CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-08772.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-08772.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-08772.h1

deniedJun 28, 2013· Hon. Nichole L. Noel· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance based on Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of excessive alcohol use, including a diagnosis of alcohol dependence during military service, and three convictions for driving under the influence (DUI).

The Statement of Reasons highlighted the applicant's ongoing excessive alcohol consumption, her diagnosed alcohol dependence, and her failure to complete treatment. It also noted that she continued to consume alcohol despite her diagnosis and had not acknowledged the extent of her alcohol problem. At the time of the decision, the applicant remained on probation until October 2014 for her most recent DUI conviction.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to mitigate concerns related to her alcohol dependence. Key factors in the denial included her continued alcohol consumption, her lack of insight into her condition, and her failure to acknowledge her alcohol problem despite negative consequences.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption and three DUI convictions.
She remains on probation until October 2014 for her last DUI conviction.
The applicant failed to acknowledge her alcohol problem and continues to consume alcohol despite its negative consequences.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 21raisedCriminal Conduct
AG ¶ 20raisedAlcohol Consumption

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 4, 2012
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made based on written submissions.
Decision dateJun 28, 2013

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Unresolved Alcohol Dependence Issues
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility
Lack of Mitigating Conditions for Alcohol-related Offenses

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 ruled against the applicant on all allegations related to alcohol consumption, citing a history of excessive alcohol use and three DUI convictions. The applicant's untreated alcohol dependence was deemed a significant concern, compromising her ability to safeguard classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Unknown	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b	The applicant has been diagnosed with alcohol dependence.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Unknown	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.c	The applicant has received multiple DUI convictions.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Unknown	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.d	The applicant has failed to complete treatment for alcohol dependence.	Against Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Unknown	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.e	The applicant continues to consume alcohol despite her diagnosis.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Unknown	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.f	The applicant has not acknowledged her alcohol problem.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Unknown	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (b) alcohol-related incident at work (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge denied the applicant's request for a security clearance due to concerns regarding her history of excessive alcohol consumption and three convictions for driving under the influence. The applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, remaining on probation until October 2014 and continuing to consume alcohol without acknowledgment of her problem.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a history of excessive alcohol consumption and three convictions for driving under the influence.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Criminal	Convicted	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.b	Applicant remains on probation until October 2014.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.c	Applicant's alcohol dependence remains untreated, compromising her ability to safeguard classified information.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.d	Applicant has demonstrated she is unable to restrain herself from drinking at work or engaging in dangerous conduct.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.e	Applicant has not acknowledged her alcohol problem and continues to consume alcohol despite negative consequences.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
1.f	None of the alcohol consumption mitigating conditions apply to Applicant.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). 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. 10-08772 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

06/28/2013 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

NOEL, Nichole L., Administrative Judge:

Applicant contests the Defense Department’s intent to deny her eligibility for a security clearance to work in the defense industry. Applicant failed to mitigate the concerns raised by her history of excessive alcohol consumption and three convictions for driving under the influence. She remains on probation until October 2014. Clearance denied.

Statement of the Case

Acting under the relevant Executive Order and Department of Defense (DOD) Directive,1 on October 4, 2012, the DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the alcohol consumption and criminal conduct guidelines. DOD adjudicators were unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance and recommended that the case be submitted to an administrative judge for a determination whether to revoke or deny Applicant’s security clearance.

Applicant answered the SOR and requested a decision without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted its written case on January 3, 2013. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, who was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Applicant received the FORM on January 11, 2013, but did not respond. Accordingly, the items appended to the Government’s brief are admitted as Government’s Exhibits (GE) 1 through 11. The case was assigned to me on March 27, 2013.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant, 32, is an employee of a federal contractor. She is unmarried and has no children.2 The SOR raises concerns about Applicant’s alcohol use.

Applicant began consuming alcohol at 15 years old. Her alcohol problems became acute after she enlisted in the Navy in June 2000. Applicant began drinking daily, consuming at least six beers and four shots of whiskey. She received her first conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) in October 2002. For unexplained reasons, it took Applicant six years to complete the conditions of her sentence. In July 2003, Applicant was hospitalized for alcohol intoxication with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .27%. Shortly thereafter, her command referred her to a substance abuse rehabilitation program. Applicant reported to her substance abuse counselor (SAC) that in addition to the DUI and alcohol-related hospitalization, during the past year she had been sexually assaulted while intoxicated, used alcohol in conjunction with prescription narcotics, and experienced blackouts on at least four occasions. The SAC diagnosed Applicant as being alcohol dependent. Applicant failed the program because she did not attend Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) meetings as required. As a result, the Navy administratively discharged Applicant in October 2003. According to the administrative separation report, Applicant failed to correct her behavior regarding alcohol consumption after three medical evaluations and two rehabilitation programs.3

After her discharge from the Navy, Applicant continued to consume alcohol to intoxication. In July 2004, she began working as a bartender. Oftentimes she drank during her shifts and continued drinking with co-workers after the bar closed. Her last two DUI arrests occurred after her bartending shift. In 2009, Applicant received her second DUI conviction (BAC 0.16%). Consequently, the court suspended Applicant’s license for one year. Eight months later, in April 2010, the police arrested Applicant after she was involved in a one-car accident. Her BAC measured .22%. Applicant is on probation until October 2014.4

Applicant does not know if she is an alcoholic. Although she continues to consume alcohol, Applicant claims that she no longer drinks during her bartending shifts. She has no plans to abstain from alcohol use.5

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used 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 overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” 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 access to classified information will be resolved in favor of 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.

A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

ANALYSIS

Alcohol Consumption

Applicant’s history of excessive alcohol consumption is a security concern because it is direct evidence of her repeated “exercise of questionable judgment” and her “failure to control impulses.”6 Furthermore her alcohol history casts doubts on her current reliability and trustworthiness.7 Applicant is an alcoholic. She was diagnosed with the condition in a U.S. Navy substance abuse program.8 Over the past 13 years, her alcoholism has resulted in her discharge from the Navy and three DUI convictions. She has demonstrated she is unable to restrain herself from drinking at work, or from engaging in dangerous and life-threatening conduct.9 None of the alcohol consumption mitigating conditions apply. Applicant has not acknowledged her alcohol problem. She continues to consume alcohol in complete disregard of the negative consequences of her alcohol dependence.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

At this time, Applicant is not fit for access to classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I have also considered the whole-person factors at AG ¶ 2. Applicant’s alcohol dependence issues are severe. Her conduct shows a pattern of poor judgment and disregard for the law. She has no insight into the consequences of her behavior and continues to consume alcohol. Applicant is not in a position to appreciate the destructive nature of her alcohol dependence, let alone the potential peril she inflicts on others. As long as Applicant’s alcohol dependence remains untreated, her ability to safeguard classified information or perform sensitive duties remains compromised.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or 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.f: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Clearance is denied.

__________________________ Nichole L. Noel Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960; as amended, as well as DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply to this case. The AG were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). The AG replace the guidelines in Enclosure 2 to the Directive. 2 GE 4.

3 GE 5, 11. 4 GE 5-10.

5 GE 5. 6 AG ¶ 21.

7 AG ¶ 21.

8 AG ¶ 22(e).

9 AG ¶¶ 22(a) - (c).