Loading case…

ISCR 11-00449.h1: Guideline G security clearance hearing, granted (2011) · CASE

ISCR Case 11-00449.h1granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-00449.h1

grantedJul 28, 2011· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 33-year-old defense contractor employee who sought to retain his security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The Statement of Reasons detailed an 11-year history of excessive alcohol use, including a DUI in December 1999, an alcohol-related pedestrian-automobile accident in January 2002, a DWI conviction in December 2006, and a DUI conviction in December 2008. These incidents raised disqualifying conditions G.22.a and G.22.c.

Despite this history, the applicant demonstrated significant mitigation efforts. He acknowledged his past alcohol issues and actively worked to reduce his consumption. He established a pattern of responsible use, such as limiting his drinks and having a non-drinking girlfriend drive.

Furthermore, the applicant completed an alcohol safety program and attended counseling sessions. These actions demonstrated a commitment to addressing his alcohol use, leading to the application of mitigating condition G.23.b. Based on these factors, the applicant's security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the applicant prevailed

The applicant acknowledged his past alcohol issues and took steps to reduce consumption.
He demonstrated a pattern of responsible use by limiting drinks and having a non-drinking girlfriend drive.
The applicant completed an alcohol safety program and attended counseling sessions.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

G.22.araisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G.22.craisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol

Mitigating

G.23.bappliedAcknowledgment of Alcoholism and Actions Taken to Overcome It

Key rule quoted

“The Government must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR.”
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedMar 28, 2011
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJun 30, 2011
Decision dateJul 28, 2011

Cite for

Mitigation of Alcohol Consumption Issues Under Guideline G
Demonstrating Responsible Use of Alcohol After a History of Abuse
The Importance of Personal Accountability in Security Clearance Cases

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

From the decision

Facts this decision states, each with the exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Held a clearance before: Yes: “He seeks to retain the clearance he has held since October 1994.”

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: grantedTREATMENT COMPLETED · FAVORABLE

The judge found that the applicant had a history of alcohol-related incidents but mitigated the concerns by demonstrating responsible use of alcohol and taking steps to reduce consumption. The applicant's clearance was granted, indicating it was consistent with the national interest.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. 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. 11-00449 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Raashid S. Williams, Esquire, Department Counsel Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

July 28, 2011 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:

Based on the record in this case, Applicant’s clearance is granted.

On 28 March 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant listing security concerns under Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption. Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 20 May 2011, and I convened a hearing 30 June 2011. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 9 July 2011.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the Guideline G allegations, except for SOR 1.a, claiming that he last abused alcohol in December 2008 and not March 2010 as alleged. He is a 33- year-old employee of a defense contractor. He seeks to retain the clearance he has held since October 1994. He also requires his clearance for his military reserve service. Applicant served 13 years active duty, including deployment to Korea and Iraq, during which he reached paygrade E-6. In 2½ years in the reserves, he has been promoted to paygrade E-7.

Applicant has an 11-year history of excessive alcohol consumption, punctuated by four alcohol-related incidents: a December 1999 non-judicial punishment (NJP) for DUI, a January 2002 pedestrian-automobile accident where Applicant fell into the street while drunk and was hit by a car, a December 2006 DWI conviction, and a December 2008 DUI conviction which resulted from Applicant falling asleep behind the wheel and wrecking his car. Applicant was also charged with DUI in October 2002, but was found not guilty at trial (GE 4).

Applicant began drinking in 1997 while he was stationed in Korea. After his December 1999 NJP, the military reviewed his security clearance, which he retained (GE 3). After his October 2002 DUI arrest, the military ordered him to attend an alcohol safety action program (ASAP), but his work assignments and a second deployment to Korea kept him from attending more than the first two sessions. Similarly, the pertinent portion of his December 2006 sentence was suspended because he was deploying to Iraq.

After his December 2008 DUI, Applicant completed the state ASAP. He also attended an addiction counseling program weekly for about seven months between July 2009 and December 2010. During this program, he attended 20 alcoholics anonymous meetings. He was not diagnosed as alcohol dependent.

Applicant saw his December 2008 accident as a wake-up call for his alcohol consumption. He describes his current alcohol consumption as one drink per sitting, whether out with friends or at home. This translates into 4-5 drinks per month. His girlfriend of three years does not drink; so she drives when they go out, and she also provides an incentive to limit his alcohol consumption.

POLICIES

The AG list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself, conclusive. Still, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed when a case can be measured by them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption).

Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.

Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.4

ANALYSIS

The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline G, by demonstrating Applicant’s 11-year history of alcohol abuse, punctuated by alcohol- related arrests in December 1999, October 2002, December 2006, and December 2008, as well as an alcohol-related injury in January 2002. However, Applicant mitigated the security concerns.

Neither the retention of his clearance after the 1999 NJP nor the favorable adjudication of his clearance after his September 2004 periodic reinvestigation (which looked at both the December 1999 and the December 2002 incidents) precludes reexamination of those incidents in the current adjudication. Nevertheless, Applicant acknowledged his past problems with alcohol, and took steps to reduce his consumption. Limiting the number of drinks, the number of occasions on which he drinks, and having his non-drinking girlfriend drive whenever they go out with friends demonstrates a pattern of responsible use. I conclude Applicant is unlikely to abuse alcohol in the future. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline G for Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraphs a-f: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

Viewing the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance granted.

JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Consisting of the transcript (Tr.) and Government exhibits (GE) 1-4.

DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. The record does not reveal how long he has been employed by the contractor, or in what capacity. The only clearance application in the record (GE 1) is a September 2004 periodic reinvestigation while Applicant was still on active duty in the military. See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).

¶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 whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; . . . (c) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent;

¶23.(b) the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser);