Summary
The applicant, a 43-year-old defense contractor and former U.S. Army Staff Sergeant, sought to retain his security clearance despite a history of alcohol-related incidents. The judge found that the applicant had made significant positive changes in his behavior, including abstaining from excessive alcohol consumption for over two years, and had a supportive family and work environment. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant's current lifestyle was consistent with the national interest, granting the security clearance.
Under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he consumes alcohol to excess (1.a). In February of 1986, Applicant was arrested on a military installation for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol (1.b). In March of 1992, Applicant was charged in the town court of that state with failure to keep to the right, and with driving while under the influence of alcohol (1.c). Applicant was treated there from December 14, 1992 to September 14, 1993, for a condition diagnosed as alcohol dependence, continuous (1.d). During the period from February of 1994 to April of 1995, there was more than one occasion on which a co-worker reported to Applicant's supervisor that she smelled alcohol on his breath, and that he appeared to be drunk or hungover (1.e). Applicant denies that he ever came to work drunk or hungover (1.f). Applicant has had no alcohol-related arrests since November 1, 1992 (1.g). He has never had any alcohol-related health or financial problems (1.h). Applicant states that he presently drinks infrequently and moderately, and never to intoxication, consuming only one or two beers per week, and no 'hard liquor' at all (1.i). There is no evidence that Applicant has reported to work drunk or hungover or smelling of alcohol subsequent April of 1995 (1.j).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions G.1, G.2, G.3, G.4. The judge applied mitigating conditions G.3. The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated a credible intention to abstain from excessive alcohol consumption in the future; He has had no alcohol-related arrests since 1992 and has not consumed alcohol to excess in the past two years; The applicant's current family and work environment support a responsible lifestyle.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated a credible intention to abstain from excessive alcohol consumption in the future.
- He has had no alcohol-related arrests since 1992 and has not consumed alcohol to excess in the past two years.
- The applicant's current family and work environment support a responsible lifestyle.
Conditions referenced
- G.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
- G.2raisedAlcohol-related Incidents at Work
- G.3raisedDiagnosis by a Credentialed Medical Professional of Alcohol Abuse or Dependence
- G.4raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol to the Point of Impaired Judgment
- G.3appliedPositive Changes in Behavior Supportive of Sobriety
Key rule quoted
“The adjudication process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedAug 26, 1996
- Answer filedSep 12, 1996
- Hearing heldFeb 4, 1997
- Decision dateFeb 18, 1997
Cite for
- Demonstrating Positive Changes in Behavior After a History of Alcohol-related Incidents
- The Importance of a Supportive Family and Work Environment in Mitigating Security Concerns
- The Application of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Determinations