WPC:  <[Ń660J⬟[JIx.vIxmϓCL& ݿS˪$ 0<:AؚW5yq*+~^3NqFwk뛂˵RK򛚀îE9 ӦFdjP6Zh#E/3kSGޞZ9Խ45FIkⰜo.QBo9",ʓZs&$8X|a:8_eHC,0-›pzي͈I+=pǭrrj&KR1\ X%m_U(^PI bc;ў~F -V'p/,XQA.?׋٣ć/C Jk@7aGO^J Duit WW#UN % 0: Z ^ s w 4   m N Z E                                                                       B Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEJ;EJ:i+003|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineG;GuidelineJ  DIGEST:In2012,Applicantwaschargedwithfelonyhitandrun,drivingwhileunderthe  influenceofalcohol(_DUI_),andrefusaltotakeabreathtest.ShewasfoundguiltyofDWI. t Adversedecisionaffirmed. ` _CASENO_:1503742.a1 8  DATE:06/09/2017  ` ________________________   `     h      p DATE:June9,2017  8  .؉7r(#(#.AV) xdEgA   InRe:        W ApplicantforSecurityClearance / AV) xdEgA W )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \  H pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1503742 \"  H# .؉7r. \XXp  #    APPEALBOARDDECISION  $ APPEARANCES '  &G%XX FORGOVERNMENT  X ) JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel 0!*  FORAPPLICANT  "0, GregoryF._Greiner_,Esq.#XdX%&G# #-     TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On T'"1 November1,2015,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat @(#2 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineG(AlcoholConsumption)andGuidelineJ ,)|$3 (CriminalConduct)ofDepartmentofDefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended) *h%4 (Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing.OnMarch7,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeof +T&5 HearingsandAppeals(DOHA)AdministrativeJudgeNoreenA.LynchdeniedApplicantsrequest +@'6 forasecurityclearance.ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30. ,,(7  -)8   Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethertheJudgeerredinherfindingsof  factandwhethertheJudgesadversedecisionwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.  Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.  _  TheJudgesFindingsofFact  t     Applicantisa42yearoldemployeeofadefensecontractor.Sheadmittedthatshehadfour P  alcoholrelateddrivingarrestsbetween1998and2012.Thechargesarisingfromarrestsin1998and <  2002weredismissed,althoughsheacknowledgeddrinkingbeforedrivingonthoseoccasions.In ( x 2004,shewaschargedwithdrivingwhileintoxicated(DWI)afterleavingaweddingreception,was  d foundguiltyofthatoffense,paidfeesandfines,andcompletedprobation.Shedidnotrecallwhether  P  shehadanyalcoholevaluationsorcounselingafterthesefirstthreeincidents.  <    In2012,Applicantwaschargedwithfelonyhitandrun,drivingwhileundertheinfluence   ofalcohol(DUI),andrefusaltotakeabreathtest.ShewasfoundguiltyofDWIandsentencedto   180daysincarceration(170dayssuspended),afine,andorderedtocompleteanalcoholawareness   program.Shealsosoughtcounselingonherown.Sheexplainedthatshestoppedhervehicle   followingaminoraccident,thatsheandtheotherdriveragreedtocallthepolice,andthatthey t decidedtomovetheirvehiclesfromanintersection,buttheotherdriverleftthearea.Sheparked ` hercaronasidestreetandwaitedabout2030minutes.Thepolicedidnotarriveandshecouldnot L findtheotherdriver.Whenthepolicecametoherapartment,sheinitiallydeniedthatshehadbeen 8 drinking,butdidadmittohavingwineatdinner.Sherefusedabreathandfieldsobrietytest. $t   In2013,alicensedprofessionalcounselornotedApplicantdidnotmeettheDSMIVcriteria L foranydiagnosis.In2015,Applicantcontactedaclinicalpsychologistforasubstanceabuse 8 evaluation.TheclinicalpsychologistsreportnotedthatApplicantwasinaninpatienttreatment $ programforalcoholdependenceafterher2004alcoholincident.Followingthepsychologists  recommendationfortherapyandcounseling,Applicanthadaninitialintakein2016andattended  weeklytherapysessions.InFebruary2016,anabusecounselornotedApplicantmetthediagnostic  criteriaunderDSM5foralcoholusedisorderinearlyremission.Thecounseloralsostated,   continuedworkintherapyandcontinuedabstinenceindicateapositiveprognosis.Decisionat5, p citingApplicantsExhibit(AX)A.Atthehearing,Applicantstatedshewasnotcurrentlyabstaining \  fromalcohol,butdrinkssociallywithfriends.Shemaydrinktwoorthreeglassesofwine.Despite H! thecounselingandrecommendationsforabstinencefromalcohol,shefeelssheisincontrolandif 4"  thereisasocialeventshewilldrink.Shedeniedthathercounseloradvisedhertoabstainfrom  #p! drinkingalcoholanddoesnotbelieveshehasaproblemwithalcohol.Shedoesnotdrinkanddrive.  $\"     Applicantsubmittedanumberoflettersofrecommendationthatattesttohercharacter, %4!$ dedication,andintegrity.AseniorexecutiveserviceofficialstatesthatApplicantmaintainsthe & "% characterrequirementstoperforminahighlysensitiveandpressureorientedjob. ' #&     TheJudgesAnalysis  )$(     Applicantadmitstoahistoryofalcoholrelatedincidentsfrom1998to2012.Shewas l+&* diagnosedwithanalcoholusedisorder.Fiveyearshaveelapsedsinceherlastincident.She X,'+ providedinformationabouthercounselingandsuccessatwork.Eventhoughshehasbeen D-(, consistentlyadvisedtorefrainfromdrinking,shedrinksandstatesthatsheisincontrol.The_fact  thatshestilldrinkscastsdoubtandshehasfailedtoshowthat,despitethepassageoftime,asimilar  incidentisunlikelytorecur.    Discussion  `     Applicantcontendsthatshewasnotdiagnosedasalcoholdependentbutwithanalcoholuse 8  disorder.Ofnote,theJudgedidnotspecificallyfindthatApplicantwasdiagnosedasalcohol $ t dependent.TheJudgefoundtheclinicalpsychologistsreportreflectedthatApplicantreceived  ` inpatienttreatmentforalcoholdependenceafterher2004alcoholincident,whichisanaccurate  L  summaryofthatreport.See,AXA(page3ofclinicalpsychologistsreportdatedDecember8,  8  2015).WefindnoerrorintheJudgesfinding. $    ApplicantarguesthattheJudgemisappliedthemitigatingconditions.Shehighlights,among   othermatters,thatshehasparticipatedinregularcounselingandtherapy,thatshehasestablished   apatternofresponsiblealcoholconsumption,thatshehashadnoadversealcoholissuessince2012,   andthatshehasneverhadaworkrelatedalcoholincident.ShealsoassertstheJudgeplacedtoo p muchweightonherlackofalcoholabstinencebecauseshehasnotbeendiagnosedwithalcohol \ dependence.ThepresenceofsomemitigatingevidencedoesnotalonecompeltheJudgetomake H afavorablesecurityclearancedecision.Asthetrieroffact,theJudgehastoweightheevidenceas 4 awholeanddecidewhetherthefavorableevidenceoutweighstheunfavorableevidence,orvice  p versa.ApartysdisagreementwiththeJudgesweighingoftheevidence,oranabilitytoarguefor  \ adifferentinterpretationoftheevidence,isnotsufficienttodemonstratetheJudgeweighedthe H evidenceorreachedconclusionsinamannerthatisarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.See, 4 e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1500650at2(App.Bd.Jun.27,2016).   Ѐ  TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe  decision. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemaybegrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistent  withtheinterestsofthenationalsecurity.DepartmentoftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528  (1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubtconcerningpersonnelbeingconsidered l foraccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavorofthenationalsecurity.Thedecision X  issustainableonthisrecord. D!    @-(, @( Order     TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .     `     h   Signed:WilliamS.Fields <     `     h   WilliamS.Fields ( x    `     h   AdministrativeJudge  d    `     h   Member,AppealBoard  P     `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody      `     h   JamesE.Moody      `     h   AdministrativeJudge      `     h   Member,AppealBoard t    `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy__ $t    `     h   JamesF.Duffy `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Member,Appeal_Board___