KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline J
DIGEST: Applicant cites to some Hearing Office cases that he believes support his effort to
obtain a clearance. We give these cases due consideration as persuasive authority. However,
each case must be decided on its own merits. Moreover, Hearing Office decisions are not binding
on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 16-03219.a1
DATE: 11/15/2017
DATE: November 15, 2017
In Re:
----------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-03219
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. 
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
November 21, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J
(Criminal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On August 30, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the followings issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm. 
The Judge’s Findings of Fact
Applicant has worked for a Defense contractor since late 2013.  He retired from the U.S.
military earlier that year.  During his military career he deployed to the Middle East.  Applicant was
charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) on four occasions from early 1998 to mid-2015. 
Three of the occasions were during his military service.  Applicant was required more than once to
attend his service’s alcohol treatment program and, after his latest DUI while on active duty, he
received nonjudicial punishment that reduced him from an E-7 to E-6, the grade at which he retired. 
His 2015 DUI resulted in a plea of guilty that resulted in a fine, probation, attendance at a DUI
school, and installation of an interlock device on his car.  
Applicant continues to drink and become intoxicated.  The last time he was drunk was
Christmas 2016.  He does not believe that he has an alcohol problem, and there is no evidence that
he has received a diagnosis.  Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for honesty, loyalty, and
trustworthiness.  His character references recommend that he receive a clearance.
The Judge’s Analysis
The Judge stated that Applicant’s alcohol-related offenses were not infrequent, and he noted
evidence that Applicant continues to drink to the point of intoxication.  He cited to a paucity of
evidence regarding the nature and substance of Applicant’s alcohol classes.  He also stated that
Applicant’s offenses in the military, with required class attendance, should have put him on notice
that he needed to change his behavior, yet he failed to do so.  The Judge concluded that Applicant
has shown a pattern of criminal conduct.  He stated that he could not conclude that Applicant had
put such conduct behind him.  Though citing to Applicant’s good military record and character
evidence, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s security concerns were not mitigated.
Discussion
Applicant cites to various pieces of record evidence that he believes the Judge either did not
consider or that he mis-weighed.  Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption
that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record.  Neither are they sufficient to show that
the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-08711 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 24, 2017).  Applicant cites to some Hearing
Office cases that he believes support his effort to obtain a clearance.  We give these cases due
consideration as persuasive authority.  However, each case must be decided on its own merits. 
Moreover, Hearing Office decisions are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the
Appeal Board.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 16-01941 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 9, 2017). 
The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.  The decision is sustainable on this record.  “The general standard is that a clearance may
be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”  Department
of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  See also Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b):  “Any
doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in
favor of the national security.”
Order 
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan             
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board