CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03592.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03592.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03592.a1

Jun 14, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor's security clearance application was denied under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) due to a history of alcohol dependence and multiple DUI charges. The applicant continued to consume alcohol despite a diagnosis of dependence and had not undertaken a period of abstinence.

While the applicant presented mitigating factors, including a long work history and claims of addressing the issue, the judge determined these were insufficient to overcome the security concerns. Specifically, the judge cited disqualifying conditions G.2.a (alcohol-related incidents) and G.2.c (diagnosis of alcohol dependence).

The decision emphasized that a period of abstinence was necessary to mitigate the concerns, a step the applicant had not taken. Consequently, the judge found insufficient evidence to alleviate the risks associated with the applicant's alcohol consumption, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.2.araisedAlcohol-related Offenses
G.2.craisedAlcohol Dependence

Mitigating

G.3.arejectedAbstinenceThe applicant has not undertaken a period of abstinence.
G.3.brejectedRehabilitation EffortsThe applicant's claims of mitigating factors were insufficient.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 24, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 30, 2017
Decision dateJun 14, 2017

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Alcohol Dependence Under Guideline G
Importance of a Period of Abstinence for Mitigating Alcohol-related Security Concerns
Whole-person Analysis 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.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline G related to alcohol consumption. The applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider significant evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the whole-person analysis was adequate and the evidence did not mitigate the security concerns.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowStephanie C. Hess — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline G

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider significant record evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's whole-person analysis complied with the requirements of the Directive and that the evidence was not sufficient to mitigate the concerns arising from Applicant's conduct with alcohol.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline G DIGEST: Despite Applicant’s argument to the contrary, the Judge’s whole-person analysis complies with the requirements of the Directive in that she evaluated Applicant’s security- significant conduct in light of the record as a whole. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-03592.a1 DATE: 06/14/2017 DATE: June 14, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03592

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On March 24, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On March 30, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Stephanie C. Hess denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge failed to consider significant record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant works for a Defense contractor. He was granted a security clearance in 2003, although two years earlier he had been denied one due to his alcohol consumption. Applicant began drinking to the point of intoxication at age 16. He has been diagnosed with depression and alcohol abuse/dependence and twice with alcohol dependence. In addition, Applicant was charged with DUI in 2011. He acknowledged that drinking had significantly affected his work performance due to missed days of work because of hangovers, denial of his clearance, and a slower rate of working. Drinking also contributed to a divorce after 22 years of marriage. Despite having been diagnosed as alcohol dependent, Applicant continues to drink. In fact, he drank six beers on the Saturday before the hearing. He does not believe that he has a problem with alcohol. Applicant submitted a sworn statement of intent “never to abuse alcohol again,” agreeing to an automatic revocation of his clearance should he do so. Decision at 4. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge cited to the harm that alcohol consumption has wrought on Applicant’s life and career. She stated that concerns arising from alcohol dependence can only be mitigated by an appropriate period of abstinence, which Applicant has not chosen to undertake. To the contrary, he contends that he does not currently have a problem with alcohol. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge characterized Applicant’s testimony as honest and straight-forward. She cited to his 32 years of employment by a Defense contractor and his reputation for hard work and integrity. However, she concluded that the evidence, viewed as a whole, was not sufficient to mitigate the concerns arising from Applicant’s conduct with alcohol.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence such as his work record, the length of time since his last DUI, and his having curtailed the amount that he drinks. He argues that the Judge did not consider this evidence and that the whole-person analysis was deficient. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017). Despite Applicant’s argument to the contrary, the Judge’s whole-person analysis complies with the requirements of the Directive in that she evaluated Applicant’s security-significant conduct in light of the record as a whole. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06653 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 18, 2016). Applicant has cited to some Hearing Office cases that, he believes, support his effort to obtain a clearance. We give these cases due consideration as persuasive authority. However, Hearing Office cases are not binding on other Hearing Office Judges or on the Appeal Board. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01416 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 15, 2017). The cases that Applicant has cited have significant differences from his own. They are not enough to undermine the Judge’s decision. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board