Skip to content
← The Issue Encyclopedia

Issue Encyclopedia · Guideline G · Alcohol

Treatment Non-Compliance

What the decided record shows for this issue, computed from public DOHA hearing-level decisions. Descriptive history, not a prediction.

Does treatment non-compliance affect a security clearance?

Treatment Non-Compliance is an issue decided under Guideline G, Alcohol. In the decided DOHA record it appears in 537 hearing-level cases, and 21% of the 534 decided ended with access granted (112 granted, 422 denied). The mitigating conditions judges credited most often, and example decisions either way, are below.

Basis: 534 decided hearing-level cases raising this issue. Descriptive history of decided cases, not a prediction.

More questions people ask the record

Decided cases

537

hearing-level decisions raising this issue

Granted

21%

112 granted · 422 denied or revoked

Official mitigating conditions cited

The formal mitigating conditions the case profiles identified on this issue, in cases that were granted and in cases that were denied. Each is shown with its paragraph number and a plain name. Read what each condition says.
  • ¶ 23(b) · The pattern acknowledged, with modified use or abstinence established

    In granted cases
    38
    In denied cases
    8
  • ¶ 23(c) · In counseling or treatment, with satisfactory progress

    In granted cases
    25
    In denied cases
    8
  • ¶ 23(d) · Treatment and aftercare completed, with abstinence established

    In granted cases
    23
    In denied cases
    2
  • ¶ 23(a) · So much time has passed, or the incidents were so infrequent

    In granted cases
    19
    In denied cases
    3

Circumstances credited in granted cases

The specific circumstances the judge expressly credited among the granted cases on this issue where that detail was extracted.
  • substance treatment completed · credited in 4 granted cases
  • abstinence period documented · credited in 2 granted cases
  • aa or na attendance · credited in 1 granted case

Recent decided examples

  • The Appeal Board affirmed the Judge’s grant of eligibility. DoD had raised Guideline E and Guideline G concerns based on Applicant’s long history of alcohol misuse, relapse after stating he would stop…

  • In this written-record DOHA case, the Applicant, a 49-year-old defense contractor employee, admitted allegations of long-term alcohol misuse, including intoxication, later resumption of drinking, a ps…

  • The case involves an applicant seeking security clearance who has a history of alcohol dependency and related incidents. The applicant admitted to several allegations regarding past treatment for alco…

  • Applicant, a long-term cleared contractor with technical responsibilities, was denied eligibility because Guideline I psychological concerns were not mitigated. The judge credited Dr. Z’s evaluation f…

See all 537 decisions on this issue

Related issues under Guideline G

How these numbers are measured

Scope: decided hearing-level cases whose per-allegation profile records this issue, matched to the same issue value the search filters use, so a count here and a filtered search always agree. A case raising several issues counts under each one. The mitigating conditions and the credited circumstances below were extracted for a subset of the record, so both are counts of cases rather than rates. Pages exist only for issues with at least 25 decided cases, and † marks any split built on fewer than 20.

Reading the statistics

  • Granted = access granted or continued; Denied = denied or revoked.
  • Grant rate = granted ÷ (granted + denied).
  • † marks figures based on fewer than 20 cases, too few to be reliable.
  • Hovering any rate shows its statistical range (a 95% confidence interval).
  • Figures are descriptive counts over decided, public DOHA ISCR decisions, never predictions or assessments of any pending case.

Where to go from here

Get help with my case

Send us your question, or the Statement of Reasons you received. No charge, and a CASE analyst reads it. Usually five to ten business days.

Ask a question →

I do this for clients

Rank every decision by how closely it matches a matter, see how the assigned judge has ruled, and keep it together with cited exports.

For attorneys and firms →

Decided public cases: descriptive, never a prediction.