A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 21-02303
Appeal BoardDecided Aug 11, 2022 · Administrative Judge Moira D. Modzelewski · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, faced security clearance denial under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) due to a history of severe Alcohol Use Disorder. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's findings, which were based on the applicant's long-term alcohol use and a recent severe diagnosis.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant had a long history of alcohol consumption, including a severe diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder.
- The applicant did not demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's findings during the appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- G-1 Alcohol consumption, which is detrimental to the applicant's ability to safeguard classified information.raised
- I-1 A diagnosed psychological condition that may impair judgment or reliability.raised
Key rule quoted
“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2021-12-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2022-07-01
- Decision date
- 2022-08-11 Appeal affirmed.
Cite for
- Denial of Security Clearance Based on Severe Alcohol Use Disorder Under Guideline G
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error in Judge's Findings
- Importance of National Security in Clearance Decisions as Per Egan Standard.
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Appeal at a glance
The appeal involved a denial of security clearance based on concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions). The Applicant did not assert specific harmful errors in the Judge's decision. The Board affirmed the decision, finding it sustainable on the record.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Appearances
_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )
)
)
----- )
ISCR Case No. 21-02303
)
) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: August 11, 2022
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 20, 2021, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision―security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of DoD Directive 5220.6 (January 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Department Counsel requested a hearing. On July 1, 2022, after close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. For reasons stated below, we affirm the decision. Under Guideline G, the SOR alleged, as amended, that Applicant consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication for a number of years, then was abstinent for about 20 years, and resumed consuming alcohol from about 2018 to mid-2021; that he reported being involved in an alcohol- related incident in 1994, which resulted in a mental health provider diagnosing him as alcohol dependent; that he received alcohol treatment in about 1998; and that a psychologist diagnosed him with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe in 2021. The Guideline G allegation relating to the 2021
diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe was cross-alleged in a single Guideline I allegation. The Judge found against Applicant on all of the SOR allegations. In his appeal brief, Applicant does not specifically assert the Judge committed any error in the decision. Rather, Applicant’s brief provides an explanation about his alcohol consumption. To the extent that he may be arguing the Judge misweighed the evidence, he has failed to demonstrate the Judge’s conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. Applicant failed to establish the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on the record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also, Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.”
Order
The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board