1 
      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
 DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
)  ISCR Case: 18-01234 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Tara R. Karoian, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption and criminal 
misconduct. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied.  
Statement of Case 
On September 20, 2016, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (e-
QIP). On May 4, 2018, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a Statement 
of Reasons (SOR), detailing security concerns under Guidelines G (Alcohol) and J 
(Criminal Conduct). (Item 1.) The action was taken under Executive Order 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) effective within the DoD on June 8, 2017. 
Applicant responded to the SOR (Answer) on June 14, 2018, and July 9, 2018. 
(Item 2.) He requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the 
written record. Department Counsel sent the Government’s written case to Applicant on 
02/01/2019
 
 
2 
 
 
August 31, 2018, and sent a duplicate copy to an updated address on October 2, 2018. 
Applicant received a complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing 
six Items, on October 4, 2018. He was afforded an opportunity to file objections and 
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of 
the FORM. Applicant did not submit anything in response to the FORM within the 30-
day period that ended November 3, 2018. DOHA assigned the case to me on January 
16, 2019. Items 1 through 6 are admitted. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is 35 years old and is a college graduate. He has worked for his 
employer, a government contractor, since September 2016. He is unmarried and has no 
children. (Item 3.) Applicant admitted all of the allegations on the SOR, with 
clarifications, as stated in subparagraphs 1.a through 1.e, and 2.a. (Item 2.) 
 
 Applicant has been involved in five alcohol-related incidents since March 2007, 
including multiple driving under the influence (DUI) arrests. His first DUI arrest was in 
March 2007. He was convicted. In April 2011, Applicant was charged with DUI. He was 
sentenced to 12 months of probation and 48 hours of community service. He completed 
court-ordered substance abuse treatment and counseling as part of his sentence. 
Despite his participation in that counseling program, he had a third DUI charge in July 
2012. He was sentenced to 40 days in jail, three years of probation, and required to 
perform 48 hours of community service. He was again ordered to completed court-
ordered substance abuse treatment and counseling as part of his sentence. In April 
2015, he was arrested and charged with trespassing. He admitted he consumed alcohol 
as part of this incident. The charge was dismissed after Applicant completed community 
service and attended additional alcohol classes. Most recently, he was arrested and 
charged with DUI in October 2017. On December 20, 2017, he pled guilty to DUI and 
was sentenced to 180 days in jail, with work release. He was placed on 12 months of 
supervised probation, fined, and required to perform community service. (Item 3; Item 4; 
Item 5.)  
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list 
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in 
evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. 
 
 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire 
process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context of a number 
 
 
3 
 
 
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.” In reaching this decision, I 
have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the 
evidence contained in the record. I have not drawn inferences based on mere 
speculation or conjecture.  
 
 Directive ¶ E3.1.14 requires the Government to present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “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, and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”  
 
 A person applying for national security eligibility seeks to enter 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 national security eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the 
possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified or 
sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of EO 10865, “[a]ny 
determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms 
of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the 
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information.) 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline 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. 
 
 
 
4 
 
 
The guideline at AG ¶ 22 contains seven conditions that could raise a security 
concern and may be disqualifying. Two conditions may apply: 
 
(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under 
the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or 
other incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual's 
alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use 
disorder; and 
 
(c) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired 
judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol 
use disorder. 
 
 Applicant has had five alcohol-related arrests between 2007 and 2017. Four of 
those incidents were DUI convictions, and one was an alcohol-related trespassing 
charge. These facts establish prima facie support for the foregoing disqualifying 
conditions, and shift the burden to Applicant to mitigate those concerns. 
 
The guideline at AG ¶ 23 contains four conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns. Three conditions may apply: 
 
(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; 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 has a history of exercising poor judgment when consuming alcohol. 
Despite completing multiple alcohol counseling classes and serving jail time, he 
repeatedly continued to consume alcohol to the point of impairment and then get behind 
the wheel of a motor vehicle. His alcohol use continues to cast doubt on his current 
reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. He failed to present sufficient evidence to fully 
establish any of the mitigating conditions. 
 
 
 
5 
 
 
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. 
 
The guideline at AG ¶ 31 contains five disqualifying conditions that could raise a 
security concern and may be disqualifying. The following applies, as discussed below: 
 
(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. 
 
Applicant has been convicted of four DUIs, and admitted consuming alcohol 
before his trespassing arrest. This evidence raises security concerns under these 
disqualifying conditions, thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or 
mitigate those concerns. 
 
The guideline in AG ¶ 32 contains four conditions that could mitigate criminal 
conduct security concerns: 
 
(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; 
 
(b) the individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and 
those pressures are no longer present in the person's life; 
 
(c) no reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the 
offense; 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 criminal history is recent, with his most recent conviction occurring 
after he completed his 2016 security clearance application. He provided no evidence of 
rehabilitation or changed behavior. The evidence continues to cast doubt on Applicant’s 
 
 
6 
 
 
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. The evidence does not establish 
mitigation under any of the above conditions. 
 
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.  
 
 According to 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 applicable guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered 
the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all pertinent facts and 
circumstances surrounding this case. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with doubt 
as to Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance. He failed to meet his burden to 
mitigate the security concerns arising under the guidelines for alcohol consumption and 
criminal conduct. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline G:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.e:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline J:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a:     Against Applicant 
 
 
 
7 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                                                   
 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge