CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 97-0195.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 97-0195.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 97-0195.h1

deniedDec 10, 1997· Hon. Joseph Testan· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old male data manager and former military service member was denied a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). The denial stemmed from a history of alcohol-related incidents and a diagnosis of alcohol dependence.

The Statement of Reasons detailed that the applicant had regularly consumed alcohol, at times to excess, since 1969. He was arrested and convicted of alcohol-related charges on three occasions: a DUI in July 1989, another DUI on January 28, 1993, while on temporary duty in another state, and a third DUI in September 1993 on a military installation.

Despite being diagnosed as alcohol dependent and advised to abstain, the applicant stated his intention to continue consuming alcohol. These factors, including his long history of excessive consumption, multiple alcohol-related arrests, and his intent to continue drinking against medical advice, led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a long history of excessive alcohol consumption since 1969.
He has been arrested and convicted of three alcohol-related offenses.
He was diagnosed as alcohol dependent and advised to abstain from alcohol, but intends to continue drinking.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

G.1raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work.
G.3raisedDiagnosis by a Credentialed Medical Professional of Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Dependence.
G.4raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol to the Point of Impaired Judgment.
G.5raisedConsumption of Alcohol, Subsequent to a Diagnosis of Alcoholism by a Credentialed Medical Professional and Following Completion of an Alcohol Rehabilitation Program.

Key Rule Quoted

“In DOHA cases, the Government has the initial burden of producing evidence that reasonably suggests an applicant cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 28, 1997
Answer filedApr 29, 1997
Hearing heldOct 1, 1997
Decision dateDec 10, 1997

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Ongoing Alcohol Dependence
Impact of Intent to Continue Alcohol Consumption Post-treatment
Criteria for Evaluating Alcohol-related Disqualifications Under Guideline G

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 found against the applicant regarding alcohol consumption due to a history of alcohol-related incidents and a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. The applicant's intention to continue consuming alcohol despite medical advice to abstain contributed to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The applicant has regularly consumed alcohol, at times to excess, since 1969.	Against Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	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.b	The applicant has been arrested and convicted of alcohol-related charges on three occasions.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Alcohol Incident	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.c	In July 1989, he was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI).	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.d	On January 28, 1993, while he was TDY in another state, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.e	In September 1993 applicant was arrested for DUI while driving on a military installation.	Against Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	(a) alcohol-related incident away from work (DUI, fighting, etc.)	—	—
1.f	Applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent and advised not to consume alcohol.	Against Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(c) habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired judgment	—	—
1.g	The applicant intends to continue consuming alcohol despite being advised to abstain.	Against Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	(e) failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline G). 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

DATE: December 10, 1997

In Re: Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 97-0195 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOSEPH TESTAN

FOR GOVERNMENT Martin H. Mogul, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se

STATEMENT OF CASE

On March 28, 1997, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) (copy appended) to (Applicant), which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked. The applicant responded to the SOR in writing on April 29, 1997. The case was received by the undersigned on June 26, 1997. A Notice of Hearing was issued on July 8, 1997, and the hearing was held on October 1, 1997.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a forty-one year old man. He is employed as a data manager by a defense contractor. He served in the U. S. Military from 1976 to 1994. Applicant has regularly consumed alcohol, at times to excess, since 1969. He has been arrested and convicted of alcohol-related charges on three occasions. In July 1989, he was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). At the time of his arrest, his blood- alcohol level was at least .20%. He was found guilty of the charge and fined $779.00. As a result of this incident, applicant's command suggested that he "volunteer" for inpatient alcohol treatment. Applicant did so, and in August and/or September 1989, he received approximately thirty days of inpatient alcohol treatment. Applicant abstained from the use of alcohol for approximately one year after this treatment. On January 28, 1993, while he was TDY in another state, applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. Applicant failed to appear at a scheduled court appearance, and a warrant for his arrest was issued. The warrant is still outstanding. Applicant has tried to resolve the matter with the state authorities, but the authorities will accept nothing less than applicant's unconditional surrender. Applicant testified that he will continue trying to resolve the matter, but will not return to the state without any guidance as to his potential punishment.(1) In September 1993 applicant was arrested for DUI while driving on a military installation. As a result, he received non- judicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ consisting of a reduction in rank. Following this arrest, applicant again "volunteered" for thirty days of inpatient alcohol treatment. During this inpatient treatment in late 1993, applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent and advised not to consume alcohol. Applicant abstained from the use of alcohol for approximately six months after this treatment. Although applicant's alcohol treatment made him realize "things had to change," he does not believe that he has to "refrain entirely from alcohol" (TR at 37). He intends to continue consuming it (TR at 43).

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth the Adjudication Policy (divided into Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors) which must be followed by the Administrative Judge. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the following Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors are applicable: ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION Disqualifying Factors: 1. Alcohol-related incidents away from work. 3. Diagnosis by a credentialed medical professional of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence. 4. Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. 5. Consumption of alcohol, subsequent to a diagnosis of alcoholism by a credentialed medical professional and following completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program. Mitigating Factors: None.

CONCLUSION

In DOHA cases, the Government has the initial burden of producing evidence that reasonably suggests an applicant cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. If the Government meets its burden, it has established a prima facie case. Once the Government establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to applicant to produce evidence in refutation, extenuation, mitigation or reformation sufficient to establish that, notwithstanding the Government's prima facie case, he or she can be relied upon to safeguard classified information. In view of the Directive's requirement that a security clearance be granted only upon a finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest, the applicant has a heavy burden. In this case, the Government established a prima facie case. The evidence establishes that applicant (1) has consumed alcohol to excess with varying frequency since 1969, (2) has been arrested and convicted of three alcohol-related offenses, and (3) has been diagnosed as alcohol dependent. These facts reflect adversely on applicant's judgment and reliability, and reasonably suggest that he cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. Applicant failed to rebut the Government's prima facie case. Applicant's intention to continue consuming alcohol, notwithstanding (1) the fact he has been diagnosed as alcohol dependent and (2) the fact he has been advised by medical professionals to completely abstain from its use, precludes a finding that his abuse of alcohol will not recur. For this reason, Criterion G is found against applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant. ____________________________ Joseph Testan Administrative Judge 1. Although it is clear that an arrest warrant was issued for applicant and that the warrant is still outstanding, there is conflicting evidence in the record regarding the disposition of the DUI charge. For example, in his September 24, 1996 statement to the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) (G-2), applicant stated that he appeared in court, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of Reckless Driving, and was sentenced to a weekend in jail and fined $600.00. In his response to the SOR, however, he indicated that he did not enter a plea in court, but rather received a letter in the mail advising him that he had been found guilty in absentia of Driving Under the Influence.

FOOTNOTES

97-0195.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0195.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:00:49 PM] 97-0195.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0195.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:00:49 PM] 97-0195.h1 file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/97-0195.h1.html[7/2/2021 4:00:49 PM]