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

ISCR Case No. 00-0339

Appeal Board

Decided Mar 22, 2001 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal

Reading

Workbench

Appeal at a glance

The appeal involved a challenge by Department Counsel to an Administrative Judge's favorable decision granting a security clearance to the applicant based on alcohol-related incidents. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the application of the Adjudicative Guidelines regarding alcohol consumption.

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

Open original PDF

The complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

Appearances

ting such error. Favorable decision affirmed.

-->   <!-- 00-0339.a1

-->   <!-- 03/22/2001

-->

DA

Procedural History

thryn A. Trowbridge, Esq., Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

Administrative Judge Claude R. Heiny issued

Appeal Issues

decision, dated November 17, 2000, in which he concluded it is clearly consistent

with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Department Counsel appealed. For the reasons

set forth below, the Board affirms the Administrative Judge's decision.

This Board has jurisdiction on appeal under Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive),

dated January 2, 1992, as amended.

Department Counsel's appeal presents the issue of whether the Administrative Judge's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary

to law because he failed to properly apply pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines.

<CENTER>Procedural History</ CENTER>

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated July 5, 2000 to Applicant. The SOR was

based on Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). A hearing was held on September 27, 2000.

The Administrative Judge issued a written decision, dated November 17, 2000, in which he concluded it is clearly consistent with

the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. The case is before the Board on Department Counsel's

appeal from the Judge's favorable decision.

<CENTER>Appeal Issue</CENTER>

The Administrative Judge made findings about Applicant's involvement in three alcohol-related incidents that occurred in

December 1962, February 1971, and September 1998. The Judge evaluated Applicant's overall history of alcohol consumption

and concluded that the three alcohol-related incidents did not establish a pattern because they were not related and not sufficiently

close in time. The Judge concluded Applicant's drinking (apart from the three alcohol-related incidents) did not demonstrate

alcohol abuse because there has been no diagnosis of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence, and no requirement that Applicant

abstain from all alcohol.

On appeal, Department Counsel contends: (1) the record evidence does not support the Administrative Judge's application of

Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition 1; and (2) it was arbitrary, capricious, and contrar

Conclusion

of error below and the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating such error. Department Counsel's

appeal contentions fail to demonstrate the Administrative Judge acted in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Accordingly, the Board affirms the Judge's November 17, 2000 decision.

Signed: Emilio Jaksetic

Emilio Jaksetic

Administrative Judge

Chairman, Appeal Board</P