WPCK  /vpW`&\EtӸI+7V{C{F⨃UzHP{p@VȟI<.NH{_# 8f+ܼO@E jۯ~b#wаE^SnDȗ{n5_#c$}8s~zI#KP`C`cs ^2KE`ᣛ-)d(_V'ص&.Zv_q9~rYRy0]Ջe$Zkye,_!(5p(ʳf9 `c"#:Qeq2ɬV| .<$3n2Nb1i֖kҕ(e5$Rվ@9$+WbXœ>`vG^.Q#_tOm=QT5DؑԤc~?7=Z#UN % 0: ZC ^ w 4   m Z 0C C C N E 0D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 B. Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE K;EJntFold3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(Y(2$ !USUS.,  XX      0  (#$  0    $USUS.,XX      1    _TheJudgewithdrewtheGuidelineEallegationuponmotionbyDepartmentCounsel.Decisionat2. d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineG;GuidelineJ;GuidelineE  DIGEST:ApplicanthasnotrebuttedthepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredallofthe  evidenceintherecord,norhasheshownthattheJudgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthat t wasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Adversedecisionaffirmed. ` _CASENO_:1601684.a1 8  DATE:08/09/2017  `    `     h      p DATE:August9,2017  8  .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEgA   InRe:        W ApplicantforSecurityClearance / AY) xdEgA W )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \  H pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1601684 \"  H# .؉7r. \XXp  #    APPEALBOARDDECISION  $ APPEARANCES '  &%XX FORGOVERNMENT  X ) JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel 0!*  FORAPPLICANT  "0, RyanC._Nerney_,Esq.#XX%&<# #-     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.OnJune |% / 13,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat h&!0 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineG(AlcoholConsumption),GuidelineJ(Criminal T'"1 Conduct),andGuidelineE(PersonalConduct) #  1      ׀ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan. @(#2 2,1992,asamended)(Directive).OnMay9,2017,afterconductingahearing,DefenseOfficeof ,)|$3 HearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeCarolG._Ricciardello_ԀdeniedApplicants *h%4 requestforasecurityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. +T&5 Ї  Applicantraisedthefollowingissueonappeal:whethertheJudgesadversedecisionwas  arbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.    TheJudgesFindingsofFactandAnalysis  t   TheJudgesummarizedheressentialfindingsintheAnalysisportionofherdecision.She L  foundthatApplicanthadbeenarrestedfor_DUI_Ԁin2008.Althoughthechargewasdismissed, 8  Applicantwenttoanalcoholanddrugsafetycourseandhislicensewassuspended.Hewascharged $ t with_DUI_Ԁagainin2010andconvictedthefollowingyear.Hewasorderedtoattendanalcoholsafety  ` courseandtopayfines.Inaddition,hislicensewassuspended.Applicantwasdiagnosedwith  L  alcoholabuse.In2015,Applicantscarstruckanotherone,andhereceivedhisthird_DUI_Ԁcharge,  8  asaconsequenceofwhichhewassentencedtofivedaysinjail,afine,andattendanceatanalcohol $  safetycourse.     TheJudgestatedthatApplicantwas27atthetimeofhisfirstarrest,sothathisoffenses   couldnotplausiblybeattributedtoyouthfulindiscretion.Shenotedthatithadbeentwoyearssince   hislastincident.However,shealsonotedthatbythedateofherdecisionitwasonlyafewmonths p sinceApplicantwasreleasedfromprobation.Shestatedthateachtimehewasarrestedorconvicted \ hehadanopportunitytolearnbutfailedtodoso.Shestatedthat,giventhenumberofhisoffenses, H hishavingattendedalcoholsafetycoursesseveraltimes,andhiscontinuedconsumptionofalcohol, 4 thetwoyearssincehislastoffensearenotenoughtoshowthatApplicantssecuritysignificant  p conductisbehindhim.  \   Discussion  4   Applicantcitestomattersthat,hebelieves,theJudgedidnotconsider,suchashishaving   heldaclearanceformanyyearswithoutincidentorconcern,hisevidencethatheconsumesalcohol  onlyrarely,thefamilyproblemsthathewasundergoingin2015,etc.Applicanthasnotrebuttedthe  presumptionthattheJudgeconsideredalloftheevidenceintherecord,norhasheshownthatthe  Judgeweighedtheevidenceinamannerthatwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See,e.g., l _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1300502at3(App.Bd.Mar.7,2017).WegivedueconsiderationtotheHearing X  OfficecasesthatApplicantcitesinhisAppealBrief.Theyarenotsufficienttoshowunderminethe D! Judgesadversefindings.Inanyevent,HearingOfficecasesarenotbindingonotherHearingOffice 0"  JudgesorontheAppealBoard.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501416at3(App.Bd.Feb.15,2017). #l!   TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe $D # decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay %0!$ begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department &"% oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Encl.2,App.A2(b): Any '#& doubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsideredfornationalsecurityeligibilitywillberesolvedinfavor (#' ofthenationalsecurity. )$(  @-(, Ї@( Order     TheDecisionis AFFIRMED . t    `     h   Signed:Michael_Raanan_Ԁ ( x    `     h   Michael_Raanan_  d    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  P     `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard  <     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody      `     h   JamesE.Moody      `     h   AdministrativeJudge t    `     h   Member,AppealBoard `    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ `    `     h   JamesF.Duffy L    `     h   AdministrativeJudge 8    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___