CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-02303 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-02303denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-02303

Aug 11, 2022· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions). The denial stemmed from a long history of alcohol consumption, culminating in a recent severe diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder.

Specifically, the disqualifying conditions G-1 and I-1 were raised due to the applicant's extensive alcohol use. The judge's initial findings highlighted this severe diagnosis and prolonged history as central to the denial.

Upon appeal, the applicant failed to demonstrate any harmful error in the judge's original findings. Consequently, the appeal was denied, upholding the decision to deny the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G-1raisedAlcohol Consumption, Which Is Detrimental to the Applicant's Ability to Safeguard Classified Information.
I-1raisedA Diagnosed Psychological Condition That May Impair Judgment or Reliability.

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 20, 2021
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 1, 2022
Decision dateAug 11, 2022Appeal 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· Full written decision

Affirmed

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.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline GGuideline I

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not assert any specific harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

James F. Duffy — Chair
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Moira Modzelewski

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

APPEARANCES

_______________________________________ ) In the matter of: )

)

----- )

ISCR Case No. 21-02303

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) _______________________________________) Date: August 11, 2022

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

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