WPCU  5Ww&0da'Vl7 6Pn a`7yg+sΝ`sK.V7M7n\7`2MQ9f,>CG hׄsE/ʲo/\b$,VǾvjT&@ފUs|5kA&U/͐s]u7j)zV38]N,iW9WȨs4)wsҵ^QP*MoZFfqGu-B:lV:~"V6F#UK 7^:xX7mm;#KI)t|ūAAD"dEK%u$9m\pܠT- /\TشчpvtJp!sftxD"mA?2{J"--Rd0v~݆фRFfsz[2't6Qqa`#@UN %W 0:] Z ^ w 4  $ m& Z= = E 0~ 0D N[ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] B8 Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEkJ;EJ'cj'cj3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   ($USUS.,    1    _|XXTheJudgesfavorablefindingunderGuidelineFisnotatissueonappeal. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineG;GuidelineE;GuidelineF  DIGEST:ApplicantcontendsthattheJudgesadversedecisionshouldbereversedbecausethe  Judgedidnotcorrectlyweightheevidence.Applicantsargumentsdonotdemonstratethatthe t Judgesdecisionisarbitrary,capriciousorcontrarytolaw.Adversedecisionaffirmed. ` _CASENO_:1502659.a1 8  DATE:04/28/2017  ` _________________________   `     h      p DATE:April28,2017  8  .؉7r(#(#.A_) xdEgA   InRe:       ApplicantforSecurityClearance / A_) xdEgA W )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \  H pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1502659 \"  H# .؉7r. \XXp  #    APPEALBOARDDECISION  $ APPEARANCES '  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  X ) JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel 0!*  FORAPPLICANT  "0,  Prose #XXX%&# #-     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On f&!0 January15,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat R'"1 decision"securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineG(AlcoholConsumption),GuidelineE >(#2 (PersonalConduct),andGuidelineF(FinancialConsiderations)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective *)z$3 5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing.OnFebruary14, *f%4 2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudge +R&5  EdwardW._Loughran_ԀdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance.Applicantappealed +>'6 pursuanttotheDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. #  1         _  Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionis  arbitrary,capriciousorcontrarytolaw. t   ApplicantcontendsthattheJudgesadversedecisionshouldbereversedbecausetheJudge L  didnotcorrectlyweightheevidence.Specifically,hearguesthatheisnotalcoholdependent 8  becausehehashadnoalcoholrelatedincidentsforoversevenyears.HealsoarguesthattheJudge $ t didnotgivehimsufficientcreditforthefactthathehasservedhiscountryforover17yearsinthe  ` aerospaceindustry,hasneverbeenlateforwork,hasneverbeenreprimandedformisconduct,and  L  hasnevershowedanyformofinabilitytoperformhisduties.AppealBriefat1.Applicants  8  argumentsdonotdemonstratethattheJudgesdecisionisarbitrary,capriciousorcontrarytolaw. $      ThepresenceofsomemitigatingevidencedoesnotalonecompeltheJudgetomakea   favorablesecurityclearancedecision.Asthetrieroffact,theJudgehastoweightheevidenceasa   wholeanddecidewhetherthefavorableevidenceoutweighstheunfavorableevidence,orviceversa.   ApartysdisagreementwiththeJudgesweighingoftheevidence,oranabilitytoarguefora p differentinterpretationoftheevidence,isnotsufficienttodemonstratetheJudgeweighedthe \ evidenceorreachedconclusionsinamannerthatisarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See, H e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.1401918at2(App.Bd.Jul.8,2015). 4   Inthiscase,theJudgefoundthatApplicanthadalonghistoryofexcessivealcohol  \ consumptionthatincludedthreedrivingundertheinfluenceofalcohol(DUI)convictionsbetween H 1999and2009.Someoftheincidentsinvolvedassociatedchargessuchasdrivingonasuspended 4 licenseorhitandrun.Applicantreceivedalcoholtreatmentin2007and2008,andwasdiagnosed   asalcoholdependent.Decisionat2.Inreachinghisadversedecision,theJudgeconsidered   Applicantsevidence attestingtohisstrongmoralcharacter,excellentjobperformance,expertise,  workethic,responsibility,andtrustworthinessandthefactthat hislastDUIwasmorethan9years  ago.Id.at3and5.However,henotedthatApplicanthad exhibitedextremelypoorjudgmenton  multipleoccasionsandthathe currentlydrinksabouttwotothreebeers,fournightsaweek,and l aboutsixtoeightbeersontheweekenddespiteaprioralcoholdependencediagnosis.Id.at5.As X  aresultheconcludedthatApplicantsalcoholrelatedconduct continuedtocastdoubtonhis D! reliability,trustworthiness,andgoodjudgmentandthattherewere nomitigatingconditions 0"  sufficientlyapplicabletodispelsecurityconcernsaboutApplicantsalcoholuse.Id. #l!  $X"   Inlightoftheforegoing,theJudgecouldreasonablyconcludethatApplicantshistoryof $D # alcoholabusestillpresentedasecurityconcernandthatApplicanthadnotmethisburdenof %0!$ persuasionastomitigation.See,e.g.,ISCRCaseNo.0902566at23(App.Bd.Nov.12,2010). &"% TheJudgeweighedthemitigatingevidenceofferedbyApplicantagainstthelengthandseriousness '#& ofthedisqualifyingconductandconsideredthepossibleapplicationofrelevantconditionsand (#' factors.Decisionat47.HefoundinfavorofApplicantunderGuidelineFandastoseveralofthe )$( SORfactualallegationsunderGuidelinesGandE.However,hereasonablyexplainedwhythe |*%) mitigatingevidencewasinsufficienttoovercomethegovernmentssecurityconcerns.Id.The h+&* Boarddoesnotreviewacasedenovo.Afterreviewingtherecord,theBoardconcludesthatthe  Judgeexaminedtherelevantdataandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthedecision. The  generalstandardisthataclearancemaybegrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterests  ofthenationalsecurity.DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).Seealso t Directive,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccessto ` classifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavorofthenationalsecurity.Therefore,theJudges L  unfavorablesecurityclearancedecisionissustainable. 8  @( Order   L      ThedecisionoftheJudgeisAFFIRMED. $     `     h   Signed:MichaelY.Raanan      `     h   MichaelY.Raanan p    `     h   AdministrativeJudge \    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard H    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy H    `     h   JamesF.Duffy 4    `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard      `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields l    `     h   WilliamS.Fields X     `     h   AdministrativeJudge D!    `     h   Member,AppealBoard