DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )       ISCR Case No. 16-02879
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Benjamin J. Dorsey, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case.  I grant Applicant’s clearance.1
On 19 September 2016, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising security concerns under Guideline G, Alcohol
Consumption, and Guideline J, Criminal Conduct.  Applicant timely answered the SOR,2
requesting a hearing before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).
Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE ) 1 and 3-6, and Applicant exhibits (AE A).1
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20,2
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) effective within the DoD on
1 September 2006. On 10 December 2016, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) signed Security
Executive Agent Directive 4, implementing new AG, effective with any decision issued on or after 8 June 2017.
This decision is issued under the original AG, but I have examined the new AG to ensure that I would not
reach a different result if I issued this decision under the new AG. I would not rule differently under either set
of AG.
1
DOHA assigned the case to me 5 June 2017, and I convened a hearing on 12 July
2017. DOHA received the transcript 20 July 2017, and the record closed.
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations, except for SOR 1.c. . He is a 43-year-3
old audio-visual technician employed by a defense contractor since February 2014. He
has been intermittently employed previously by different defense contractors from
November 2008 to November 2012. He was granted a clearance in April 2009, and
granted access for a public trust position in February 2014. Apparently, he now requires
a clearance for his employment. Applicant reported his alcohol-related issues on his 14
June 2014 clearance application (GE 1).
Applicant abused alcohol to the point of intoxication from 2009 to late November
2014 (SOR 1.a), resulting in four incidents indicative of poor judgment. In April 2012, he
was charged with driving/attempting to drive while impaired (SOR 1.b), when he was
sitting in his car 100 yards from his house with the key in the ignition, but the engine off.
On 6 June 2012, he was awarded probation before judgment (GE 3), and ordered to
attend an alcohol awareness program and Alcohol Anonymous (AA) meetings.  He4
complied with those orders, completing an intensive weekend intervention program in
May 2013 (Answer, Exhibit I).  However, his probation was later revoked when he was5
charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drug in March 2013 (SOR 1.d). He
paid a fine to resolve the April 2012 charges (GE 3). The May 2013 charge was later
dismissed for want of prosecution (GE 5). 
In the meantime, on 2 November 2012 Applicant was fired from his job as a
Government contractor when the contractor perceived that Applicant was intoxicated at
work on 1 November 2012 and unable to perform his job (SOR 1.c)(GE 4). Applicant
disputed that he was intoxicated at work, but acknowledged (Tr. 21) that his supervisor
took him home that day and that he was fired the next day. He also acknowledged
drinking on 31 October 2012, Halloween.
Finally, in November 2014, Applicant was charged with driving under the
influence of alcohol per se (SOR 1.e), when he was found asleep in his car in a
convenience store parking lot with his engine off. His blood alcohol level was .22%. In
He asserts that he was not intoxicated at work when he was dismissed for being intoxicated at work.3
On his June 2014 clearance application, Applicant reported two instances of counseling under the mental4
health question: March to July 2013 with one health care professional and March 2013 to January 2014 with
a second health care professional. Under the alcohol use question, he reported the adverse work impact
alleged at SOR 1.c and some adverse marital issues under alcohol use, but also reported court-ordered
counseling: March to October 2012 and the March to July 2013 counseling previously listed under mental
health.
Applicant states that he was told during this program that he was an alcoholic. However, no records5
corroborate that claim.
2
May 2015, he was sentenced to jail, with all but four days suspended, fined, and placed
on two-years’ probation. He was ordered to install an ignition interlock on his vehicle,
and attend a victim impact panel. He attended the victim impact panel in June 2015
(Answer, Exhibit J). He also attended an intensive outpatient program between 8
December 2014 and 3 February 2015, during which he was subject to random urine and
breath tests—all of which were negative (Answer, Exhibit N). 
  
Applicant’s work and character references (AE A; Answer, Exhibit A), which
include current and past work references from both his employer and the user agency
contacts he deals with daily, the employee assistance program manager from his
company, the supervisor who hired him, and work references from the volunteer groups
that he supports all consider him to have outstanding character and work ethic. He has
received work recognition (Answer, Exhibits B, L), and recognition for his volunteer work
(Answer, Exhibit C).
Applicant has not consumed alcohol since late 2014. He entered the employee
assistance program (EAP) in December 2014, and was an active participant at the time
of his Answer (Exhibit A). He had already consulted a doctor in late 2014, a doctor
Applicant continues to see (Answer, Exhibit G).  The doctor prescribed an anxiety drug6
and a drug to curb his desire for alcohol. The doctor states that Applicant is stable in his
work and personal life, has been compliant with the doctor’s treatment
recommendations, and has an excellent prognosis.7
In February 2016, Applicant was discharged from the ignition interlock program
(Answer, Exhibit M). He has executed a statement—similar to that contemplated by the
mitigating conditions for drug involvement and substance misuse—consenting to
automatic revocation of his clearance if he is again involved in alcohol abuse (Answer,
Exhibit O). The SOR cross alleged the alcohol arrests at SOR 1.b, 1.d, and 1.e as
criminal conduct under Guideline J.
Policies
The AG list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for access to classified
information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and mitigating conditions
under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented. Each decision must
also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG ¶
2(d). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case can be
measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or denial of a
clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant
A board certified psychiatrist and addictionologist.6
Applicant sees his doctor about every two months for progress updates and medicine adjustments. Applicant7
no longer attends AA, because he finds the same kind of support at the community theater organizations
where he volunteers. He says his doctor has not objected to this substitution..
3
adjudicative guideline is Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct), .
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. 
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.8
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline G, by
demonstrating Applicant’s five-year history of alcohol abuse between 2009 and
November 2014, punctuated by four alcohol-related incidents between April 2012 and
November 2014. Although the record does not reflect a formal diagnosis of alcohol use
disorder, such diagnosis is not required to raise a security concern.  Nevertheless, I find9
that Applicant has mitigated the security concerns.
Applicant has adopted abstinence as his approach to his alcohol problems, and
has had no alcohol for nearly two and a half years, about the same amount of time
covered by Applicant’s alcohol-related incidents. Thus, ¶23(a) partially applies, in that I
concluded that enough time has passed and the conduct is unlikely to recur. However,
while ¶22(d)-(g) do not fully apply because there has been no documented diagnosis,
and ¶23(c)-(d) do not fully apply because of questions about the nature of Applicant’s
treatment programs and whether Applicant’s return to alcohol use in March 2013 and
November 2014 constitutes relapse, ¶23(b) fully applies.  Moreover, after his10
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).8
¶ 22(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or9
spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern . . .; (b) alcohol-related incidents at work,
such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition . . . regardless of whether the
individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; (c) habitual or binge consumption of
alcohol to the point of impaired judgment . . .; (d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional or mental
health professional. . . of alcohol use disorder;
¶ 23(b) the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of10
actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations; 
4
November 2014 charge, Applicant took a different approach to his alcohol use problem.
In addition to fully complying with the court requirements for treatment, Applicant began
consulting with a doctor in late 2014, following his treatment recommendations,
undertook a counseling program that was not court-ordered, and began participating in
programs sponsored by his company’s EAP beginning in December 2014 and
continuing through at least October 2016.
 Further, despite the November 2014 incident, Applicant’s character references
find his reliability and work ethic to be exceptional. He remains under medical
supervision and has developed off-duty interests that keep him away from alcohol.
Finally, although not offered as a mitigating condition under the guidelines, Applicant
has made himself subject to immediate dismissal if he is involved in another alcohol-
related incident. I conclude Applicant is unlikely to abuse alcohol in the future.
Accordingly, I resolve Guideline G for Applicant.
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline J, but
Applicant mitigated the security concerns. Applicant admitted that his three alcohol-
related arrests also constituted criminal conduct. However, in this case, even the
combination of offenses does not raise any security concerns beyond those considered
under Guideline G, and while Applicant violated his probation on his April 2012 arrest,
he otherwise satisfactorily completed the court-ordered requirements for that arrest as
well as the other two arrests.  Moreover, even if I concluded that the disqualifying11
conditions were fully applicable, the corresponding mitigating conditions remove any
security concerns.  Applicant completed all his sentencing requirements, has an12
excellent employment record, and is well involved in his community. Accordingly, I
resolve Guideline J for Applicant.
 
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline G: For Applicant
Subparagraphs a-e: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline J: For Applicant
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
¶31.(a) a pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be unlikely to affect a national security11
eligibility decision, but which in combination cast doubt on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or
trustworthiness.; . . . (d) violation or revocation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-ordered
rehabilitation program;
¶32.(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened . . . that it is unlikely to recur and12
does not cast doubt on the individuals’ reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; (d) there is evidence of
successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal
activity, restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good
employment record, or constructive community involvement.
5
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance granted.
       
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge
6