ISCR Case No. 25-01339

FOR GOVERNMENT Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Deputy Chief Department Counsel

Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 11, 2025, DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis of that decision – security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) in Appendix A of Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (effective June 8, 2017) and DoD Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). On June 29, 2026, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge A. M. Driskill denied Applicant national security eligibility. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Background Applicant, in her mid-40s, is married and has three children. She graduated from high school, attended some college, and earned a medical assistant certificate and a cosmetologist license. Applicant seeks initial national security eligibility for her employment with a government contractor, for whom she has worked since October 2021.

Applicant began consuming alcohol in her early 20s, consuming four to five alcoholic drinks once or twice a week. Government Exhibit 7 at 2. Her alcohol intake increased to six to seven shots of liquor once or twice a week in about 2004 and increased to between a half and a full 750ml bottle of liquor three times a week in about 2006. Id. This level and frequency of consumption continued until February 2018, when she was arrested on three felony counts of assault and battery with a deadly weapon, and alcohol was involved. Id. She was placed on probation, and she abstained from alcohol for six months after she completed those terms. She could not remain sober due to being tempted to drink at social events. Between March 2019 and April 2020, she participated in court-ordered alcohol counseling and attended alcohol detoxification treatment four times. Id. She was diagnosed with AUD moderate/severe both in counseling and at each of the four treatment programs. Id. In August 2021, Applicant submitted an SCA wherein she characterized two employment terminations as “company no longer need[ed her] service” and “laid off.” In fact, she had been fired for attendance-related misconduct and workplace violence and misconduct, respectively, from the two companies. During her October 2021 security interview, Applicant reported that she consumed three shots of liquor once or twice a month. She also acknowledged that she omitted material information about her two employment terminations on her SCA. In May 2025, Applicant participated in a psychological evaluation. She admitted that she had remained sober for nearly one year after her most recent alcohol treatment in April 2020. At the time of the evaluation, Applicant was consuming alcohol three to four times a week, five to six drinks on each occasion, and had more than six drinks three times per month. Id. at 3. She stated that she did not want to stop consuming alcohol. The psychologist diagnosed Applicant with AUD, severe, and Applicant’s prognosis was poor because she was not engaged in or motivated to participate in treatment. Id. at 5. The psychologist recommended that Applicant return to treatment and adhere to the treatment recommendations, and he further concluded that her mental health condition negatively impacted her judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness in safeguarding classified information. Id. In her December 2025 response to Government interrogatories, Applicant confirmed that she has not participated in any alcohol treatment since April 2020 and was not currently attending counseling. She confirmed that she continued to consume alcohol on occasion, consuming three or four shots in a sitting. The SOR alleges alcohol consumption, personal conduct, and criminal conduct security concerns based on Applicant’s continued alcohol consumption following treatment and diagnoses, her employment terminations, her falsifications about those terminations on her SCA, and the February 2018 criminal incident and related probation violations after having been ordered to abstain from alcohol. In her response to the SOR (Answer), Applicant denied the AUD, severe diagnosis and poor prognosis from her May 2025 psychological evaluation (SOR ¶ 1.a), and she admitted the remaining allegations. She took “full responsibility” for her past conduct and for “not being fully honest,” and she claimed to have “significantly reduced [her] alcohol use” and was “strengthening [her] honesty.” Answer at 5. She attached excerpts of a medical record; correspondence concerning 2

the resolution of unalleged financial judgments filed against her; a certificate of completion for a motherhood program required by probation; and other court records pertaining to the 2018 criminal incident. She elected a decision based on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On March 10, 2026, the Government prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) setting forth its arguments against Applicant’s clearance eligibility and attached the SOR, Answer, and eight evidentiary exhibits. Applicant received a copy of the FORM and was given 30 days to file a response, file objections, and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. She did not submit a response. Within the Guideline G analysis, the Judge determined that none of the mitigating conditions applied due to Applicant’s continued alcohol consumption contrary to treatment recommendations and despite “her grave and problematic history with alcohol.” Decision at 9. Within the Guideline E and Guideline J analyses, the Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions applied given the interconnectedness between Applicant’s problematic alcohol consumption and her employment issues and criminal conduct. The Judge noted Applicant’s current employment for several years but was unable to conclude that her employment problems and criminal behavior were unlikely to recur because Applicant was not engaged in alcohol counseling or treatment. Discussion On appeal, Applicant does not challenge any of the Judge’s findings of fact. Rather, Applicant argues that the Judge committed harmful error because she “did not adequately consider the totality of the evidence in the record and did not give sufficient weight to the substantial changes in [Applicant’s] life, [her] continued employment, the passage of time since the underlying conduct, and the evidence of rehabilitation and improved responsibility.” Appeal Brief at 1. For the following reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and we affirm the Judge’s decision. Applicant avers that the Judge afforded insufficient weight to the passage of time since her 2018 arrest, 2019 violation of probation, and 2020 and 2021 employment terminations, and to her continuous employment with a DoD contractor since October 2021. The Judge explicitly discussed all of these circumstances and explained why Applicant’s continued alcohol consumption – contrary to treatment recommendations, despite “her grave and problematic history with alcohol,” and the link between alcohol consumption and her past employment issues and criminal behavior – undercut her evidence in mitigation. Decision at 9. Applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence or her ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See ISCR Case No. 04-08975, 2006 WL 2725032 at *1 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2006). 3

Conclusion Applicant has not established that the Judge’s conclusions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge examined the relevant evidence, weighed the disqualifying and mitigating conditions, and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The record is sufficient to support that the Judge’s findings and conclusions are sustainable. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” AG ¶ 2(b). Order The decision in ISCR Case No. 25-01339 is AFFIRMED. Signed: Moira Modzelewski Moira Modzelewski Administrative Judge Chair, Appeal Board Signed: Allison Marie Allison Marie Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jennifer I. Goldstein Jennifer I. Goldstein Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board 4