1 
        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
)
) ISCR Case No. 17-01762 
)
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Nicholas T. Temple, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: John V. Berry, Esq. 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GARCIA, Candace Le’i, Administrative Judge: 
Applicant mitigated the alcohol consumption and personal conduct security 
concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.  
Statement of the Case 
On June 26, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline G (alcohol 
consumption) and Guideline E (personal conduct). The action was taken under 
Executive Order (Exec. 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 responded to the SOR on July 20, 2017, and elected to have a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on April 13, 2018. The 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing (NOH) on 
April 25, 2018, scheduling the hearing for June 21, 2018. Without objection on May 1, 
2018, I granted Applicant’s request for a continuance due to the unavailability of a 
01/28/2019
 
2 
 
witness. An amended NOH was issued on May 3, 2018, rescheduling the hearing for 
June 14, 2018. I convened the hearing as rescheduled. 
 
 I appended to the record as Hearing Exhibits (HE) I, II, and III, respectively, the 
Government’s exhibit list and discovery letter, and Applicant’s exhibit list. Government 
Exhibits (GE) 1 through 7 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant 
testified, called four witnesses, and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A through F, 
which were admitted in evidence without objection.  
 
At Applicant’s request, I held the record open until June 28, 2018, for the receipt 
of additional evidence. Applicant timely provided documentation, which I marked as AE 
G and admitted in evidence without objection. I marked Department Counsel’s email, in 
which he indicated no objection to Applicant’s additional evidence, as HE IV. DOHA 
received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on June 25, 2018.                                                                           
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted all of the allegations with the exception of SOR ¶ 2.a, which 
he denied. He is 37 years old. As of the date of the hearing, he had never been married 
and he did not have any children.1 
 
 Applicant graduated from high school in 1999 and earned a bachelor’s degree in 
2005. He has worked for various defense contractors since 2008. He has worked for his 
current employer, a defense contractor, since 2016. He has held a security clearance 
since 2009.2  
 
 Applicant started consuming alcohol at age 15. In July 1999, at age 18, he was 
charged with driving under the influence (DUI) (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 2.a). This was his first DUI. 
Though his blood alcohol content (BAC) was under the legal limit, he was convicted of 
DUI due to a zero tolerance violation for consuming alcohol as a minor. His driver’s 
license was suspended for six months, he was ordered to complete a six-month alcohol 
program, and he was fined $100.3   
 
 In July 2001, at age 20, Applicant was charged and convicted of underage 
possession of alcohol. He was in college and he threw a party where alcohol was 
present. He was sentenced to one year probation, 50 hours community service, and 
alcohol counseling (SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 2.a). He completed individual alcohol counseling from 
August to December 2001. During this period, he consumed beer a few times weekly.4   
 
                                                     
1 Response to the SOR; Tr. at 20, 90; GE 1, 2. 
  
2 Response to the SOR; Tr. at 7, 20-22, 44, 63, 78; GE 1, 2. 
 
3 Tr. at 22-23, 42-44, 61-62, 65, 78-81; GE 1, 2, 4, 5, 6. 
 
4 Tr. at 23, 42-44, 62-63, 65, 80-81; GE 1, 2, 4, 6. 
 
3 
 
 In December 2005, Applicant was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), 
BAC .15% to .20%, 1st offense. This was his second and last alcohol-related offense 
while driving. He had a few drinks while watching football at a bar. As he was driving to 
his parents’ home, he hit a patch of ice and his car slid into a ditch. A police officer 
asked him if he had been drinking and he said “Yes.” He was convicted of reckless 
driving and fined $250 (SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 2.a). He consumed two to three beers three to four 
times weekly during this period.5  
 
 In June 2012, Applicant was disciplined for reporting to work hungover and 
smelling of alcohol. He had consumed alcohol the night before. This was his first and 
only alcohol-related incident at work. He was consequently involuntarily terminated from 
employment in August 2012 (SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 2.a). He consumed six beers daily during this 
period. He also started drinking hard liquor in October 2010, after his long-term 
relationship of five years ended; he found himself battling depression; he isolated 
himself; and he used alcohol as a coping mechanism. His mother testified that she 
observed Applicant begin to binge drink on the weekends in 2010, which had not been 
his normal behavior. He also withdrew from participating in family events and he did not 
answer her telephone calls.6  
 
 In October 2012, Applicant was charged and convicted of drunk in public (SOR 
¶¶ 1.e, 2.a). He was fined $25. He was walking to his residence from a convenience 
store when the police stopped him because he was stumbling. When the police asked 
him if he had been drinking, he said “Yes.” The police arrested him, took him to the 
police station, and advised him to pay the fine, which he did. He consumed two beers 
daily and more on the weekends from June to October 2012. He was still in denial about 
his alcoholism.7 
 
 By March 2014, Applicant’s level of alcohol consumption had escalated. He 
consumed primarily hard liquor, and “more than the average person drinks in a sitting.” 
He asked his mother for help and she took him to the emergency room, where he was 
held until a bed was available for him at an addiction treatment services program. His 
BAC was .392%. He disclosed his family history of alcoholism. For the first time and for 
four days, he received inpatient alcohol treatment. He was diagnosed with alcohol 
dependence (SOR ¶¶ 1.f, 2.a).8 
 
 After completing treatment, Applicant was sober for one month. He then resumed 
consuming alcohol. By his November 2014 background interview, he consumed alcohol 
approximately two times weekly (SOR ¶¶ 1.g, 2.a). By April 2015, his alcohol 
consumption had escalated to an average of eight to twelve drinks daily, prompting him 
to again contact his mother for help. She helped him enroll in a 28-day inpatient alcohol 
                                                     
5 Tr. at 23-24, 42-44, 63-65, 78-79, 82; GE 1, 2, 4, 6. 
 
6 Tr. at 24, 42-44, 51, 65-69, 83-85, 118-127; GE 1, 2, 4, 5, 7. 
 
7 Tr. at 24-25, 42-44, 67-69, 82; GE 2, 4, 7. 
 
8 Tr. at 25-27, 42-44, 69-72, 81-83, 118-127; GE 3, 4, 7. 
 
4 
 
treatment program at an addiction treatment center. He received treatment through May 
2015, and he was diagnosed with alcohol dependence, continuous (SOR ¶¶ 1.h, 2.a).9  
 
 Applicant has been sober since the day he entered the April 2015 treatment 
program. Though he knew he had an issue with alcohol when he enrolled in the March 
2014 treatment program, he had neither accepted that he is an alcoholic nor taken 
responsibility for such knowledge and his recovery until April 2015. He testified that the 
day he entered the April 2015 treatment program was: 
 
[A] pivot point for me . . . a moment of clarity, that there was a lot more to 
my life that I could be doing, and that I needed to ask for help. I found 
strength in asking for help, that I couldn’t find within, and I sought 
treatment that day. 
 
During his final week at the 2015 treatment program, he was elected the male 
community representative--a role through which he helped the other men in the 
program.10 
 
 Applicant complied with the recommendations of his treatment counselor after his 
2015 discharge from the treatment program: he attended 90 Alcoholics Anonymous 
(AA) meetings in 90 days; he obtained an AA sponsor; and he saw a licensed 
professional counselor weekly. As of the date of the hearing, he was still attending AA 
daily; he was in daily contact with his AA sponsor; he was also in daily contact as a 
sponsor for an individual in recovery; and he was seeing his licensed professional 
counselor weekly to biweekly. In 2016, the counselor diagnosed him with alcohol 
dependence in full sustained remission. He intended to continue attending AA, 
remaining active in his AA community, and seeing his counselor, whom he viewed as a 
coach that has taught him different coping strategies for life’s stressors.11 
 
 Applicant testified that he learned through both the 2015 treatment program and 
AA that his previous failure to remain sober hinged on his thinking that he could handle 
his alcoholism on his own, rather than reach out to others for help. He also learned that 
“I couldn’t drink safely or like other people could, and that I was fully alcoholic” and 
“there are consequences when I drink.” A friend from AA since 2016 testified that 
Applicant is a “rock… [h]e knows what to do and he does it consistently and he does it 
always.”12 
  
 Applicant signed a statement of intent in June 2018 to abstain from using alcohol 
on penalty of losing his security clearance. He testified that he now has a social life, and 
he enjoys fishing, playing guitar, and reading books. He is also a part of his family’s 
                                                     
9 Tr. at 25-32, 42-44, 72-74, 88, 116-127; GE 3, 4, 5. 
 
10 Tr. at 28-39, 41-42, 45-47, 52-60, 73-78, 85-98, 116-138; AE A, D, G. 
 
11 Tr. at 32-39, 41-42, 45-47, 52-60, 75-78, 85-98, 116-138; AE A, D, G. 
 
12 Tr. at 28-39, 41-42, 45-47, 52-60, 73-78, 85-98, 116-138; AE A, D, G. 
 
5 
 
lives, talking to his mother often, spending a lot of time with his father, and he values 
being involved as an uncle to four minor children.13  
 
 Applicant’s supervisor from September 2016 to December 2017 is a retired 
brigadier general and a former deputy director for a federal government agency from 
2014 to 2015. As of the date of the hearing, he was the vice president for a business 
unit within the company. He testified that he first met Applicant in 2014, when Applicant 
worked for him as an executive assistant in a contractor capacity until 2015, when the 
witness left the government agency. He then hired Applicant to work for him at their 
current company in 2016. He described Applicant as an outstanding performer. He 
identified Applicant as a high potential employee and gave him a top performance rating 
in 2017.14  
 
 The witness testified that he first became aware of Applicant’s challenges with 
alcohol in 2014. The witness testified that Applicant’s mother also informed him about 
Applicant’s 2015 treatment for alcoholism the day Applicant entered the program, and 
he observed Applicant’s impressive work performance when Applicant returned to work 
after completing treatment. The witness also testified that he reviewed the SOR, and 
Applicant was forthright about his issues with alcohol and his efforts to address them. 
While the witness was aware of Applicant’s history with alcohol, he testified that he did 
not believe that anyone else at work was and that there was some speculation among 
several individuals at their prior job of Applicant’s challenges. The witness testified that 
he has seen Applicant on numerous occasions in social situations where alcohol is 
present, and described Applicant as firm in his decision to not consume alcohol. The 
witness indicated that he had no doubts that Applicant has turned his life around. 
Numerous professional and social character references describe Applicant as a superb 
employee and a man of exemplary character, with demonstrated integrity and 
trustworthiness.15 
 
Policies 
 
 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 to be used 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines in 
conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According 
to AG ¶ 2(a), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables 
                                                     
13 Tr. at 40-42, 44-45, 47-52, 54, 56, 58-60, 89, 91, 116-127; AE B, C, D, E, F. 
 
14 Tr. at 44-45, 74, 98-116; AE B, C, D, E. 
 
15 Tr. at 44-45, 74, 98-116; AE B, C, D, E. 
 
6 
 
known as the “whole-person concept.” 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.”  
 
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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision.  
 
 A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Section 7 of Exec. Or. 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms 
of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the 
applicant concerned.” See also Exec. Or. 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple 
prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).   
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 
 
 The security concern for alcohol consumption 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 guideline notes conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 22. 
The disqualifying conditions potentially applicable in this case include:   
 
(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; 
 
7 
 
(b) alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for 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. 
 
 Applicant has a pattern of excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related 
convictions. He was also terminated from employment in 2012 after reporting to work 
hungover and smelling of alcohol. He was diagnosed with alcohol dependence when he 
received inpatient alcohol treatment in 2014, yet he maintained sobriety for only one 
month before he began drinking again. AG ¶¶ 22(a), 22(b), 22(c), 22(d), 22(e), and 22(f) 
are applicable. 
 
 AG ¶ 23 provides the following conditions that could mitigate security concerns: 
 
(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 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; 
 
(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; and 
 
(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. 
 
8 
 
Applicant relapsed after he received alcohol treatment in 2014 and was 
diagnosed with alcohol dependence. As such, AG ¶ 23(c) does not apply. However, 
Applicant has been sober since his April 2015 entrance into a 28-day inpatient alcohol 
treatment program. He accepted then that he is an alcoholic, and he took responsibility 
for such knowledge as well as his recovery. He completed the 2015 treatment program 
and he complied with the counselor’s recommendations upon discharge. He has seen a 
licensed professional counselor weekly to biweekly since 2015, and the counselor 
diagnosed him in 2016 with alcohol dependence in full sustained remission. He 
attended 90 AA meetings in 90 days, he has since attended AA daily, and he intends to 
continue to attend AA in the future. He has an AA sponsor and he is an AA sponsor for 
another individual in recovery. I find that AG ¶¶ 23(a), 23(b), and 23(d) are established. 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct  
 
The security concern for personal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15: 
 
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. . . . 
 
The guideline notes conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 16. 
The disqualifying conditions potentially applicable in this case include:   
 
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is 
not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single 
guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-
person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, 
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and 
regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not 
properly safeguard classified or sensitive information; and 
 
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct, 
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a 
foreign intelligence entity or other individual or group. Such conduct 
includes: 
 
(1) engaging in activities which, if known, could affect the person’s  
personal, professional, or community standing. 
 
Applicant’s pattern of excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related 
convictions, his 2012 employment termination after reporting to work hungover and 
smelling of alcohol, and his relapse one month after his 2014 alcohol treatment and 
alcohol dependence diagnosis reflect questionable judgment and unreliability. His 
former supervisor testified that Applicant’s history with alcohol is not commonly known 
by others at work. I find that AG ¶¶ 16(c) and 16(e) apply. 
 
9 
 
AG ¶ 17 provides the following conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns: 
 
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is 
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is 
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgment; 
 
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling 
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the 
stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, 
unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely 
to recur; and 
 
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. 
 
For the same reasons as set forth above in my Guideline G analysis, I find that 
AG ¶¶ 17(c), 17(d), and 17(e) apply. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the 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. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d):  
 
(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, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
 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.        
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments 
under Guidelines G and E in my whole-person analysis.  
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant 
mitigated the alcohol consumption and personal conduct security concerns.  
 
10 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or 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:    FOR APPLICANT 
Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.h:    For Applicant  
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:    FOR APPLICANT 
Subparagraphs 2.a:     For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, 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. 
 
 
 
________________________ 
Candace Le’i Garcia 
Administrative Judge