1 
     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
 DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
) ISCR Case No. 18-00686 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Mary M. Foreman, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
CERVI, Gregg A., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guideline G, alcohol consumption, 
Guideline H, drug involvement and substance abuse, and Guideline J, criminal conduct. 
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is granted. 
Statement of the Case 
Applicant completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86)1 on 
May 12, 2014. On March 21, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated 
Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant 
detailing security concerns under Guidelines G, H, and J.2 
1 Also known as a Security Clearance Application (SCA). 
2 The DOD CAF acted 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 revised adjudicative 
guidelines (AG) effective on June 8, 2017. 
02/26/2019
 
2 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR on April 16, 2018, and requested a hearing before 
an administrative judge. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a notice of 
hearing on August 1, 2018, and the hearing was convened on August 29, 2018. 
Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 7 were offered, however based on Applicant’s 
objections, GE 2 through 4 (Personal Subject Interview summaries) were not admitted. 
GE 1, and 5 through 7 were admitted without objection. Applicant’s exhibits (AE) A 
through C were admitted in evidence without objection. The record was held open after 
the hearing to permit Applicant to submit additional documentary evidence in mitigation. 
Applicant submitted AE D, which was admitted without objection. DOHA received the 
hearing transcript (Tr.) on September 7, 2018.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
The SOR alleges under Guideline G, that Applicant has a history of excessive 
alcohol consumption, including after treatment. Applicant was also charged with alcohol-
related offenses including: two charges in 1997 for underage possession of alcohol, and 
driving while intoxicated (DWI) with a minor under 15 years old. The SOR cross-alleged 
the DWI arrest under Guideline J, criminal conduct. Additionally, the SOR alleges under 
Guideline H that Applicant used marijuana from 1993 to at least 2015, including while 
holding a security clearance in 2015, and misused two prescription medications from 
September to October 2011, while holding a security clearance. In Applicant’s answer, 
she admitted all of the allegations with explanations, except she denied the extent of her 
alcohol use after treatment, and denied use of marijuana after 2000, except for one time 
in May 2015. The record evidence substantially supports the SOR allegations. After a 
thorough and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits submitted, I make the following 
findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 40-year-old software engineer, employed by a defense contractor 
since 2001. She earned a bachelor’s degree in 2001. She married in 2005 and divorced 
in 2013. She has two children, ages 12 and 17. She has held a security clearance since 
2003. 
 
Applicant was twice cited for underage possession of alcohol in 1997, while a 19-
year-old college student, and also used marijuana on occasion until 2000. Applicant 
began working for her current employer after graduating from college in 2001. She was 
married in 2005 to a recovering alcoholic. Applicant struggled with her weight, and in 
2010, she had gastric bypass surgery and was getting knee injections for arthritis. She 
was prescribed pain medications because she could no longer use over-the-counter pain 
medication after surgery. At times, she used the medications even after the pain 
subsided, so it was not in compliance with the prescription directions. 
 
Applicant considered herself a social drinker, but her beer and wine use also 
increased after bypass surgery as a substitute for food. She stopped drinking in 
September 2011, but had increased anxiety and depression. She was having difficulty in 
her marriage and her children had behavioral issues. She stopped drinking in September 
2011, sought counseling in October 2011 for anxiety and depression, and was 
 
3 
 
recommended to include treatment for alcohol abuse. She was tapered off the 
prescription medications as they were not permitted during treatment, and began 
treatment for alcohol abuse, anxiety, and depression. She denied ever receiving a 
diagnosis. She reported her treatment to her employer, continued with Alcoholics 
Anonymous (AA), and successfully abstained from her self-imposed alcohol use until she 
relapsed in 2015.  
 
In 2013, Applicant and her spouse divorced, and, at the same time, her employer 
transferred her job to another state. She moved as a single mother of two children, with 
no friends, family, or other support. In 2015, Applicant’s parents were visiting and helped 
her move from a rental property. After the move was completed, her father offered her 
alcohol. She had two mixed drinks, and, without feeling any effects, drove to a drug store 
for bath products when she suddenly felt the effects of the alcohol. Her nine-year-old son 
met her outside and insisted on riding to the store with her. She ran a red light, and was 
struck by another car. She was cited for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and was convicted 
of misdemeanor DWI, fined, ordered to complete community service, probation for two 
years, and required to use an ignition interlock device. One month later, after returning 
from work, Applicant stopped at a friend’s house, drank, and used marijuana offered by 
the friend. This was her first and only use of marijuana since 2000, and was related to her 
drinking on that day. 
 
On advice of her friend, Applicant checked herself into a hospital outpatient eight-
week alcohol treatment program with a psychiatrist, and reported that she was suffering 
from anxiety, stress, and being counseled at work for taking too many sick days. In 2015, 
Applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent but met criteria for early partial remission. 
She was advised to stop drinking, and was prescribed Antabuse to assist her with 
cravings. She stopped using alcohol, has successfully continued Antabuse without 
incident, successfully completed the two-year ignition interlock program without incident, 
and regularly attends AA and counseling with a therapist. Her psychiatrist and therapist 
provided positive letters of support, indicating that she has been compliant with her 
medications, attendance at AA and church. She has an AA sponsor and she is making 
improvements in her mental health. Her AA sponsor wrote of her daily work with Applicant 
since 2015, and despite a one-day relapse at a cookout in July 2017, Applicant 
reestablished sobriety immediately and reported her relapse in her AA meeting and to her 
counselor. 
 
Applicant’s friend testified on her behalf, was aware of her history and relapses, 
and noted her efforts at sobriety as discussed above. Her friend, was very supportive of 
her recovery. Her psychiatrist noted Applicant has developed better insight and is using 
good judgment. With continued compliance with recommended treatment, Applicant’s 
prognosis is “very good.”   
 
Applicant was straightforward, open and honest in her testimony. She 
acknowledged her struggle with alcohol, but was encouraged by her efforts at sobriety, 
abstinence, and treatment. She has made friends, and now has personal support that has 
substantially reduced her stress and anxiety. Applicant’s ex-spouse, neighbor, friends, 
 
4 
 
church members, and employment team leader strongly support her, noting Applicant’s 
friendship, love for her children, loyalty, and honesty. 
 
Since 2017, Applicant noted that she has performed well at work, winning several 
awards, including a prestigious, global company-wide award from the company’s chief 
executive officer. This award noted Applicant’s energy, ingenuity, and integrity. She has 
exceeded performance standards, and has a history of receiving monetary awards. She 
believes her home-life is stable, understands how to deal with stress, regularly uses her 
Antabuse medication and meets with her counselor and sponsor, and vowed to continue 
to abstain from any further alcohol or drug use. 
 
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 § 2. 
 
National security eligibility is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria 
contained in the adjudicative guidelines. 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 a person’s stability, trustworthiness, reliability, 
discretion, character, honesty, and judgment. AG ¶ 1(b). 
 
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.” 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. 
 
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 
 
5 
 
establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. 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, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01295 at 3 
(App. Bd. Jan. 20, 2015). 
 
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, e.g., 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 ¶ 1(d). 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 
AG ¶ 21 expresses the security concern for alcohol consumption: 
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 ¶ 22 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. Three are potentially applicable in this case: 
(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;  
(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; and 
(f) alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment 
recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. 
 
6 
 
 Applicant’s drinking history, which includes alcohol-related offenses in college, a 
DWI in 2015, and relapse after treatment, meets the conditions set forth in AG ¶¶ 22(a), 
(c), (d) and (f). 
I have also considered all of the mitigating conditions for alcohol consumption 
under AG ¶ 23, including: 
(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. 
 Applicant acknowledges her history of struggles with alcohol. Her recognition of 
conditions that require intervention have resulted in her seeking treatment on two 
occasions. The first was in 2011 to address anxiety and depression, much of which was 
related to her marriage, and the second was in 2015 after her DWI and one-time use of 
marijuana. As a result of her 2015 treatment, she was diagnosed as alcohol dependent, 
and proceeded with an intense treatment regiment. She had a brief, one-day relapse in 
July 2017, but quickly recovered her sobriety and it has continued to date. She now has 
tremendous support and has had exceptional performance at work. She continues her 
medication, counseling, and AA participation. She keeps daily contact with her sponsor, 
and has vowed to remain abstinent. 
 
 I find that sufficient time has passed since her last alcohol-related incident and 
despite a one-day relapse, she has maintained substantial abstinence from alcohol and 
marijuana since 2015. I am persuaded that her life changes, counseling and abstinence 
support serve to mitigate her past behavior. Applicant’s alcohol-related issues appear to 
be under control, and no longer cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, or 
good judgment as long as she maintains her compliance with her treatment regiment. I 
find AG ¶¶ 23(a) and (b) apply, and (c) and (d) partially apply. 
 
 
 
7 
 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement and Substance Abuse 
 
The security concern for drug involvement and substance misuse is set out in  
AG ¶ 24: 
 
The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of 
prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances 
that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner 
inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an 
individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may 
lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises 
questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, 
and regulations. Controlled substance means any “controlled substance” as 
defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term adopted in 
this guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed above. 
 
The guideline notes conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 25. 
The disqualifying condition applicable in this case is: 
 
(a) any substance misuse (see above definition); and 
 
(f) any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or 
holding a sensitive position. 
 
Applicant reported her occasional use of marijuana in her youth, mostly while in 
college, and again one time in 2015 while drinking alcohol. She also reported her misuse 
of two prescription pain medications that she said were used outside of the label 
directions. These incidents implicate the disqualifying condition noted above. 
 
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following 
are potentially applicable: 
 
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened 
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt 
on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; 
 
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance 
misuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and 
has established a pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to: 
 
  (1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; 
 
  (2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; 
 
  (3) providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug 
involvement and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future 
 
8 
 
involvement or misuse is grounds for revocation of national security 
eligibility; and 
 
(c) abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness 
during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended. 
 
Applicant is a mature adult who reported in her misuse of prescription medication 
in her SCA, and self-reported her one-time use of marijuana while drinking in 2015. She 
acknowledged that her incidents of drug misuse were likely related to her alcohol abuse 
problem and from post-surgery and knee treatments. She has since abstained from any 
further illegal drug use or prescription misuse, and no longer associates with the person 
that supplied marijuana in 2015. She expressed her regret for her lapse in judgment, and 
provided a statement of intent to refrain from drug use or substance misuse. Applicant’s 
2011 misuse of prescription medication and one-time use of marijuana in 2015 while 
relapsing with alcohol was a temporary lapse in judgment that has not recurred. I am 
convinced Applicant does not desire to use marijuana again, and that her promise to 
refrain from future use and misuse of prescription medications is sincere. Her past use 
no longer reflects on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. AG ¶¶ 
26(a), (b), and (c) apply. 
 
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct  
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for criminal conduct 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. 
 
 AG ¶ 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying in this case. The following is potentially applicable:  
 
(b) evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an 
admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of 
whether the person was formally charged, prosecuted or convicted. 
 
Applicant’s DWI arrest and conviction is sufficient evidence of criminal conduct. 
AG ¶ 31 (b) applies. 
 
 I have also considered all of the mitigating conditions for criminal conduct under 
AG ¶ 32 and considered the following relevant: 
 
 (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 
 
9 
 
(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 DWI arrest and misdemeanor conviction occurred in 2015 and is an 
unusual circumstance. She has not had a similar offense before or after that incident. 
Since then, she has actively participated in group and individual counseling with a positive 
prognosis, completed a two-year ignition-interlock device program without violation, 
successfully completed probation, and has substantially abstained from alcohol use. She 
used her DWI incident with her son in the car as a wake-up call to change her behavior 
that led to criminal activity, and recognizes the impact that alcohol abuse has had on her 
life and her family. She continues to attend AA meetings and counseling, and stresses 
that alcohol use and resultant criminal conduct is behind her. I conclude that Applicant 
has shown successful rehabilitation through the actions she has taken to regain control 
over her life, and as long as she continues to completely abstain from further alcohol use 
and counseling recommendations, additional criminal activity is unlikely to recur. Her past 
criminal behavior no longer casts doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and 
good judgment. AG ¶¶ 32 (a) and (d) 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 the 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 considered Applicant’s stellar work 
performance over the past two years, and her alcohol-abuse treatment and follow-on 
assistance through active participation in AA and counseling. Gaining control over her 
alcohol problem has resulted in disuse of marijuana and drunk driving. Although Applicant 
 
10 
 
has struggled with her behavior when alcohol is involved, she appears to be on the right 
track with help from her substantial support network and counseling. I am convinced that 
Applicant has sincerely changed her behavior, has learned from her past transgressions, 
benefited from counseling, medication, and the prolonged use of the ignition-interlock 
device, and is committed to complete abstinence now and in the future. 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts about 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising under Guidelines G, H, and J. 
 
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.f:    For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline H:    FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.c:    For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline J:    FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraph 3.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 continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
                                                     
_____________________________ 
Gregg A. Cervi 
Administrative Judge