Loading case…

ISCR 05-03305.a1: Guideline E security clearance appeal, denied (2007) · CASE

ISCR Case 05-03305.a1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-03305.a1

deniedMay 10, 2007· Hon. Jean E. Smallin· appeal

Summary

A trustworthiness designation was denied to an applicant representing himself, with the decision upheld on appeal. The denial was based on Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), citing a long history of excessive alcohol use and related criminal behavior.

Specifically, the applicant had multiple arrests for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Although the applicant received treatment for alcohol abuse/dependence, medical records indicated continued alcohol consumption following treatment.

The appeal board found that the judge's conclusions regarding the applicant's disqualifying conditions under Guidelines E and G were supported by the record. The board determined the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, thus affirming the denial of the trustworthiness designation.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant had a long history of excessive alcohol consumption, including arrests for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
The applicant received treatment for Alcohol Abuse/Dependence but continued to consume alcohol post-treatment, as evidenced by medical records.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG GraisedAlcohol Consumption
AG EraisedPersonal Conduct

Key rule quoted

“The Judge’s ultimate conclusions are not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedOct 26, 2005
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldNov 21, 2006
Decision dateMay 10, 2007

Cite for

Excessive Alcohol Consumption as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline G
Long-term Alcohol Abuse Impacting Trustworthiness Determinations
Sustainability of Judge's Findings in the Context of Appeal

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline E DIGEST: The Judge’s challenged statement is sustainable. In light of the record as a whole, the Judge ultimate conclusions are not arbitrary capricious or contrary to law. Adverse decision sustained. CASENO: 05-03305.a1 DATE: 05/10/2007 DATE: May 10, 2007 In Re: --------- SSN: ------- Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 05-03305

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq, Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) proposed to deny or revoke Applicant’s access to unclassified automation systems in an ADP-I/ II/ III sensitivity position. On October 26, 2005, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons advising Applicant of the basis for that proposal—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On November 21, 2006, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Jacqueline T. Williams denied Applicant’s request for access to an ADP-I/ II/ III position. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant alleges the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s statement that Applicant’s alcohol problems span more than 30 years is supported by record evidence. We also construe Applicant’s appeal as alleging that the Judge’s overall decision is arbitrary, capricous, and contrary to law. The Judge made the following sustainable findings: Applicant has “consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, from approximately 1969 until at least 2001.” On four occasions, Applicant was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. He received hospital treatment form August 2002 until March 2003 for Alcohol Abuse/Dependence. Applicant denied continuing to use alcohol following this treatment, although his medical records show that he admitted consuming two beers in May 2003. The challenged statement occurs in the Conclusions section of the decision. Given the Judge’s finding that Applicant’s alcohol use began in 1969, we find no error in the statement. Furthermore, in light of the Judge’s findings and the record as a whole, we conclude that her decision is not arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law.

ORDER

The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board