ISCR Case 09-07329.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-07329.h1

deniedJul 25, 2011· Hon. Thomas M. Crean· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old procurement specialist for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The applicant admitted to excessive alcohol consumption and inappropriate behavior at work-related events, including consuming an excessive amount of alcohol at a company-sponsored meeting in March 2008 and exposing herself at a company party in December 2008. She also admitted to arriving late for work smelling of alcohol in January 2009, which led to a performance improvement plan and a requirement to complete a substance abuse program.

The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol abuse and received treatment from January 30, 2009, to March 3, 2009, and again from March 16, 2009, to March 18, 2009, discontinuing the latter due to a change in employers. Despite these treatments, the government alleged she continued to consume alcohol. The applicant denied failing to report her involuntary alcohol treatment in March 2009 and denied reporting late to work smelling of alcohol on several occasions in January and February 2009.

The judge found that the applicant's admitted conduct, including eight allegations of excessive alcohol consumption and inappropriate behavior, raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness. Her claims of infrequent alcohol use since 2008 did not mitigate these concerns, as she did not complete a rehabilitation program and continued to consume alcohol after her diagnosis. Consequently, the security clearance was DENIED.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to eight allegations of excessive alcohol consumption and inappropriate conduct at work-related events.
The applicant was diagnosed with alcohol abuse and did not complete a rehabilitation program, continuing to consume alcohol after her diagnosis.
The applicant's past conduct raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness, which were not mitigated by her claims of infrequent use of alcohol.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.22.araisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G.22.braisedAlcohol-related Incidents at Work
G.22.draisedDiagnosis by a Duly Qualified Medical Professional of Alcohol Abuse

Mitigating

G.23.arejectedSo Much Time Has Passed or the Behavior Was so InfrequentThe judge found that the applicant's past conduct still reflects adversely on her current reliability and trustworthiness.
G.23.brejectedAcknowledgment of Alcoholism or Issues of Alcohol AbuseThe applicant did not establish a pattern of rehabilitation or reform.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 17, 2010
Answer filedJan 18, 2011
Hearing heldApr 5, 2011
Decision dateJul 25, 2011

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Excessive Alcohol Consumption and Personal Conduct Issues
Impact of Past Alcohol-related Incidents on Current Reliability and Trustworthiness
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation or Reform in Alcohol Abuse Cases

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The Government alleges and Applicant denies that the above alleged conduct was a security concern.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	The Government alleges, but Applicant denies, that she failed to report her involuntary alcohol treatment in March 2009 as required by her Facility Security Officer (FSO).	Against Applicant	Failure to Report Required Information	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

The Government alleges and Applicant denies that the above alleged conduct was a security concern.

Against Applicant

Questionable Judgment General

—

Denied

—

2.b

The Government alleges, but Applicant denies, that she failed to report her involuntary alcohol treatment in March 2009 as required by her Facility Security Officer (FSO).

Against Applicant

Failure to Report Required Information

—

Denied

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The Government alleges that Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, to include daily from 1988 until at least October 2010.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.b	The Government alleges, and Applicant admits in her response to the SOR, that she consumed an excessive amount of alcohol at a company sponsored off-site meeting in March 2008.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(b) alcohol-related incident at work	—	—
1.c	The Government alleges that Applicant removed part of her clothing and exposed herself at a company party in December 2008 after consuming alcohol.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	(b) alcohol-related incident at work	—	—
1.d	The Government alleges that Applicant arrived late for work smelling of alcohol on her breath on January 22, 2009.	Against Applicant	Intoxication at Work or Duty	Admitted	(b) alcohol-related incident at work	—	—
1.e	The Government alleges and Applicant admits she received a performance improvement plan due to the above incidents in January 2009 and was required to successfully complete a substance abuse program.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(b) alcohol-related incident at work	—	—
1.f	The Government alleges but Applicant denies that she reported late to work smelling of alcohol on several occasions in January and February 2009.	Against Applicant	Intoxication at Work or Duty	Denied	(b) alcohol-related incident at work	—	—
1.g	The Government alleges and Applicant admits she was diagnosed with alcohol abuse and received treatment from January 30, 2009 until March 3, 2009.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.h	The Government alleges and Applicant admits that she was diagnosed with alcohol abuse and received treatment from March 16, 2009, until March 18, 2009. She discontinued this treatment when she changed employers.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.i	The Government alleges that Applicant continued to consume alcohol after the diagnoses of alcohol abuse.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The Government alleges that Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, to include daily from 1988 until at least October 2010.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

—

1.b

The Government alleges, and Applicant admits in her response to the SOR, that she consumed an excessive amount of alcohol at a company sponsored off-site meeting in March 2008.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

—

1.c

The Government alleges that Applicant removed part of her clothing and exposed herself at a company party in December 2008 after consuming alcohol.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Admitted

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

—

1.d

The Government alleges that Applicant arrived late for work smelling of alcohol on her breath on January 22, 2009.

Against Applicant

Intoxication at Work or Duty

Admitted

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

—

1.e

The Government alleges and Applicant admits she received a performance improvement plan due to the above incidents in January 2009 and was required to successfully complete a substance abuse program.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

—

1.f

The Government alleges but Applicant denies that she reported late to work smelling of alcohol on several occasions in January and February 2009.

Against Applicant

Intoxication at Work or Duty

Denied

(b) alcohol-related incident at work

—

1.g

The Government alleges and Applicant admits she was diagnosed with alcohol abuse and received treatment from January 30, 2009 until March 3, 2009.

Against Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional

—

1.h

The Government alleges and Applicant admits that she was diagnosed with alcohol abuse and received treatment from March 16, 2009, until March 18, 2009. She discontinued this treatment when she changed employers.

Against Applicant

Treatment Non Compliance

Admitted

(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional

—

1.i

The Government alleges that Applicant continued to consume alcohol after the diagnoses of alcohol abuse.

Against Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Admitted

(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION