking commenced.”  (Applicant’s Exhibit B.)  Other than the court ordered programs
and Alcoholic Anonymous meetings, individual counseling and group counseling,
Applicant attended nothing further than that required by the court, except some
additional AA meetings.  He has not worked any of the twelve steps nor does he have a
sponsor.  (Tr. pp. 54-55.)
Applicant states that he no longer goes out to the bars to socialize.  He tries to
find friends thorough social media, by surfing the internet.  He also hikes and rides his
motorcycle where he meets people.  He has thought about working the steps of AA but
has not started yet.  (Tr. p. 57.)
Applicant has received a number of accolades for his stellar performance on the
job.  In 2012, he was selected to receive a noteworthy Certificate of Appreciation.  In
3
2013, he was recognized for exceptional performance and achievement.  In 2014, he
worked an additional 734 hours above a normal 40-hour work week.  In 2015, he worked
an additional 425 hours above a normal 40-hour work week to meet program
requirements, and was promoted to Engineering Section Manager.  (Applicant’s Exhibits
A and E.)
Applicant’s performance reviews for the years 2014 and 2015 reflect the highest
possible rating of 5, which indicates that Applicant “significantly exceeds expectations.” 
Applicant is described as an excellent performer.  (Applicant’s Exhibit E.)                      
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the Directive set forth adjudication policies
divided into "Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying
Factors and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
21.  The Concern.  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.  
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
22.(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;
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.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the administrative judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
4
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and 
i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question, posed
in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.”  The administrative
judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions based
on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized by
President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any 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.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an applicant for
clearance may be involved in alcohol abuse that demonstrates poor judgment or
unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support the
finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the applicant’s conduct and the
continued holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the
5
burden then shifts to the applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or
mitigation, which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The
applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that Applicant
has an alcohol abuse problem (Guideline G).  The totality of this evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of Applicant.  Because of the
scope and nature of Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or connection with
his security clearance eligibility.  Considering all of the evidence, Applicant has not
introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to
overcome the Government's case under Guideline G of the SOR.  
From the evidence presented, Applicant is an alcoholic who is a binge drinker. 
Although there is no evidence that he has been formally diagnosed, there is sufficient
evidence in the record that leads one to believe that it is a strong possibility.  Since the
age of 21, Applicant has abused alcohol on a regular and consistent basis, and has been
arrested for DUI on two occasions within the past six years.  His most recent arrest
occurred in January 2015.  Although he has been working diligently to complete the
court-ordered program related to his conviction, and has been characterized by the
alcohol treatment program as a “self-admitted alcoholic,” he has not sought out any
further help for his condition.  He remains in denial, and does not believe he is an
alcoholic.  (Tr. p. 51.)  Under Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, Disqualifying
Conditions 22.(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; 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 apply.  None of the mitigating conditions are applicable. 
Accordingly, I find against Applicant under Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption.    
  
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Applicant is commended for his excellent
work performance on the job.  He claims that he has not consumed any alcohol since his
last DUI arrest in 2015.  Assuming this is true, he has been alcohol free for over a year
and a half.  He is commended for this effort and encouraged to continue with his
sobriety.  However, given the fact that he has abused alcohol for over 35 years, simply
quitting his use for a year or so is not enough to show that he will not return to his old
ways.  More time in sobriety is needed in order to demonstrate that he will not relapse
again, like he did after his first arrest for DUI in 2010.  
  Under the particular facts of this case, the totality of the conduct set forth under all
of the guidelines viewed as a whole supports a whole-person assessment of poor
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, a lack of candor, an unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not
properly safeguard classified information.  
6
A security clearance is a privilege, not a right.  In order to meet the qualification
for access to classified information, it must determined that the applicant is and has been
sufficiently trustworthy on the job and in his everyday life to adequately protect the
Government’s national interest. Overall, based upon the seriousness of the conduct
outlined here, this applicant has demonstrated that he is not trustworthy, and he does not
meet the eligibility requirements for access to classified information.  Accordingly, I find
against Applicant under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption).  
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding against Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.  
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as required
by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.a.: Against Applicant.
       Subpara.  1.b.: Against Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant.
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge
7