1 
 
 
2
 
               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
   )    ISCR Case No. 12-04298 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Rhett Petcher, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Given the severity of Applicant’s alcohol use and her continued use after a diagnosis 
of alcohol dependence, she has not mitigated the alcohol consumption security concerns. 
Her failure to disclose both an alcohol-related job reprimand and a complete history of her 
alcohol rehabilitation treatment on her security clearance application constitute intentional, 
unmitigated omissions under the personal conduct security guideline. Clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On August 31, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security 
concerns under Guidelines G, alcohol consumption, and E, personal conduct, and 
explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to grant 
security clearance eligibility. The DOD CAF took the action under Executive Order (EO) 
10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as 
amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review 
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines for 
 
2 
 
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DOD on 
September 1, 2006. 
 
On September 18, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the 
allegations, and requesting a decision based on the written record instead of a hearing. On 
November 4, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) with 
eight attachments (Items 1-8). That month, Applicant’s case was discontinued after she 
lost the sponsorship of an employer. The case was later re-opened after Applicant 
obtained another sponsor. On March 10, 2017, Department Counsel again sent the FORM 
to Applicant. The second copy of the FORM contained an additional exhibit (Item 9). 
Applicant received the updated FORM on March 16, 2017 and did not respond. The case 
was assigned to me on October 1, 2017. 
 
While this case was pending a decision, Security Executive Agent Directive 4 was 
issued establishing National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) applicable to all covered 
individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or 
eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The AG supersede the adjudicative guidelines 
implemented in September 2006 and are effective for any adjudication made on or after 
June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have adjudicated Applicant’s security clearance eligibility 
under the new AG.1  
 
Evidentiary Ruling 
 
 Items 5 and 9 are Report of Investigations (ROI) summarizing Applicant’s personal 
subject interviews conducted on January 31, 2012 and August 6, 2016, respectively. Such 
reports are inadmissible unless authenticated. Directive ¶ E3.1.20. Applicant authenticated 
Item 5 by signing a statement adopting the investigative agent’s summary as accurate and 
true. Item 5 is therefore admissible. There is no such statement appended to Item 9, which 
remains unauthenticated, and inadmissible. Therefore, I will consider Item 5 in my 
disposition of this case, but I will not consider Item 9.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
  Applicant is a 59-year-old married woman. A high school graduate, she has been 
working with a defense contractor since 2011, as a consultant. (Item 7 at 5)   
 
 Applicant has a drinking problem. She started drinking alcohol as a teenager, and 
she began losing control of her drinking by age 40. By then, she was drinking a pint of 
vodka and several glasses of wine a few times each week. (Item 6 at 16) She attempted 
treatment at a rehabilitation facility in 2003, but it was unsuccessful, as she relapsed. (Item 
6 at 16)  
 
 In 2008, Applicant began to experience more stress on the job, and began drinking 
alcohol in the morning before work to cope. (Item 7) Realizing that the problem was 
                                                 
1 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my decision in this 
case. 
3 
 
worsening, she attempted total sobriety. Unable to sustain this, she attempted to manage 
her alcohol consumption by limiting it to social drinking. (Item 7 at 2) 
 
 Applicant’s efforts at controlling her drinking failed. In March 2009, she received a 
written reprimand for smelling like alcohol on the job. (Item 4 at 3) Between 2009 and 
2012, she fell twice in her home while intoxicated. (Item 7 at 2) Both episodes resulted in 
injuries that required emergency room treatment. On May 26, 2011, Applicant entered an 
inpatient treatment center for alcohol abuse where she was diagnosed with alcohol 
dependence. (Item 7 at 1) Unhappy with the quality of patient-care services, Applicant left 
the facility on June 4, 2011, without finishing the treatment program. (Item 7 at 11, 15). Her 
discharge prognosis was poor. (Item 7 at 11) 
 
 On April 27, 2012, Applicant received emergency room treatment after injuring her 
head after falling down the steps at her home. She had consumed a bottle of wine earlier 
that evening. (Item 8 at 5)  The emergency room doctor, upon reviewing a blood test that, 
among other things, measured her liver enzymes, concluded that she was not being candid 
about her alcohol consumption. (Item 8 at 15)   
  
 In May 2012, Applicant enrolled in another inpatient treatment facility. (Item 6 at 1) 
She was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Upon 
discharge, her counselor recommended that she complete a 12-step program, such as 
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and obtain a sponsor. (Item 6 at 13) 
 
 Consistent with the outpatient plan, Applicant attended AA meetings daily for three 
months after discharge, and twice per week for the next year and a half, through 
approximately March 2014. (Item 1 at 6) As of the date of the SOR, Applicant was drinking 
alcohol again, in contravention of her treatment plan. (Item 1 at 5) She contends that she is 
drinking in moderation. 
 
 After Applicant’s father died in October 2007, she became the executor of his 
estate. This was an onerous job that required that she travel frequently to a state hundreds 
of miles from where she lived, organizing records, opening bank accounts, making court 
appearances, and tracking down relatives. (Item 4 at 1) The lengthy probate process, 
together with some major health issues, prompted her to take 12 weeks of leave through   
the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in late 2009. When the FMLA leave expired, 
Applicant was not ready to return to work, and her employer refused to hold the position 
open any longer. They then reached a mutual agreement that Applicant resign in 
November 2009. (Item 2 at 6)  
 
 The SOR alleges that Applicant intentionally falsified her security clearance 
application by failing to include either her March 2009 written reprimand, or her resignation 
of November 2009, in response to Section 13A of her security clearance application, which 
requires the disclosure of any employment terminations or departures after any charge of 
misconduct or unsatisfactory performance. Applicant contends that she only drank alcohol 
at work after obtaining prior approval, and that her employer had a culture of alcohol 
consumption, and promoted drinking on the job on Friday afternoons. (Item 1 at 5) As for 
4 
 
her failure to disclose her 2009 resignation, she contends that it did not meet the criteria for 
inclusion under Section 13A.  
 
 Applicant failed to disclose her inpatient, alcohol treatment, received between May 
and June 2011, as required in response to Section 24 of her September 2011 security 
clearance application. Application contends that she did not include it because she was 
displeased with the quality of care that she received while enrolled in the program. (Item 1 
at 5) 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, 
the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered 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 the adjudicative 
process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and 
commonsense decision. 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 national security 
eligibility 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. 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 favorable security decision. 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the 
totality of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine 
adjudicative process factors in AG ¶ 2(d), as follows:  
 
(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, 
5 
 
coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence. 
 
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 struggle with alcohol 
addiction over the years has resulted in several alcohol-related falls, and a reprimand from 
her employer. She has sought treatment three times, and continues to drink alcohol 
against the advice of clinicians after having been diagnosed as alcohol dependent. The 
following disqualifying conditions apply under AG ¶ 22: 
 
(b) alcohol-related incidents at work such as reporting to work or duty in an 
intoxicated or impaired condition, drinking on the job, or jeopardizing the 
welfare and safety of others, regardless of whether the individual is 
diagnosed with alcohol use disorder; 
 
(c) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired 
judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use 
disorder; 
 
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., 
physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) 
of alcohol use disorder; 
 
(e) the failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed; and 
 
(f) alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment 
recommendations after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. 
 
 The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable under AG ¶ 23: 
 
(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 
judgment;  
 
(b) the individual acknowledges his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, 
provides evidence of actions to overcome the problem, and has 
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or 
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, and 
 
6 
 
 (c)  the individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has 
no previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory 
progress in a treatment program. 
 
 Applicant has a serious history of alcohol abuse. Although she acknowledges her 
problem and has periodically received treatment, she has relapsed multiple times, and 
continues to consume alcohol, despite multiple diagnoses of alcohol dependence. Under 
these circumstances, none of the mitigating conditions applies. 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
 Under this guideline, “conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, 
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about 
an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive 
information.” Moreover, “of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful 
and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes.” (AG ¶ 
15) Applicant’s omission of her March 2009 alcohol-related reprimand, her failure to 
disclose the circumstances of her job resignation November 2009, and her failure to 
disclose inpatient treatment in 2011 from her security clearance application raises the issue 
of whether the following disqualifying condition under AG ¶ 16(a) applies: 
 
Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any 
personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, r similar form 
used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award 
benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or 
award fiduciary responsibilities. 
 
 Applicant’s resignation from her job in November 2009 did not relate to 
incompetence, bad conduct, or irresponsibility. Instead, she resigned after she had 
exhausted her FMLA leave, yet still needed time away from work to manage urgent family 
affairs. Under these circumstances, Applicant’s contention that she did not believe she had 
to list this resignation on her security clearance application was credible under the 
circumstances. AG ¶ 16(a) does not apply. I resolve subparagraph 2.a in her favor. 
 
 As for subparagraph 2.b, Applicant’s employer reprimanded her for smelling like 
alcohol on the job, and she was required to list this in response to Section 13A of her 2011 
security clearance application. Whether or not Applicant’s employer had a permissive 
drinking culture, as she explained in her SOR answer, is not relevant to the issue of 
whether she should have listed the reprimand on her security clearance application. 
Similarly, Applicant’s dissatisfaction with the rehabilitation services received from the 
treatment facility in 2011 did not obviate her responsibility to disclose that treatment on the 
security clearance application. AG ¶ 16(a) applies to subparagraphs 2.b and 2.c without 
mitigation. 
 
 
 
7 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 I considered the whole-person factors in my analysis of the guidelines, and they do 
not warrant a favorable conclusion. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for 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:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.e:     Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 2.a:     For Applicant 
 
Subparagraphs 2.b-2.c:    Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility 
for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Marc E. Curry 
Administrative Judge