WPC  3 yV;è?[sm۟DyN8ŧ:OW)+K.b%wS" b^%d+lUC.浼kTK̸{ C"YG@l ,BBכ8 =ƱDép >Q#~ "l>u0r>rk ;DH+XO{M<I UN B Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet P3010 Series0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,ȀJ;EJ3|xU8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE\  `&Times New Roman(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular d !USUS.,  _KEYWORD:GuidelineG  DIGEST:DespiteApplicantsargumenttothecontrary,theJudgeswholepersonanalysis  complieswiththerequirementsoftheDirectiveinthatsheevaluatedApplicantssecurity t significantconductinlightoftherecordasawhole.Adversedecisionaffirmed. ` _CASENO_:1503592.a1 8  DATE:06/14/2017  ` ________________________   `     h      p DATE:June14,2017  8  .؉7r(#(#.AY) xdEgA   InRe:        W ApplicantforSecurityClearance / AY) xdEgA W )   )   ) p ) \ ) H ) 4 )  p )  \  H pX p _ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1503592 \"  H# .؉7r. \XXp  #    APPEALBOARDDECISION  $ APPEARANCES '  &_%XX FORGOVERNMENT  X ) JamesB.Norman,Esq.,ChiefDepartmentCounsel 0!*  FORAPPLICANT  "0, RyanC._Nerney_,Esq. #-         &_%%&_#XX%&_#TheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)declinedtograntApplicantasecurityclearance.On @&!0 March24,2016,DoDissuedastatementofreasons(_SOR_)advisingApplicantofthebasisforthat ,'|"1 decision!securityconcernsraisedunderGuidelineG(AlcoholConsumption)ofDepartmentof (h#2 DefenseDirective5220.6(Jan.2,1992,asamended)(Directive).Applicantrequestedahearing. )T$3 OnMarch30,2017,afterthehearing,DefenseOfficeofHearingsandAppeals(DOHA) )@%4 AdministrativeJudgeStephanieC.HessdeniedApplicantsrequestforasecurityclearance. *,&5 ApplicantappealedpursuanttoDirectiveE3.1.28andE3.1.30.#XXXX# +'6   Applicantraisedthefollowingissuesonappeal:whethertheJudgefailedtoconsider -(8 significantrecordevidenceandwhethertheJudgesadversedecisionwasarbitrary,capricious,or  contrarytolaw.Consistentwiththefollowing,weaffirm.  _  TheJudgesFindingsofFact  L    ApplicantworksforaDefensecontractor.Hewasgrantedasecurityclearancein2003, $ t althoughtwoyearsearlierhehadbeendeniedoneduetohisalcoholconsumption.Applicantbegan  ` drinkingtothepointofintoxicationatage16.Hehasbeendiagnosedwithdepressionandalcohol  L  abuse/dependenceandtwicewithalcoholdependence.Inaddition,Applicantwaschargedwith_DUI_  8  in2011.Heacknowledgedthatdrinkinghadsignificantlyaffectedhisworkperformancedueto $  misseddaysofworkbecauseofhangovers,denialofhisclearance,andaslowerrateofworking.   Drinkingalsocontributedtoadivorceafter22yearsofmarriage.Despitehavingbeendiagnosed   asalcoholdependent,Applicantcontinuestodrink.Infact,hedranksixbeersontheSaturday   beforethehearing.Hedoesnotbelievethathehasaproblemwithalcohol.Applicantsubmitted   aswornstatementofintent nevertoabusealcoholagain,agreeingtoanautomaticrevocationof p hisclearanceshouldhedoso.Decisionat4. \   TheJudgesAnalysis  4   TheJudgecitedtotheharmthatalcoholconsumptionhaswroughtonApplicantslifeand  \ career.Shestatedthatconcernsarisingfromalcoholdependencecanonlybemitigatedbyan H appropriateperiodofabstinence,whichApplicanthasnotchosentoundertake.Tothecontrary,he 4 contendsthathedoesnotcurrentlyhaveaproblemwithalcohol.Inthewholepersonanalysis,the   JudgecharacterizedApplicantstestimonyashonestandstraightforward.Shecitedtohis32years   ofemploymentbyaDefensecontractorandhisreputationforhardworkandintegrity.However,  sheconcludedthattheevidence,viewedasawhole,wasnotsufficienttomitigatetheconcerns  arisingfromApplicantsconductwithalcohol.    Discussion  X    Applicantcitestoevidencesuchashisworkrecord,thelengthoftimesincehislast_DUI_,and 0"  hishavingcurtailedtheamountthathedrinks.HearguesthattheJudgedidnotconsiderthis #l! evidenceandthatthewholepersonanalysiswasdeficient.Applicantsargumentsarenotenough $X" torebutthepresumptionthattheJudgeconsideredalloftheevidenceintherecord.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ $D # CaseNo.1300502at3(App.Bd.Mar.7,2017).DespiteApplicantsargumenttothecontrary,the %0!$ JudgeswholepersonanalysiscomplieswiththerequirementsoftheDirectiveinthatsheevaluated &"% Applicantssecuritysignificantconductinlightoftherecordasawhole.See,e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo. '#& 1406653at3(App.Bd.Nov.18,2016). (#'   ApplicanthascitedtosomeHearingOfficecasesthat,hebelieves,supporthiseffortto |*%) obtainaclearance.Wegivethesecasesdueconsiderationaspersuasiveauthority.However, h+&* HearingOfficecasesarenotbindingonotherHearingOfficeJudgesorontheAppealBoard.See, T,'+ e.g.,_ISCR_ԀCaseNo.1501416at3(App.Bd.Feb.15,2017).ThecasesthatApplicanthascited @-(, havesignificantdifferencesfromhisown.TheyarenotenoughtounderminetheJudgesdecision.    TheJudgeexaminedtherelevantevidenceandarticulatedasatisfactoryexplanationforthe t decision.Thedecisionissustainableonthisrecord. Thegeneralstandardisthataclearancemay ` begrantedonlywhenclearlyconsistentwiththeinterestsofthenationalsecurity.Department L  oftheNavyv.Egan,484U.S.518,528(1988).SeealsoDirective,Enclosure22(b): Anydoubt 8  concerningpersonnelbeingconsideredforaccesstoclassifiedinformationwillberesolvedinfavor $ t ofthenationalsecurity.  ` @( Order   8    TheDecisionis AFFIRMED .      `     h   XXXX   `     h   Signed:MichaelY._Raanan_Ԁ t    `     h   MichaelY._Raanan_ `    `     h   AdministrativeJudge L    `     h   Chairperson,AppealBoard 8    `     h   Signed:JamesE.Moody__ 8    `     h   JamesE.Moody $    `     h   AdministrativeJudge     `     h   Member,AppealBoard     `     h   Signed:JamesF.Duffy \     `     h   JamesF.Duffy H!    `     h   AdministrativeJudge 4"     `     h   Member,Appeal_Board#XXXX #_  #p!   ̀ $H # ____