1 
        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 17-02300 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Brittany Muetzel, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
MURPHY, Braden M., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant did not provide sufficient information to mitigate Guideline G security 
concerns, which include a 2014 diagnosis of alcohol dependence, and evidence of 
subsequent and ongoing alcohol consumption, despite a recommendation to abstain 
from alcohol. Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline J, 
criminal conduct, because he did not provide sufficient evidence that his alcohol-related 
offenses are unlikely to recur. Eligibility for continued access to classified information is 
denied. 
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on June 26, 2015. On 
January 23, 2018, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) to Applicant alleging security concerns under Guideline G, alcohol consumption, 
and Guideline J, criminal 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 National 
Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017. 
01/09/2019
 
2 
 
Applicant answered the SOR on February 21, 2018, and requested a hearing. 
The case was initially assigned to another administrative judge on April 18, 2018, and 
was assigned to me on July 23, 2018. On July 27, 2018, a notice of hearing was issued, 
scheduling the case for August 22, 2018.  
 
The hearing convened as scheduled. Department Counsel offered Government 
Exhibits (GE) 1 through GE 3, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified 
and submitted Applicant’s Exhibit (AE) A, which was admitted without objection. I left 
the record open to provide him the opportunity to submit additional evidence.1 He timely 
submitted 11 additional exhibits, which were marked and admitted without objection as 
AE 1 through 11 (as Applicant had listed them).2 DOHA received the hearing transcript 
(Tr.) on August 30, 2018. The record closed on September 12, 2018.  
 
Amendments to the SOR 
 
 At the start of the hearing, I amended the SOR to correct two grammatical errors, 
in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 2.b. SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b were also amended during the hearing to 
conform to the record evidence, reflecting the dates of Applicant’s arrests, instead of the 
court dates. The amendments were accepted without objection. (Tr. 12, 13, 82-85) They 
are noted in bold, as follows:  
 
 ¶ 1.a:  . . . and were diagnosed as alcohol dependent. 
 
 ¶ 2.a:  . . . in approximately August 2012. 
 
¶ 2.b:  You were arrested and charged with Domestic Assault in 
approximately February 2014. You received 2 years of probation 
and were ordered to complete Alcohol Education and Domestic 
Violence Training for 12 weeks.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 2.a, and 2.b, with explanations. His 
admissions and explanations are incorporated into the findings of fact. After a thorough 
and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits submitted, I make the following findings 
of fact. 
 
 Applicant is 50 years old. He graduated from high school in 1986, and enlisted in 
the U.S. Navy. He served on active duty in the Navy in information technology from 
                                                          
1 In addition, at the end of the hearing, it became apparent that one page (p. 4) of GE 2 was inadvertently 
missing. (Tr. 123-124, 129-131) Department Counsel provided a copy of the page after the hearing, and it 
is included in GE 2.  
 
2 AE A is a recommendation letter. AE 1 is a September 2015 letter regarding Applicant’s completion of 
the conditions of community supervision after his 2014 offense. AE 2 is a work award. AE 3 and AE 4 are 
medical records from Applicant’s August 30, 2018 session with his doctor. AE 5 is a December 6, 2016 
letter from Applicant’s counsel in a legal matter with his wife. AE 6 through AE 11 are recommendation 
letters, all dated in August or September 2018. AE A and AE 10 are the same letter.  
 
3 
 
1987 to 1998, and was honorably discharged. Since 1998, he has worked as a defense 
contractor, either for his current employer or its predecessor. He works as a systems 
engineer and program manager. He has held a security clearance since his time in the 
Navy, and needs a clearance for his job. (Tr. 31, 35-37; GE 1; AE 6-AE 11) 
 
 Applicant and his wife married in 1994. They have two daughters, ages 20 and 
21. Both are now in college. He also has a 28-year-old stepson, his wife’s son from a 
prior relationship. Applicant and his wife have had several separations. They first 
separated in 2005. They reconciled in 2007, but his wife then spent the next four years 
in jail after her fourth conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while 
intoxicated (DWI). (Tr. 34, 67) She returned to the home in 2011 after her release. She 
moved out of the house again in November 2014, and was away for about the next 
year. Applicant and his wife separated again in about June 2016. He later retained legal 
counsel and considered divorce. (AE 5; Tr. 92) They remained separated at the time of 
Applicant’s background interview, in February 2017. (GE 3) 
 
 Applicant’s wife returned to the home in December 2017, though she moved out 
again in January 2018. It is unclear when she returned, but at the time of the hearing, 
they remained legally married and were living under the same roof, though maintaining 
separate lives. Applicant said they do not speak, and do not have arguments. “I don’t 
know what there would be to fight about,” he said. Applicant is the household’s sole 
financial provider, and he pays the mortgage. (Tr. 31-39, 89-93; GE 1) 
 
 In August 2012, Applicant had an altercation with his stepson, then age 22, over 
his compliance with house rules. Applicant had consumed several beers over several 
hours while watching an early-season college football game at home. During the 
altercation, his wife called the police, and Applicant was arrested and charged with 
assault and battery of his stepson. (Tr. 40-46, 83-84; GE 1; GE 3) In about October 
2012, Applicant went to court and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to one year of 
probation, and ordered to attend anger-management classes. He completed the terms 
of his sentence. (Tr. 47-48, 83; GE 1 at 26-27; GE 3 at 3; Answer) (SOR ¶ 2.a) 
 
 In December 2013, Applicant had an altercation with his wife. Both of them had 
been drinking. Applicant testified that his wife had a habit of stealing his wallet and keys, 
and he believed she had done so on this occasion. He grabbed her wrists and pulled 
her up off the couch in an effort to get her to help him look for his wallet. They lost their 
balance and fell over, and his wife hit her head, though she was not injured. Applicant 
had consumed between two and four beers, and said he was “buzzed” but not 
intoxicated. No one was arrested at the time. (Tr. 48-53, 86-87; GE 3 at 4) 
 
 A few months later, in February 2014, Applicant’s wife and their elder daughter, 
then 17, had an altercation, in which his daughter threw a coffee mug at her mother, 
hitting her in the face. Applicant’s brother-in-law was visiting at the time, and he called 
police. The daughter was arrested and spent the night in juvenile detention. (GE 3 at 4; 
Tr. 67-70, 85-86) 
 
 
4 
 
 Applicant’s wife then told the police about the December 2013 altercation with 
her husband. Applicant was arrested and charged with domestic assault upon his wife. 
He spent the night in jail. (Tr. 53, 84-87; GE 1 at 27-29; GE 3 at 4) (SOR ¶ 2.b) In June 
2014, Applicant pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to two years of probation and 
ordered to attend 12 weeks of alcohol education and domestic-violence training. (Tr. 49-
53, 87; GE 1 at 27-29; GE 3 at 4)  
 
 Applicant’s two daughters were referred to therapy through his employer’s 
Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Through Applicant’s own involvement, he was 
referred to mental-health and substance-abuse counseling.3 (Tr. 57-59, 99-100; GE 2 at 
5) 
 
 At his initial evaluation in May 2014, Applicant reported that he began drinking at 
age 16. His drinking had increased gradually over the previous seven years (beginning 
in 2007, the year his first separation ended, and the year his wife went to jail). During 
that time, his longest period of abstinence was four days. (GE 2 at 42) Applicant self-
reported that he drank about five nights a week, usually by himself. He would have two 
or three shots of liquor on weekdays (including the night before the evaluation), and four 
to six shots on weekend nights. He reported some history of “shakes, queasy stomach, 
night sweats, and anxiety the next day after drinking heavily,” as well as likely partial 
blackouts. He recognized “that drinking has become a problem with his becoming 
dependent on it.” He expressed a desire to cut back on his drinking though he had not 
been able to do so. (GE 2 at 41)  
 
 Applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and depressive disorder not 
otherwise specified (NOS) by a Ph.D. licensed clinical psychologist. (SOR ¶ 1.a) The 
psychologist recommended that Applicant participate in an intensive outpatient 
chemical-dependency program. (GE 2 at 39, 42) 
 
 Applicant’s treatment plan included drug and alcohol abstinence, participation in 
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and development of an effective social-support network 
and of coping strategies for dealing with stress. Documentation reflects that Applicant 
was briefed verbally on the treatment program: (“I have gone over this plan with 
[Applicant]” and he “verbally agrees to treatment plan.”) (GE 2 at 43) 
 
 Applicant began the intensive outpatient group treatment program on June 16, 
2014. (GE 2 at 35) He missed a week of group sessions in late July 2014 after he 
relapsed into binge drinking. (GE 2 at 23-38) When he returned to the program, he 
continued attendance and completed the required 18 sessions on August 11, 2014. (AE 
1) He attended AA during the program. (GE 2 at 7, 14) His prognosis in mid-August 
2014 was “poor to guarded.” (GE 2 at 16, 17) There is no record evidence of a 
subsequent prognosis. 
 
                                                          
3 GE 2 is a 43-page exhibit consisting of treatment records from both the psychology provider and the 
intensive outpatient substance abuse counseling provider.  
 
 
5 
 
 Applicant returned for individual therapy with EAP in late September 2014. He 
reported that during the intensive outpatient group treatment, his longest period of 
sobriety was about three weeks. He resumed drinking shortly after completing that 
program. In late August 2014, Applicant’s son-in-law moved back into the home. 
Applicant and his wife coped with the resulting stress by drinking, despite what he 
indicated was a court order not to do so. It was recommended that he develop a more 
extensive recovery plan with AA and that he identify how to achieve longer-term 
sobriety. (Tr. 68-75; GE 2 at 14)  
 
 At the time, Applicant’s daughters had been removed from the home by Child 
Protective Services (CPS), in August 2014, and an October 2014 court date was 
pending. As part of his efforts to get them released by CPS and back into his custody, 
Applicant requested and received a prescription for Campral to help with his alcohol 
cravings, because, he said, he wanted to do more than what was required. (Tr. 66, 76-
77; GE 2 at 13)  
 
 Applicant continued therapy with the EAP psychologist through late 2014. He 
was sober for several months. He reported to his providers that the Campral was 
working and that he found AA useful. (GE 2 at 7) In order for Applicant’s daughters to 
return home from CPS custody, his wife had to leave the home, which she did, in 
November 2014. She was out of the home for the next year. (Tr. 68-75) Applicant’s last 
documented therapy session with EAP was in November 2014. (GE 2 at 1)  
 
 Applicant completed a parenting class in December 2014. He completed a 
batterer’s intervention program between March and July 2015. He tested negative for 
alcohol on August 27, 2015. A September 9, 2015 letter from community supervision 
authorities documented that he completed the requirements of his probation. (AE 1) He 
said he had been given drug and alcohol tests during his probation. (Tr. 54-63) 
Applicant completed his two-year probation period in June 2016. He has had no 
subsequent arrests or criminal offenses. (Tr. 88)  
 
 Applicant had a background interview in February 2017 in connection with his 
SCA. He reported consuming alcohol three or four times a week. He reported 
consuming two beers when in public, and up to eight beers at home. As to hard liquor, 
he reported consuming one to two cocktails in public, and three shots and four cocktails 
“if he is trying to get loose and have fun.” He said he drank three shots and four 
cocktails, or eight beers, about twice a month “to get buzzed.” He said this had been his 
drinking pattern intake for the previous 10 years. He drank more when he was younger. 
(GE 3 at 5) This alcohol consumption is alleged as a security concern, as it post-dates 
his diagnosis of alcohol dependence, in 2014. (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b) 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted his offenses, accepted 
responsibility for his conduct, and expressed regret. He said he had been in a “toxic 
relationship.” He said he had completed the required treatment plan and all probationary 
requirements for both of his offenses. He disputed that he had been diagnosed with 
alcohol dependence. (Answer) 
  
 
6 
 
 At hearing, Applicant testified that he drinks three or four times a week. 
Sometimes he drinks cocktails or two or three shots of alcohol, and sometimes he 
drinks “no more than two” bottles of beer when out with others. He denied that he drinks 
to excess. (Tr. 108-109)  
   
 Applicant testified that prior to this hearing, he had not seen documentation that 
he had been diagnosed as alcohol dependent, and that his diagnosis had never been 
discussed with him during his treatment. (Tr. 62-64, 88, 101). As he did in his Answer, 
Applicant repeatedly testified that he had never been diagnosed with alcohol 
dependence, and that he disagreed with the diagnosis. Applicant said, “I don’t agree 
with the statement that I’m alcohol dependent;” (Tr. 76) and “I don’t consider [myself] - I 
mean, alcohol dependent, I just don’t agree with it.” (Tr. 79; 80, 113)  
 
 Treatment records reflect that Applicant’s EAP psychologist diagnosed him with 
alcohol dependence in May 2014 and that Applicant was verbally briefed on his 
treatment plan and agreed to it. (GE 2 at 43) His treatment records do not indicate that 
Applicant was expressly told he was alcohol dependent.  
 
 Applicant testified that no medical doctor or licensed clinical social worker 
(LCSW) ever told him he was an alcoholic or that he had a drinking problem. (Tr. 102, 
111) He acknowledged that he would have been told or advised to stop drinking as part 
of the intensive outpatient program: “I may have been. I mean, that’s their goal. . . . I 
would say as part of the program, yeah.” (Tr. 65; 76, 103)  
 
  Applicant has not seen any other treatment provider for substance abuse other 
that what is reflected in GE 2. (Tr. 77, 110) He does not currently see a therapist or 
alcohol counselor. He does not believe he has a drinking problem. (Tr. 77-78, 80) He 
offered no evidence that he is currently participating in AA or any similar counseling 
group, nor did he indicate involvement with a support network to help him curtail his 
drinking. 
 
 Applicant acknowledged that he and his wife have a history of confrontations, all 
of which involve alcohol: “[Applicant] reports infrequent physical fights with his wife, with 
the drinking having always been involved when they have occurred.” (GE 2 at 2; Tr. 81) 
He recognizes that his wife has a problem with alcohol, given her history of DUIs and 
DWIs. (Tr. 81-82) Applicant expressed regret for his actions, and accepted responsibility 
for them. (Answer; Tr. 65, 113-114) 
 
 Applicant provided no documentation at the hearing to refute or to update the 
2014 diagnosis of alcohol dependence. (Tr. 81) After the hearing, he provided 
documentation from his primary care physician, whom he visited on August 30, 2018. 
His provider noted that Applicant “had ETOH [alcohol] issues a few years ago” and that 
he was “now fighting to have his legal/employment status returned to normal.” Among 
the “diagnoses attached to this encounter” was a diagnosis of Alcoholism. Applicant’s 
provider “advised counseling to resolve legal/alcohol issues.” (AE 3, AE 4) The 
documentation does not include an updated diagnosis of Applicant’s alcohol use 
disorder, nor does it note any prognosis for the future.  
 
7 
 
 Applicant oversees a contract supporting communication networks for Navy 
ships. He has had no reportable security incidents. References attest that he carries 
himself with dignity and takes great pride in his work. He is regarded as highly valued by 
his government customers, and has the trust and confidence of those who rely on him. 
His references recommend retention of his clearance. (AE A; AE 2; AE 6 – AE 11)  
 
Policies 
 
 It is well established that no one has a right to a security clearance.4 As the 
Supreme Court noted in Department of the Navy v. Egan, “the clearly consistent 
standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of 
denials.”5 
 
 The AGs 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(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables 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 ¶ E3.1.14, the 
Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. 
Under ¶ 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. 
 
 
 
                                                          
4 Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“it should be obvious that no one has a ‘right’ to 
a security clearance”).  
 
5 484 U.S. at 531.  
 
8 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 
 
The security concern for alcohol consumption is set forth 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 several conditions that could raise security concerns under 
AG ¶ 22. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable in this case:   
 
(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) or 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 record evidence establishes that Applicant was diagnosed with alcohol 
dependence in May 2014 by a Ph.D. clinical psychologist. By his own admission, 
Applicant also requested and received a prescription for Campral to ease his alcohol 
cravings in October 2014, evidence which supports such a diagnosis. AG ¶ 22(d) 
applies to SOR ¶ 1.a. Applicant also engaged in habitual or binge consumption of 
alcohol. AG ¶ 22(c) applies.  
 
 The record evidence does not establish that Applicant was told he was alcohol 
dependent. However, treatment records reflect that Applicant’s EAP psychologist 
diagnosed Applicant with alcohol dependence in May 2014, and that Applicant was 
verbally briefed on his treatment plan and agreed to it. Applicant’s treatment plan 
included abstinence from alcohol and participation in AA. Applicant participated in AA 
during 2014, but had difficulty abstaining from alcohol.  
 
 The longest Applicant was able to abstain during intensive treatment was about 
three weeks. He engaged in binge drinking in July 2014, and missed a week of 
treatment. He resumed drinking shortly after completing his mandatory 18 sessions of 
treatment, in August 2014, when his stepson returned home. He resumed drinking after 
he completed probation in June 2016. He was consuming alcohol several times a week 
at the time of his background interview (February 2017) and also at the time of the 
hearing (August 2018). I conclude that Applicant’s subsequent consumption of alcohol, 
 
9 
 
after he was diagnosed as alcohol dependent, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b, satisfies AG ¶¶ 
22(e) and 22(f).  
 
Conditions that could mitigate alcohol consumption security concerns are 
provided under AG ¶ 23. The following are potentially applicable:  
 
(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 required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established 
pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with 
treatment recommendations.  
 
 The documentation Applicant provided from his primary care physician is 
insufficient to rebut or mitigate the diagnosis of alcohol dependence. AE 4 in fact 
references a prior diagnosis of alcoholism. The statement that Applicant “had ETOH 
issues a few years ago,” without further detail, is insufficient evidence to establish that 
Applicant’s issues with alcohol are fully resolved. Indeed, Applicant’s doctor “advised 
counseling to resolve legal/alcohol issues,” (emphasis added) leading to the conclusion 
that Applicant’s alcohol issues are ongoing and are not resolved or fully in the past. AG 
¶¶ 23(a) and (b) do not apply.  
 
 Applicant is not in alcohol treatment currently (and he relapsed during treatment 
in 2014). AG ¶ 23(c) does not apply. Despite the relapse, Applicant did complete the 
intensive outpatient group treatment in summer 2014. However, he has not 
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in 
accordance with treatment recommendations. AG ¶ 23(d) does not apply. Applicant did 
not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the alcohol involvement security concerns.  
 
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct 
 
 AG ¶ 30 expresses the security concern for criminal conduct: 
 
 
10 
 
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. 
 
  Applicant’s two domestic violence offenses satisfy the following disqualifying 
conditions under 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  
 
(b) evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an 
admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of 
whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted. 
 
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable, under 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 
 
(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 two domestic violence offenses occurred in August 2012 and 
December 2013, respectively. He completed probation successfully and there is no 
evidence of subsequent offenses. These offenses are not recent. Applicant also has an 
excellent employment record.  
 
 However, AG ¶ 32(d) only partially applies, because Applicant did not provide 
sufficient evidence of successful rehabilitation. This is chiefly because Applicant did not 
establish that his offenses are unlikely to recur. Applicant and his wife maintain separate 
lives, but they remain married and living under the same roof. Applicant acknowledged 
that he and his wife have a history of confrontations, and they are always alcohol-
related. Applicant’s criminal conduct, while dated, is clearly intertwined with his alcohol 
involvement. And his alcohol issues are unresolved and remain a security risk. Given 
this evidence, I cannot conclude Applicant’s criminal conduct is unlikely to recur and no 
longer casts doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. AG ¶ 32(a) does 
not apply. Applicant did not meet his burden to establish that the criminal conduct 
security concerns are mitigated.  
 
 
 
11 
 
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 
Guideline G and Guideline J in my whole-person analysis. I must also consider the total 
pattern of Applicant’s behavior, not just in a piecemeal fashion as a series of unrelated 
incidents.6 In this regard, I can and do consider the fact that Applicant’s offenses are 
alcohol-related, even though they were not alleged under Guideline G.7 
 
Applicant is still drinking frequently, despite a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. 
The documentation he submitted post-hearing from his doctor is not sufficient evidence 
to establish that his diagnosis no longer applies. I credit Applicant with accepting 
responsibility for his offenses. He is credited with taking steps to return his daughters to 
home, and he remains in a difficult family situation. However, he has not established a 
support network for dealing with his alcohol issues. He is not in AA or a similar 
counseling program. He still consumes alcohol several times a week, despite a 
treatment recommendation that he should abstain. Applicant did not provide sufficient 
evidence to mitigate security concerns under either guideline alleged. Overall, the 
record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s continued 
eligibility for a security clearance.  
 
 
 
 
                                                          
6 See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-22563 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 8, 2006) (regarding the need to avoid a 
piecemeal analysis). 
 
7 Applicant’s offenses were not alleged as being alcohol-related under Guideline G. However, I can 
consider that evidence under the whole-person concept. ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 
2006). 
 
12 
 
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:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
   Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b:  Against Applicant 
 
  Paragraph 2, Guideline J:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.b:  Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of 
national security to grant Applicant continued eligibility for a security clearance. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
________________________ 
Braden M. Murphy 
Administrative Judge