Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00224 · CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date3/11/2026
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeWRITTEN RECORD FORM
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case ISCR Case No. 25-00224) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Troy L. Nussbaum
Judge: A. M. Driskill
Guidelines Evaluated
- EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- GAlcohol Consumption · For Applicant
Questions about ISCR 25-00224, answered from its own record: what was alleged, what the judge found, where it says so. Descriptive only; never advice.

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only, not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case 25-00224granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-00224

grantedMar 11, 2026· Hon. A. M. Driskill· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 49-year-old defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and G (Alcohol Consumption) due to a history of alcohol use and related behavior. The applicant admitted to excessive drinking and was diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, mild, in early remission. However, the judge found that the applicant had taken significant steps to mitigate these concerns, including reducing alcohol consumption and expressing a commitment to abstain from drinking, leading to a decision to grant security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a commitment to reducing alcohol consumption and improving health.
The applicant's alcohol-related behavior did not raise current concerns about reliability or trustworthiness.
The applicant was candid about his past alcohol use and its impact on his life.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 22(a)raisedAlcohol-related Incidents Away From Work
AG ¶ 22(c)raisedHabitual or Binge Consumption of Alcohol
AG ¶ 22(d)raisedDiagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder
AG ¶ 22(e)raisedFailure to Follow Treatment Advice
AG ¶ 22(f)raisedAlcohol Consumption Not in Accordance with Treatment Recommendations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 23(a)appliedTime Has Passed or Behavior Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 23(b)appliedAcknowledgment of Alcohol Use and Actions Taken to Overcome It

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 24, 2025
Answer filedAug 25, 2025
Hearing held—Decision made on written record.
Decision dateMar 11, 2026

Cite For

Mitigation of Alcohol Consumption Under Guideline G
Whole-person Assessment in Personal Conduct Cases
Impact of Health Concerns on Alcohol Use Behavior

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found for the applicant on the personal conduct concerns under Guideline E, concluding that the applicant mitigated the security concerns. The applicant's conduct was not deemed to pose a risk to his reliability or trustworthiness.

2.a specific text not stated in this decision
Finding: For Applicant
Conduct: Unspecified Personal Conduct
Concealed issue: —
Response: Unknown
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: grantedAUD DIAGNOSED

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the security concerns related to alcohol consumption. All allegations under Guideline G were ruled in favor of the applicant, indicating that the applicant's alcohol use did not pose a current risk to his reliability or trustworthiness.

1.a The SOR alleges that Applicant has consumed alcohol, at times in excess and to the point of intoxication, from about 2011 to at least November 2024
Finding: For Applicant
Incident: Binge or Intoxication Pattern
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22): —
Mitigating applied (¶23): —
Mitigation: —
1.b The SOR alleges that he resumed alcohol consumption in November 2024 after expressing an intention to stop drinking in July 2024
Finding: For Applicant
Incident: Continued Use After Treatment
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22): —
Mitigating applied (¶23): —
Mitigation: —
1.c The SOR alleges that he has driven while under the influence of alcohol about once or twice a year since 2022
Finding: For Applicant
Incident: DUI or DWI Alcohol
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22): —
Mitigating applied (¶23): —
Mitigation: —
1.d The SOR alleges that he was evaluated by a licensed psychologist in December 2024 and diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, mild, in early remission
Finding: For Applicant
Incident: Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22):
(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional
Mitigating applied (¶23): —
Mitigation: —
1.e The SOR alleges that he occasionally consumed alcohol from November 2024 until April 2025, including to the point of intoxication on November 27, 2024
Finding: For Applicant
Incident: Binge or Intoxication Pattern
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22): —
Mitigating applied (¶23): —
Mitigation: —
1.f The SOR alleges that he has never sought treatment for his alcohol use disorder
Finding: For Applicant
Incident: Treatment Non Compliance
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶22): —
Mitigating applied (¶23): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Incident	Response	Disqualifying (¶22)	Mitigating applied (¶23)	Mitigation
1.a	The SOR alleges that Applicant has consumed alcohol, at times in excess and to the point of intoxication, from about 2011 to at least November 2024	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The SOR alleges that he resumed alcohol consumption in November 2024 after expressing an intention to stop drinking in July 2024	For Applicant	Continued Use After Treatment	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	The SOR alleges that he has driven while under the influence of alcohol about once or twice a year since 2022	For Applicant	DUI or DWI Alcohol	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	The SOR alleges that he was evaluated by a licensed psychologist in December 2024 and diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, mild, in early remission	For Applicant	Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnosed	Admitted	(d) diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a qualified professional	—	—
1.e	The SOR alleges that he occasionally consumed alcohol from November 2024 until April 2025, including to the point of intoxication on November 27, 2024	For Applicant	Binge or Intoxication Pattern	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	The SOR alleges that he has never sought treatment for his alcohol use disorder	For Applicant	Treatment Non Compliance	Admitted	—	—	—

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

DECISION

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HE

STATEMENT OF CASE

RINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-00224 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Troy L. Nussbaum, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 03/11/2026 Decision DRISKILL, A. M., Administrative Judge: Applicant mitigated the security concerns under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and E (Personal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Statement of the Case On July 24, 2025, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines G and E. Applicant responded to the SOR on August 25, 2025 (Answer) and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. The Government’s written case was submitted on December 8, 2025. 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 December 18, 2025, and he did not respond. The case was assigned to me on February 19, 2026. The Government exhibits included in the FORM (Items 3-7) are admitted in evidence without objection. Department Counsel requested that I take administrative notice of certain provisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition

FINDINGS OF FACT

DSM-5). Without objection, I have taken administrative notice of the DSM-5 in general and specifically as requested (Hearing Exhibit (HE) I).

Findings of Fact The SOR alleges that Applicant has consumed alcohol, at times in excess and to the point of intoxication, from about 2011 to at least November 2024 (SOR ¶ 1.a); that he resumed alcohol consumption in November 2024 after expressing an intention to stop drinking in July 2024 (SOR ¶ 1.b); that he has driven while under the influence of alcohol about once or twice a year since 2022 (SOR ¶ 1.c); that he was evaluated by a licensed psychologist in December 2024 and diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, mild, in early remission (SOR ¶ 1.d); that he occasionally consumed alcohol from November 2024 until April 2025, including to the point of intoxication on November 27, 2024 (SOR ¶ 1.e); and that he has never sought treatment for his alcohol use disorder (SOR ¶ 1.f). All Guideline G allegations were cross-alleged under Guideline E. In his Answer, Applicant admitted all the allegations. Applicant is 49 years old. He was married from 2006 to 2017 and does not have children. He received an associate degree in 2001 and a bachelor’s degree in 2008 and did not serve in the military. He has been employed with a defense contractor since 2002. He has never had a security clearance. (Item 3) In his May 2023 security clearance application (SCA), Applicant reported that his alcohol use negatively affected him from 2014 to 2015 as his marriage was coming to an end. He stated, “Part of my defense mechanism was to isolate myself from my wife, and alcohol was part of that.” He stated that by the time he stopped using alcohol, it was too late, and the marriage ended in divorce. (Item 3) In his July 2023 subject interview (SI) with a government investigator, Applicant explained that in about 2014 to 2015, he would drink three to five drinks per day. It would take him four to five drinks to become intoxicated, and he would be intoxicated several times a week. He told the investigator he drank because his marriage was failing. His spouse would tell him he was drinking too much, that he needed to cut back, or that he needed counseling. No one else talked to him about his drinking. Applicant said that, at that time, he did not feel that he needed counseling, but he stopped drinking entirely in 2015 to try to please his spouse. The marriage still ended in divorce. (Item 5) In the SI, Applicant stated that he started drinking again in about 2020 and from that time to the time of the SI, he estimated that he drank daily, about two to three drinks a day. He usually consumed alcohol at a restaurant or when playing billiards with friends. He stated the last time he drank to the point of intoxication was the Saturday prior to the SI. He estimated he drank to the point of intoxication about twice a month. He told the investigator that he did not feel his drinking was problematic or excessive, he did not believe he abused alcohol, and he had not been confronted by people making those claims. He expressed a desire to cut back on his drinking for health reasons. He neither had any arrests or citations due to his drinking, nor had he had any counseling or treatment. (Item 5) 2

In his July 2024 response to government interrogatories, Applicant stated that he did not currently drink. He described himself as a “regular drinker” from early 2019 until the end of June 2024. When he drank, he would drink four to six servings of bourbon per day, five to six days per week and two to three beers, two to four times per month. He stated that he stopped drinking after a recent physical indicated elevated blood pressure and blood sugar despite medication, which made him decide to improve his diet, eliminate alcohol, and begin exercising. He stated he did not intend to consume alcohol in the future. He listed his last date of intoxication as June 2024 and last date of blacking out as June 2019, and that it took four to five drinks for him to become intoxicated. He discussed his drinking during the end of his marriage, stating he would drink “as a means of escape or avoidance, typically 5 or 6 days a week.” He stated he stopped drinking in 2016, and that, “[w]hile not the main cause of the divorce, drinking was probably a factor that led to that outcome.” (Item 4) Applicant was evaluated on December 13, 2024, by a licensed psychologist. She explained to him that a copy of the results would not be made available

POLICIES

to him. She told him that he could request a copy if he wanted one, but he declined the contact information for making the request. Applicant disclosed an increase in his alcohol consumption towards the end of his marriage, and that he would consume four to five beers or bourbons on the rocks daily. He disclosed he stopped drinking in 2015 or 2016 after his wife expressed her concerns about his drinking. He disclosed he resumed drinking around 2019 when he began dating again. He disclosed he would consume about three drinks, three to four times weekly, and his consumption increased between 2020 and July 2024, when he drank almost daily and to the point of intoxication nearly weekly. He further disclosed he stopped drinking in July 2024 due to health concerns. When asked, he stated that he thought he had a problem with drinking at that time and that he was drinking too much and for no reason. (Item 6) Applicant also told the evaluator that he had no desire to use alcohol daily and that cutting back on his consumption resulted in significant improvements in his health. These improvements reinforced his desire to continue abstaining from daily drinking and to only drink for special occasions. He denied any difficulties with alcohol use. The evaluator diagnosed him with alcohol use disorder, mild, in early remission and opined that he did not have a condition that posed a risk to his judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness concerning classified information. She highly recommended in her report that he continue to abstain from alcohol and pursue evidence-based psychotherapy, which would increase his chances of long-term success. She stated it was unclear if he would be able to sustain his remission due to the short time during which he had cut back. She recommended a reevaluation in one year after he had more time “to abstain from alcohol and/or pursue evidence-based psychotherapy to support developing a safe drinking plan should that ultimately be his choice.” (Item 6) In his April 22, 2025, response to government interrogatories, Applicant reported that he did not currently drink. He stated that, prior t

ANALYSIS

July 2024, he usually drank two to 3

four drinks, four to six times per week; he did not drink from July to October 2024; and then he drank occasionally from November 2024 to April 2025. He reported he stopped drinking again when he decided he wanted to refocus his efforts to continue losing weight and to control his blood pressure. He stated he did not intend to drink in the future. He stated he did not attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or a similar program because he did not feel it was necessary for him. He stated his last date of consumption was April 20, 2025, and he last drank to the point of intoxication on November 27, 2024. He stated he had not vomited in the prior three years from drinking too much, and he blacked out from drinking too much less than once a year in the prior three years. When asked how many times per year, during the last three years, he had driven a car while being at least “buzzed” or “tipsy” from drinking alcohol, he stated, “once or twice.” (Item 5) In his August 2025 Answer, Applicant stated he did not drink from the entire month of July 2024 through the month of October 2024, and that he overindulged on his birthday on November 27, 2024. He had resumed drinking since April 2025, but to a lesser degree than prior to July 2024, and he was now committed to abstaining from alcohol and he planned on attending AA the week of August 25, 2025. He also intended to seek additional counseling. He stated he did not remember a time when he was excessively intoxicated and drove, but he “could not definitively deny that on rare occasion [he] may have driven at or slightly over the legal BAC limit.” Policies This case is adjudicated under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DOD on June 8, 2017. “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” EO 10865 § 2. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 4

The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” EO 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01- 20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan at 531. Analysis Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 5

The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 21: Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. The following disqualifying conditions are relevant: AG ¶ 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 the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder; AG ¶ 22(c): habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder; AG ¶ 22(d): diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use disorder; AG ¶ 22(e): the failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed; and AG ¶ 22(f): alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. AG ¶ 22(c) is established for SOR ¶ 1.a based on Applicant’s own admissions, including his last date of intoxication on November 27, 2024. I find SOR ¶¶ 1.band 1.e duplicative with ¶ 1.a to the degree they cite to the same date of last intoxication. The remaining language of those allegations are relevant facts that

ANALYSIS

rance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” EO 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01- 20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan at 531. Analysis Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 5

FORMAL FINDINGS

I have considered in my decision, but there is no relevant disqualifying condition that relates to these allegations apart from what is already duplicative with SOR ¶ 1.a. I find for Applicant on SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.e. AG ¶ 22(f) does not apply to Applicant’s alcohol consumption after his December 2024 evaluation. A psychological evaluation prepared for and submitted to the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, not the Applicant, is not a treatment recommendation within the meaning of AG ¶ 22(f) (“alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations, after a

CONCLUSION

diagnosis of alcohol use disorder”). ISCR Case No. 20-00971 at 6 (App. Bd. July 18, 2022). Furthermore, there is no evidence Applicant received a copy of the evaluation containing his diagnosis and treatment recommendations until the FORM was sent to him, so he did not have the oppor