CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-04097 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-04097denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-04097

deniedFeb 27, 2019· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 67-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) due to a long history of alcohol dependence and abuse, which included multiple alcohol-related charges and arrests. These incidents spanned from 1978, with a driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge, to 2012, when he was arrested for DUI, DUI per se, and DWI, ultimately being found guilty of the DWI charge.

Following the 2012 arrest, the applicant completed a 28-day inpatient counseling program in October 2012, where he was diagnosed with alcohol dependence. He then attended outpatient treatment from January to April 2013. However, by November 2016, he was consuming two to three beers per week, indicating a relapse after treatment.

In February 2018, the applicant stated he was no longer drinking alcohol. Despite his participation in treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous, the judge determined that he failed to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation or a sustained period of abstinence. The decision highlighted his relapse after treatment, continued alcohol consumption despite recommendations to abstain, and the unestablished duration of his recent abstinence attempts, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long history of alcohol abuse and was diagnosed with alcohol dependence.
He relapsed after treatment and continued to consume alcohol despite recommendations to abstain.
The applicant's recent attempts at abstinence were not clearly established in terms of duration.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 22(d)raisedDiagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder
AG ¶ 22(e)raisedFailure to Follow Treatment Advice
AG ¶ 22(f)raisedAlcohol Consumption Not in Accordance with Treatment Recommendations

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 13, 2018
Answer filedFeb 27, 2018Applicant requested a decision based on the written record.
Hearing held—
Decision dateFeb 27, 2019

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Alcohol Dependence Issues
Failure to Demonstrate Rehabilitation After a History of Alcohol Abuse
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: deniedAUD DIAGNOSED

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations related to alcohol consumption, citing a long history of alcohol abuse and a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. The applicant's post-diagnosis relapse and continued alcohol use were significant factors in the decision to deny the application.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a long history of alcohol abuse and was diagnosed with alcohol dependence.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.b	Over the years, his alcohol abuse has led to multiple alcohol-related charges and arrests.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.c	In 1978, he was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.d	In 2001, he was arrested and charged with DWI and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.e	In 2004, Applicant was charged with attempting to drive a vehicle while impaired by alcohol.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.f	In September 2012, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI, DUI per se, and DWI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.g	Applicant was found guilty of the DWI charge, and all of the other charges were nolle prossed.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.h	In October 2012, Applicant’s attorney referred him to a 28-day inpatient counseling program.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.i	Upon completion of the inpatient program, a substance abuse counselor diagnosed him with alcohol dependence.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.j	Applicant attended outpatient treatment from January 2013 to April 2013 on a twice - weekly basis.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.k	As of November 2016, he was drinking two to three beers per week.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.l	In Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, dated February 27, 2018, he acknowledged his pattern of alcohol abuse, and stated that he was no longer drinking alcohol.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.m–1.p	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-04097 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Erin P. Thompson, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________ Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: Given Applicant’s long history of alcohol abuse, his diagnosis with alcohol dependence, and his post-diagnosis relapse, it is too soon to conclude he has mitigated the alcohol consumption security concern. Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case On February 13, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security concerns under Guideline G, alcohol consumption, explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national security to grant him security clearance eligibility. The DOD CAF took the action under Executive Order (EO) 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 Nat. Sec. Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DOD on June 8, 2017. On February 27, 2018, Applicant answered the SOR allegations, admitting all of the allegations. He requested a decision based on the written record rather than a hearing. On 02/27/2019

May 3, 2018, Department Counsel prepared a file of relevant material (FORM). Applicant received the FORM on June 8, 2018, and was notified that he could file a response, together with attachments supplementing the information in the FORM, if desired. He did not file a response. The FORM was assigned to me on October 1, 2018.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 67-year-old, college-educated man with two adult children. He is currently separated from his wife. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1971 to 1991, retiring honorably. (Item 3 at 10) He has worked for a defense contractor as a senior logistics analyst since 2014.

Applicant consumed alcohol, at times in excess and to the point of intoxication, from approximately 1966 until November 2016. (Item 2 at 1) Over the years, his alcohol abuse has led to multiple alcohol-related charges and arrests. Specifically, in 1978, he was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). (Item 2 at 1) The disposition of the charge is unknown from the record. In 2001, he was arrested and charged with DWI and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). (Item 2 at 1) The case was placed on the inactive docket. After the arrest, Applicant voluntarily entered an alcohol and substance abuse clinic where he was diagnosed with alcohol abuse. (Item 7 at 1-2) In 2004, Applicant was charged with attempting to drive a vehicle while impaired by alcohol. The case was nolle prossed. (Item 2 at 1; Item 4 at 5) In September 2012, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI, DUI per se, and DWI. (Item 2 at 1) Applicant was found guilty of the DWI charge, and all of the other charges were nolle prossed. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail (suspended), two years of probation, and court costs. Also, his driver’s license was restricted to use to and from work for one year. (Item 4 at 4)

In October 2012, Applicant’s attorney referred him to a 28-day inpatient counseling program. (Item 5 at 6) At or about that time, Applicant began attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. Upon completion of the inpatient program, a substance abuse counselor diagnosed him with alcohol dependence. (Item 6 at 122, 124) Upon his discharge in November 2012, the substance abuse counselor noted that Applicant “does not believe he has alcoholism despite the fact of significant negative consequences of his use.” (Item 5) Per the discharge recommendations, Applicant was to abstain from alcohol, attend outpatient counseling for relapse prevention, start Antabuse, a medication to control the urge to drink alcohol, and continue attending AA. (Item 2 at 1; Item 5 at 7) The counselor concluded that Applicant’s long-term prognosis was good, so long as he accepts that he can never safely use alcohol. (Item 5 at 9)

Applicant attended outpatient treatment from January 2013 to April 2013 on a twice - weekly basis. Some time after the end of the treatment program, Applicant resumed his alcohol consumption. As of November 2016, he was drinking two to three beers per week. (Item 4 at 6) Also at that time, he was no longer attending AA meetings. (Item 4 at 6)

In Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, dated February 27, 2018, he acknowledged his pattern of alcohol abuse, and stated that he was no longer drinking alcohol. (Item 2 at 1)

He did not specify how long he had been free from alcohol. He has resumed AA attendance. (Item 2 at 1)

POLICIES

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, emphasizing that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 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 the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. 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. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision.

ANALYSIS

Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption

Under this guideline, “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 ¶ 21) Applicant’s history of alcohol abuse has led to multiple charges and arrests, in addition to a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. As recently as November 2016, he was still drinking alcohol, in contravention of a counselor’s recommendation that he abstain. The following disqualifying conditions apply under AG ¶ 22:

(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;

(e) the failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed; and

(f) alcohol consumption which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder.

Applicant acknowledges his pattern of alcohol abuse. He attends AA regularly, and has completed counseling programs. Conversely, a previous attempt to quit drinking alcohol was unsuccessful, as he relapsed after a diagnosis of alcohol dependence in 2012. Moreover, although Applicant noted that he is no longer drinking alcohol, the record is unclear when this latest attempt at abstinence began. Consequently, given the nature and seriousness of Applicant’s alcohol abuse, the length of time that he abused alcohol, his relapse, and the fact that he was drinking alcohol at least as recently as November 2016, none of the mitigating conditions apply. Applicant has failed to mitigate the alcohol consumption security concern.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative process factors in AG ¶ 2(d). They are as follows:

(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.

I considered the whole-person concept factors in my disposition of the disqualifying and mitigating conditions. I conclude Applicant has failed to carry the burden.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for 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:

AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.h:

Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

_____________________ Marc E. Curry Administrative Judge