DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
           
               
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
   )  ISCR Case No. 17-02687 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se  
 
                      
            
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
TUIDER, Robert, Administrative Judge: 
 
On August 17, 2016, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions (SF-86). On August 30, 2017, after reviewing the application and information 
gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense (DOD) 
Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland, sent Applicant a statement 
of reasons (SOR), explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information.1 The SOR 
detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security guideline known as 
Guideline G for alcohol consumption. Applicant timely answered the SOR and 
requested a hearing. 
                                                          
1This case is adjudicated 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 (AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017. 
     
 
2 
 
 
On March 20, 2018, the case was assigned to me. On May 10, 2018, the 
hearing was held as scheduled. After reviewing Applicant’s hearing transcript, 
evidence, and post-hearing evidence, I emailed the parties indicating that this case 
was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant did not 
object. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and provided written 
notice that Department Counsel did not object.  
 
Applicant’s SOR alleged allegations under Guideline G, consisting of two 
driving under the influence (DUI) arrests that occurred in 2015 and 2016. A duly 
qualified medical health professional determined that she did not have a substance 
abuse handicap and did not recommend her for any additional treatment.  Since her 
second DUI arrest in 2016, Applicant quit drinking and adopted a lifestyle consistent 
with sobriety to include hobbies and activities that do not involve alcohol. 
 
Applicant successfully held a secret clearance for the past 12 years, honorably 
served in the U.S. Marine Corps for ten years, and has an excellent reputation for 
trustworthiness.  Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that 
Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in the 
SOR under Guideline G. I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence 
to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by 
Department Counsel. In particular, I conclude that the alcohol consumption security 
concerns are resolved in whole or in part under the mitigating conditions AG ¶¶ 23(a) 
and 23(b).  
 
The concerns over Applicant’s history of alcohol consumption do not create 
doubt about her current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to 
protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a 
whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence 
or vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, 
Applicant met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. This 
case is decided for Applicant.  
 
 
 
Robert Tuider 
Administrative Judge