1 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
[REDACTED] ) ISCR Case No. 17-01496 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Ross Hyams, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
HESS, Stephanie C., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant mitigated the Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J 
(Criminal Conduct) security concerns raised by his history of alcohol consumption and 
alcohol-related charges and arrests. Eligibility for access to classified information is 
granted. 
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (e-QIP) on March 11, 2016. 
On June 19, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) sent him a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR), alleging security concerns under Guidelines G and J. The DOD acted under 
Executive Order (Ex. Or.) 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) implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017.  
Applicant submitted his Answer to the SOR, with attached evidentiary exhibits 
referenced herein collectively as “Answer,” on August 1, 2017, and requested a hearing 
12/26/2018
 2 
before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on November 
1, 2017, and the case was assigned to me on March 20, 2018. On May 21, 2018, the 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was 
scheduled for June 5, 2018. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits 
(GX) 1 through 6 were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified and 
Applicant’s Exhibit (AX) A was admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript 
(Tr.) on June 13, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Under Guideline G, the SOR alleges that Applicant consumed alcohol to the point 
of intoxication from about 1991/1992 to at least January 2016, and that this excessive 
consumption resulted in five arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), two 
of which resulted in 12 months’ probation, and that Applicant received alcohol-related 
treatment for a condition diagnosed as alcohol-use disorder. Applicant denies the 
characterization of his alcohol consumption. He admits the DUI arrests, but denies that 
he was intoxicated during the incidents. Applicant also denies that he was sentenced to 
probation as a result of his December 2015 DUI arrest. However, he admits that he was 
sentenced to 12 months’ probation following his February 2016 DUI arrest. He admits 
that he successfully underwent alcohol-related treatment. The SOR cross-alleges under 
Guideline J, the alcohol-related arrests. Applicant’s admissions are incorporated in my 
findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 48-year-old avionics supervisor employed by a defense contractor 
since May 2014, and previously employed by another defense contractor beginning in 
December 2009. He served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from February 1989 until he 
retired in August 2010. He deployed to a combat zone during Operation Desert Storm. 
He has held a security clearance since approximately 1990. Applicant has a teenage 
daughter. (GX 1; GX 2; Tr. 26.)  
 
Applicant began drinking alcohol in 1991 while assigned to an aircraft carrier, but 
did drink not to the point of intoxication or have any alcohol-related issues during the 
1990s. In February 2006, Applicant had been drinking and was pulled over for speeding. 
(Tr. 40.) At the stop, Applicant refused to perform field sobriety tests or take a breathalyzer 
at the officer’s direction, but instead requested a blood test. He was arrested for DUI, 
speeding, no insurance, and no seatbelt. The DUI charge was reduced to reckless driving 
and ultimately dismissed.  
 
In December 2010, Applicant was pulled over for speeding. The officer asked 
Applicant if he had been drinking, Applicant denied that he had been, and refused a 
breathalyzer. He was arrested and charged with DUI and speeding. Ultimately, the DUI 
charge was dismissed, the related court costs were waived, and Applicant paid a fine for 
speeding.  
 
In January 2015, Applicant was pulled over on an Army base for speeding. The 
officer stated in his report that Applicant smelled strongly of alcohol. However, Applicant 
 3 
has consistently stated that he had not been drinking. (Answer; Tr. 31; Tr. 41; Tr. 46.) 
Applicant refused a breathalyzer, and was arrested for DUI and speeding. He was 
detained for approximately 14 hours, then released. The DUI charge was later dismissed 
and Applicant paid a $10 fine for speeding. (GX 5; Answer.) Applicant testified that he 
had several run-ins with arresting officer of the incident on the Army base. He reported 
the officer’s conduct to the commanding officer, but ultimately Applicant decided to move 
off base to avoid future issues. Applicant believes that the officer was confusing Applicant 
with someone else. (Tr. 45-46.) 
 
 In December 2015, Applicant was pulled over for speeding while on the way to the 
hospital to visit his girlfriend. After the stop, the officer stated that he had seen Applicant 
throw drugs from the vehicle. Applicant denied this and demanded to see the footage 
from the officer’s dashboard mounted camera. The officer refused. Applicant was arrested 
and charged with DUI, speeding, illegal lane change, no insurance, and no registration. 
Applicant denies that he consumed any alcohol prior to the arrest. At Applicant’s fourth 
court appearance, the officer was not present and Applicant’s attorney stated that all 
charges would be suspended and later dismissed if Applicant pled guilty and completed 
a pre-trial diversion program and paid a $3,600 fine. Applicant did not enter the 
agreement, but instead, requested a jury trial. At the pretrial conference, all charges 
except for the speeding were dismissed. (Answer.) 
 
 In February 2016, Applicant was in a rental car in a friend’s driveway. He had been 
drinking the night before and there was an empty cup in the car which had contained a 
non-alcoholic daiquiri. His friend noticed the vehicle, which she did not recognize, and 
called the police. The police arrived, and after speaking with Applicant and noting the 
apparent open container, asked Applicant to take a breathalyzer. Applicant refused and 
was arrested for DUI. Applicant pled no contest to reckless driving and was sentenced to 
12 months’ probation, which required Applicant to abstain from alcohol use, attend alcohol 
awareness classes with random urinalysis, and complete 50 hours of community service. 
Applicant successfully completed the requirements and was released from probation in 
June 2017. (Answer.)  
 
 Three days after his last DUI arrest in February 2016, Applicant self-referred to the 
Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). He was evaluated by a counselor who stated 
that Applicant met the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (Moderate). He was assessed as 
not needing medical detoxification or inpatient treatment. Applicant entered outpatient 
treatment and counseling and “met his treatment goal of establishing and maintaining 
abstinence while increasing his knowledge about the disease of addiction in the process 
of recovery.” He successfully completed the treatment requirements which included 
attending Alcohol Anonymous (AA) meetings, and, in May 2016, received a fair to good 
prognosis. (Answer.) 
 
 Applicant has abstained from alcohol consumption since February 2016, four 
months before beginning probation. Despite his denials that he had been drinking prior to 
several of his DUI arrests, Applicant admits that he had been drinking before the 2006 
and 2016 arrests, and that consuming alcohol has created problems in his life. (Tr. 40-
 4 
43; Answer.) Applicant has no other criminal history. He strives to continually set an 
example for his teenage daughter through his actions. (Tr. 23-24; 39.) He is active in his 
church, and coaches Little League basketball and football. (Tr. 36.) He is working towards 
his bachelor’s degree, regularly works out at a gym, and continues to attend AA meetings 
two to three times a week. (Tr. 37-38; AX A.) He has no intention of drinking alcohol in 
the future. (Tr. 38.)  
 
Applicant accepts full responsibility for his actions. He is dedicated to his job. 
Applicant’s two fellow service members and friends since 1991, and a current coworker 
since 2011 attest to Applicant’s strength of character, integrity, and trustworthiness, and 
highly recommend him for a continued security clearance. (AX A.) 
 
Policies 
 
 “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 
484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to 
“control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an 
individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The 
President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants 
eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified 
Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.  
 
Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant’s meeting the 
criteria contained in the AG. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, 
recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these 
guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative 
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An 
administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, 
past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 
 
 The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 
access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and 
endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the 
possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in 
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”  See Exec. Or. 
10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the 
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense 
have established for issuing a clearance. 
 
 5 
 Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the 
personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from 
being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of 
establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
“Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. 
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines 
presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria 
listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 92-1106 at 3, 
1993 WL 545051 at *3 (App. Bd. Oct. 7, 1993).  
  
Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, 
and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-
31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).  
 
An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-
20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if 
they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 
 
The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 21: 
 
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. 
 
The following disqualifying conditions apply:  
 
AG ¶ 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 the frequency of the individual's 
alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use 
disorder; and 
 
AG ¶ 22(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. 
 
 
 
 
 6 
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable:  
 
AG ¶ 23(b): the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive 
alcohol use, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, 
and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified 
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment 
recommendations; and 
 
AG ¶ 23(d): the individual has successfully completed a treatment program 
along with any required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and 
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance 
with treatment recommendations. 
 
Applicant began drinking in 1991, but did not have any alcohol-related issues until 
his first DUI arrest in 2006. Between 2006 and 2016, Applicant was arrested five times 
for DUI, and admits that he had been drinking on two of those occasions. Immediately 
following his last DUI arrest in February 2016, Applicant quit drinking and self-referred to 
ASAP, which he successfully completed with a fair to good prognosis in May 2016. He 
recognizes that his alcohol use was problematic. He remains abstinent, attends AA 
meetings two to three times a week, and does not intend to drink in the future. AG ¶¶ 
23(b) and 23(d) apply. 
 
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct 
 
The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 30:  
 
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability or 
willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.  
 
The following disqualifying conditions apply:  
 
AG ¶ 31(a): a pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would 
be unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in 
combination cast doubt on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or 
trustworthiness; and 
 
AG ¶ 31(b): evidence . . . of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the 
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted, or convicted. 
 
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: 
 
AG ¶ 32(a): so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior 
happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is 
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgment; and 
 7 
AG ¶ 32(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. 
 
 Applicant’s DUI arrests occurred during a period of time when he was actively using 
alcohol. He has not had any arrests or charges since achieving sobriety in February 2016. 
He self-referred to ASAP, successfully completed probation, and continues to voluntarily 
participate in AA. He is dedicated to his job, and is pursuing his bachelor’s degree. He 
continually strives to be a role model for his daughter, and is active in his church and 
community His past conduct does not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, 
or good judgment. AG ¶¶ 32(a) and 32(d) apply. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a 
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. In applying the whole-
person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a 
security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant 
circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process 
factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a).  
 
 I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines G and J in my whole-person 
analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under those guidelines, but I 
have also considered the following: 
 
 Applicant served in the Navy for over 21 years, including a combat deployment. 
He has held a security clearance for more than 27 years. Applicant has taken positive 
steps, including cessation of alcohol use since February 2016. He has sought ongoing 
support for his sobriety by attending AA. He has clearly demonstrated his commitment to 
reform and rehabilitation. He is respected and trusted by his long-time friends and 
coworkers. He is pursuing a bachelor’s degree. He accepts responsibility of his past 
conduct, and is committed to his sobriety, his family, and his job.  
 
 After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guidelines G and 
J, and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant 
has mitigated the security concerns raised by his conduct. Accordingly, I conclude he has 
carried his burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant 
him eligibility for continued access to classified information. 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
Formal Findings 
 
As required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, I make the following 
formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption): FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.g:    For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline J (Criminal Conduct):  FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a:     For Applicant 
  
Conclusion 
 
 I conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s 
eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
 
 
Stephanie C. Hess 
Administrative Judge