ISCR Case 10-02669.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-02669.h1

grantedJul 1, 2010· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 56-year-old principal scientist and explosives chemist was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons alleged a history of alcohol-related issues, including a DUI at age 18 (later reduced to reckless driving), incidents of reporting to work impaired or drinking on the job, habitual or binge consumption leading to impaired judgment, and a diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence.

The applicant admitted to a history of alcoholism and was hospitalized for acute alcohol withdrawal. However, he has maintained abstinence since March 6, 2009. The judge found that the applicant successfully mitigated the security concerns.

Mitigation was demonstrated through sustained sobriety since 2009, active participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, and ongoing professional treatment. Additionally, positive character references from his supervisor and wife attested to his reliability and trustworthiness. Based on these factors, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant has maintained sobriety since March 6, 2009, demonstrating commitment to recovery.
He actively participated in Alcoholics Anonymous and sought professional treatment, showing motivation to remain sober.
Positive character references from his supervisor and wife supported his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(b)rejectedAlcohol-related Incidents at WorkNo evidence of alcohol-related incidents at work.
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 22(d)raisedDiagnosis of Alcohol Abuse or Dependence
AG ¶ 22(e)raisedEvaluation of Alcohol Abuse or Dependence
AG ¶ 22(f)rejectedRelapse After Diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse or DependenceNo evidence of relapse after rehabilitation.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)appliedMitigation Due to Time Passed or Infrequent BehaviorThe applicant has been sober for over two years.
AG ¶ 23(b)appliedMitigation Due to Completion of Rehabilitation ProgramThe applicant completed a treatment program and continues to attend therapy.
AG ¶ 23(c)appliedMitigation Due to Changed CircumstancesThe applicant's lifestyle and support system have changed positively.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance and access to classified information is granted.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 13, 2010
Answer filedSep 3, 2010
Hearing heldJan 27, 2011
Decision dateMay 20, 2011

Cite For

Mitigation of Alcohol-related Security Concerns Under Guideline G
Demonstrating Sustained Sobriety as a Factor in Clearance Eligibility
The Importance of Ongoing Treatment and Support in Recovery From Alcohol Dependence

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
1.a–1.d	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

1.a–1.d

4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).

For Applicant

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant was stopped by the police and charged with driving under the influence (DUI), later reduced to reckless driving.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.b	The applicant has had alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on the job.	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	The applicant has engaged in habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.d	The applicant has been diagnosed by a duly qualified medical professional with alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional (e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

The applicant was stopped by the police and charged with driving under the influence (DUI), later reduced to reckless driving.

Against Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

—

1.b

The applicant has had alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on the job.

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Denied

—

1.c

The applicant has engaged in habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.

Against Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied

(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment

—

1.d

The applicant has been diagnosed by a duly qualified medical professional with alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.

For Applicant

Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed

Admitted

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

(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

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 CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES