ISCR Case 12-00287.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-00287.h1

grantedAug 12, 2013· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The Statement of Reasons detailed a history of alcohol abuse from June 1989 to September 2012, including multiple incidents of public drunkenness in June 1989 and July 1992. The July 1992 incident also involved a charge of possessing a false identification, resulting in a fine and a 90-day driver’s license suspension.

Further allegations included a March 2002 arrest for driving under the influence (DUI), which was reduced three years later, leading to a fine and a six-week alcohol treatment order. In April 2010, he was arrested for a second DUI, a charge that was nolle prosequi despite his admission of consuming alcohol prior to the arrest. He received treatment for alcohol dependence from February to April 2011. Initially, the applicant stated an intent to consume alcohol approximately twice monthly, despite his diagnosis.

However, the applicant demonstrated significant rehabilitation. He has abstained from alcohol since October 2012 and actively participates in Alcoholics Anonymous. A licensed clinical psychologist provided a favorable prognosis regarding his alcohol dependence, and he has established a lifestyle supportive of sobriety, including distancing himself from past drinking associates. These mitigating factors led to the granting of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant has abstained from alcohol since October 2012 and demonstrated a commitment to sobriety.
He received a favorable prognosis from a licensed clinical psychologist regarding his alcohol dependence.
The applicant has established a lifestyle supportive of sobriety, distancing himself from past drinking associates.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.21(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
G.21(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
G.21(d)raisedDiagnosis of Alcohol Dependence
G.21(f)raisedRelapse After Diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence

Mitigating

G.23(a)appliedTime Passed Since Last Incident
G.23(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Issues and Pattern of Abstinence
G.23(d)appliedSuccessful Completion of Rehabilitation and Aftercare

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”
— Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 26, 2013
Answer filedTimely
Hearing heldJul 15, 2013
Decision dateAug 12, 2013

Cite For

Mitigation of Alcohol-related Misconduct Under Guideline G
Successful Rehabilitation Efforts Leading to a Favorable Prognosis
The Importance of Lifestyle Changes in Supporting Sobriety

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	From about June 1989 until at least September 2012, Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication.	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Denied with Explanation	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.b	In June 1989, he was charged with and pleaded guilty to public drunkenness.	For Applicant	Public Intoxication	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.c	In July 1992, he was charged with public drunkenness and possession of a false identification, for which he was fined and his driver’s license was suspended for 90 days.	For Applicant	Public Intoxication	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.d	In March 2002, he was arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI), a charge that was reduced three years later, when he was fined and ordered to attend six weeks of alcohol treatment.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.) (c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment (d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.e	In April 2010, he was arrested and charged with DUI, 2nd offense, a charge that was nolle prosequi despite his admission that he had consumed three or four beers before he was arrested.	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.f	From February to April 2011, he received treatment for a diagnosis of 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	—	—
1.g	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Unknown	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant intends to consume alcohol, approximately twice monthly, despite being diagnosed as alcohol dependent.	For Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Denied with Explanation	(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Incident

Response

Disqualifying (¶22)

Mitigating applied (¶23)

Mitigation

1.a

From about June 1989 until at least September 2012, Applicant consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication.

For Applicant

Binge or Intoxication Pattern

Denied with Explanation

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

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

—

1.b

In June 1989, he was charged with and pleaded guilty to public drunkenness.

For Applicant

Public Intoxication

Admitted

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

—

1.c

In July 1992, he was charged with public drunkenness and possession of a false identification, for which he was fined and his driver’s license was suspended for 90 days.

For Applicant

Public Intoxication

Admitted

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

—

1.d

In March 2002, he was arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI), a charge that was reduced three years later, when he was fined and ordered to attend six weeks of alcohol treatment.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

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

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

—

1.e

In April 2010, he was arrested and charged with DUI, 2nd offense, a charge that was nolle prosequi despite his admission that he had consumed three or four beers before he was arrested.

For Applicant

DUI or DWI Alcohol

Admitted

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

—

1.f

From February to April 2011, he received treatment for a diagnosis of 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

—

1.g

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Alcohol Incident

Unknown

—

1.h

Applicant intends to consume alcohol, approximately twice monthly, despite being diagnosed as alcohol dependent.

For Applicant

Continued Use After Treatment

Denied with Explanation

(f) alcohol consumption after a diagnosis, contrary to treatment

—

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