1 
   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
 )   ISCR Case No. 17-04097 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Erin P. Thompson, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 Given Applicant’s long history of alcohol abuse, his diagnosis with alcohol 
dependence, and his post-diagnosis relapse, it is too soon to conclude he has mitigated 
the alcohol consumption security concern. Clearance is denied. 
Statement of the Case 
On February 13, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications 
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the 
security concerns under Guideline G, alcohol consumption, explaining why it was unable to 
find it clearly consistent with the national security to grant him security clearance eligibility. 
The DOD CAF took the action 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 Nat. Sec. Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility 
for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DOD on June 8, 2017. 
On February 27, 2018, Applicant answered the SOR allegations, admitting all of the 
allegations. He requested a decision based on the written record rather than a hearing. On 
02/27/2019
2 
 
May 3, 2018, Department Counsel prepared a file of relevant material (FORM). Applicant 
received the FORM on June 8, 2018, and was notified that he could file a response, 
together with attachments supplementing the information in the FORM, if desired. He did 
not file a response. The FORM was assigned to me on October 1, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
  Applicant is a 67-year-old, college-educated man with two adult children. He is 
currently separated from his wife. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1971 to 1991, retiring 
honorably. (Item 3 at 10) He has worked for a defense contractor as a senior logistics 
analyst since 2014. 
 
 Applicant consumed alcohol, at times in excess and to the point of intoxication, from 
approximately 1966 until November 2016. (Item 2 at 1) Over the years, his alcohol abuse 
has led to multiple alcohol-related charges and arrests. Specifically, in 1978, he was 
charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). (Item 2 at 1) The disposition of the charge is 
unknown from the record. In 2001, he was arrested and charged with DWI and driving 
under the influence of alcohol (DUI). (Item 2 at 1) The case was placed on the inactive 
docket. After the arrest, Applicant voluntarily entered an alcohol and substance abuse clinic 
where he was diagnosed with alcohol abuse. (Item 7 at 1-2) In 2004, Applicant was 
charged with attempting to drive a vehicle while impaired by alcohol. The case was nolle 
prossed. (Item 2 at 1; Item 4 at 5) In September 2012, Applicant was arrested and charged 
with DUI, DUI per se, and DWI. (Item 2 at 1) Applicant was found guilty of the DWI charge, 
and all of the other charges were nolle prossed. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail 
(suspended), two years of probation, and court costs. Also, his driver’s license was 
restricted to use to and from work for one year. (Item 4 at 4) 
 
 In October 2012, Applicant’s attorney referred him to a 28-day inpatient counseling 
program. (Item 5 at 6) At or about that time, Applicant began attending Alcoholics 
Anonymous (AA) meetings. Upon completion of the inpatient program, a substance abuse 
counselor diagnosed him with alcohol dependence. (Item 6 at 122, 124) Upon his 
discharge in November 2012, the substance abuse counselor noted that Applicant “does 
not believe he has alcoholism despite the fact of significant negative consequences of his 
use.” (Item 5) Per the discharge recommendations, Applicant was to abstain from alcohol, 
attend outpatient counseling for relapse prevention, start Antabuse, a medication to control 
the urge to drink alcohol, and continue attending AA. (Item 2 at 1; Item 5 at 7) The 
counselor concluded that Applicant’s long-term prognosis was good, so long as he accepts 
that he can never safely use alcohol. (Item 5 at 9) 
 
 Applicant attended outpatient treatment from January 2013 to April 2013 on a twice 
- weekly basis. Some time after the end of the treatment program, Applicant resumed his 
alcohol consumption. As of November 2016, he was drinking two to three beers per week. 
(Item 4 at 6) Also at that time, he was no longer attending AA meetings. (Item 4 at 6) 
 
 In Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, dated February 27, 2018, he acknowledged his 
pattern of alcohol abuse, and stated that he was no longer drinking alcohol. (Item 2 at 1) 
3 
 
He did not specify how long he had been free from alcohol. He has resumed AA 
attendance. (Item 2 at 1) 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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 required to be considered 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, 
these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative 
process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and 
commonsense decision. 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.” In reaching this decision, I have 
drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence 
contained in the record. 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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant 
has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 
 
 Under this guideline, “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.” (AG ¶ 21) Applicant’s history of alcohol abuse 
has led to multiple charges and arrests, in addition to a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. 
As recently as November 2016, he was still drinking alcohol, in contravention of a 
counselor’s recommendation that he abstain. The following disqualifying conditions apply 
under 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; 
4 
 
 
(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 acknowledges his pattern of alcohol abuse. He attends AA regularly, and 
has completed counseling programs. Conversely, a previous attempt to quit drinking 
alcohol was unsuccessful, as he relapsed after a diagnosis of alcohol dependence in 2012. 
Moreover, although Applicant noted that he is no longer drinking alcohol, the record is 
unclear when this latest attempt at abstinence began. Consequently, given the nature and 
seriousness of Applicant’s alcohol abuse, the length of time that he abused alcohol, his 
relapse, and the fact that he was drinking alcohol at least as recently as November 2016, 
none of the mitigating conditions apply. Applicant has failed to mitigate the alcohol 
consumption security concern.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality 
of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(d). They are as follows: 
 
(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. 
 
 I considered the whole-person concept factors in my disposition of the disqualifying 
and mitigating conditions. I conclude Applicant has failed to carry the burden. 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for 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.h:    Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility 
for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Marc E. Curry 
Administrative Judge