The U.S. Personnel Security Appeals Board ordered the reinstatement of a security clearance to an employee who drank excessively for many years. The employee refused to stop drinking until given notice of the Agency's intent to revoke his security clearance. This is an unusual decision by the PSAB which for many years consistently upheld revocations of security clearances unless the employee completed a substance abuse program, abstained from alcohol for at least one-year and demonstrated numerous other traits indicating rehabilitation. (See, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Adjudicative Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption) The employee's attorney Josh Bowers said, "In this unusual PSAB decision, a 'perfect storm' of favorable facts convinced the Board the Appellant was unlike any other employee and deserved the continued trust of the United States Government."

The PSAB decision reinstating the security clearance was based on the recommendation decision (below) by an Administrative Judge of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) in Washington, DC. The DOHA decision has been edited to preserve the privacy of the employee.

Department of Defense Defense Legal Services Agency Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Washington Hearing Office

Recommended Decision of Administrative Judge Kathryn Moen Braeman

Attorney Josh Bowers for Appellant

Appellant now meets the mitigation guidelines for Alcohol Consumption as he has shown positive changes in his behavior supportive of sobriety. He has never had any documented alcohol-related incidents at work or elsewhere. He stopped drinking in October 2005 and sought help from his employee assistance program and alcoholics anonymous (AA). When he learned that these efforts were viewed as insufficient to mitigate security concerns, he escalated his efforts and entered a hospital out-patient treatment program in February 2006 which he completed. Now he has fully complied with all treatment and is continuing in AA and aftercare. The hospital medical expert diagnosed him in full early remission from alcohol dependence and found no other psychiatric disorders. Appellant has enthusiastic endorsements for his conduct of his official duties. For the past five years he has performed his civilian job in a stellar manner and is highly regarded by a wide range of officials in his agency who recommend that his security clearance be restored. For the reasons detailed below, I recommend that the Navy Personnel Security Appeal Board overturn the LOD [Letter of Decision] previously issued and grant him a security clearance.

HISTORY OF THE CASE

On September 14, 2005, the Department of the Navy, Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility (DON CAF), pursuant to Department of the Navy Personnel Security Program Regulation, SECNAVINST5510.30A, issued a memorandum of Intent to Revoke Security Clearance (LOI). The LOI detailed specific concerns over personal conduct, alcohol consumption, and emotional, mental, and personality disorders which were the basis of the DON CAF's initial decision that it was not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue Appellant's security clearance and occupancy of a sensitive position.

Appellant received the LOI on September 20, 2005 and requested a 45-day extension of time to respond which was granted to November 18, 2005. In requesting the extension he stated that he planned to sign up for counseling to resolve the problem with consumption and dependency on alcohol.

Appellant's response to the LOI dated December 6, 2005, contained attachments. His agency forwarded it on December 7, 2005. His agency noted that after reviewing the LOI they made the decision to grant Appellant continued access to classified information while the unfavorable determination process continues.

On December 20, 2005, DON CAF issued a Final Revocation of Security Clearance (LOR) which concluded adversely as follows:

You failed to sufficiently mitigate the personal conduct, alcohol consumption, and emotional, mental, and personality disorders concerns because you have demonstrated a long history of excessive alcohol consumption and failure to follow through with medical advice, which often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment, unreliability, failure to control impulses, and increases the risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information due to carelessness. Although your stated intention toward abstinence and attendance to AA meetings is admirable, your recent alcohol evaluation was unfavorable and more time is required for you to demonstrate a sustained sobriety and adherence aftercare recommendations.

Your failure to mitigate the personal conduct, alcohol consumption emotional, mental, and personality disorders concerns causes doubts concerning your judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness and precludes a favorable determination at this time.

The case was assigned to me on January 30, 2006, to recommend whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for this Appellant. On February 2, 2006, his counsel raised a discovery issue as Appellant had made a request of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to provide documents, but Appellant had not received a copy of the two letters from a psychologist in the record in response to his request for documents relied on by the agency in making its decision. The documents from the psychologist were part of the DON CAF file, not the OPM file. [The collateral issue of his Proposed Indefinite Suspension was not before me.] With the cooperation of DON CAF, the documents were released to Appellant's counsel on February 13, 2006. (TR 21-22)

Subsequently, on February 13, 2006, a notice was sent which set his case for a Personal Appearance on March 2, 2006. Appellant testified and submitted thirteen (13) exhibits which were admitted into evidence. He also asked that I accept for administrative notice his written closing argument (AN 1) and eight Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals cases in industrial security matters (AN II). I accepted submission of both documents. He requested additional time until March 13, 2006, to submit an additional document, a letter from his command. (TR 22-23) That document, Exhibit 14 , was received on March 8, 2006; however, Appellant's counsel did not receive a copy. He requested one which I forwarded to him. On March 16, 2006, Appellant's counsel requested that Exhibit 14 be admitted into evidence; I admitted it into evidence and the record close. I received the transcript (TR) on March 9, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record including the U.S. Department of Navy (DON CAF) file, Appellant's exhibits and testimony, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact:

Appellant joined the Naval Sea Systems Command as an engineer in December ____. Previously, he worked for federal contractor from September to December ____ and for federal contractor #2 from ____ to ____. Altogether he had an __ year career as a Navy contractor. Earlier, he served in the Navy reserves from ____ to ____. He completed a Security Clearance Application (SF 86) in February ____ Previously, be has been granted security clearances in 1982, 1988, 1999, and 2000. (SF 86). He was promoted to be a GS-14 branch head which is a key position. He has received awards for his performance. (Exhibits 1, 2, 13; TR 26-27, 32-33, 40) He was suspended without pay on March 6, 2006. (TR 23)

He was married in September 19__ and has a child born in 19__ and one born in 19___. (TR 30) He received a B.S. in mechanical engineering technology in 19__. He has taken additional professional courses. (SF 86)

Alcohol Consumption

Appellant explained that job and personal stress in the late 1990's contributed to his excess use of alcohol. After his mother died in 19__, he isolated himself and drank more heavily. (TR 2830) In June 2005 he admitted he was drinking four or five days a week; he would drink 3-5 beers after work and as much as eight to ten beers on each weekend day. (TR 62-63) His last drink was in October 2005. (TR 57)

Psychological Evaluation

On April 7, 2005, DON CAF requested a medical evaluation of Appellant under SECNAVISNT 5510.30A. While the evaluation is voluntary, a decision not to be evaluated would allow DON CAF to make a decision on the available information, including any unresolved issues. He was also advised that he could submit any medical documentation from a personal physician for review and consideration.

In June 2005 a staff psychologist at the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) provided a psychological evaluation on Appellant. The report included a history of his alcohol use: two binges per month in college. In his 20's his drinking increased. Later, he sought help and stopped drinking hard liquor and cut back on his consumption of beer; he was in treatment for three months. In the 1990's his drinking increased because of job stress and home problems. He voluntarily attended an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in 1995 and subsequently cut back on his drinking from 6 to 15 beers per day five times a week to 6 to 12 beers per day one to two times per week. From November 1999 to March 2000 his drinking again increased to the earlier levels of 6 to 15 beers per day four to five times per week. His second level supervisor noted he was spending his lunch hours at a local bar and appeared mildly intoxicated when he returned to work in the afternoon. The supervisor confronted him and told him to go to EAP. He saw a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) in April 2000 who reported his score of 26 on the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test and assessed him as alcoholic; he was in strong denial. He did not seek intensive treatment and decided to control his drinking on his own. He cut back to 4 to 12 beers per day for three to four days a week. A supervisor questioned Appellant's reliability and thought he needed more treatment.

Appellant acknowledged to this psychologist that his drinking had adversely impacted his work and home life, but he denied he was an alcoholic. The report summarized that another colleague who carpooled with Appellant reported He smelled of alcohol in the mornings and questioned his judgment at work. Appellant reported he was last intoxicated in December 2001, but that he has increased tolerance. He reported drinking as many as 12 beers without intoxication. In June 2005 Appellant was drinking 3 to 4 beers each weekday and 6 to 12 beers per day on the weekends. This psychologist assessed his impulse control as fair, his judgment as fair, and his insight as fair. He concluded Appellant had some denial and minimizing and rationalizing about his alcohol use and inadequate coping methods. He diagnosed Appellant as "Alcohol dependence in sustained partial remission (DSM code 303.90)." Because of Appellant's continued heavy use of alcohol and his defensiveness about his drinking, the psychologist raised concerns regarding his judgment and reliability. He recommended that Appellant seek treatment for alcohol dependence and a one-year aftercare program before he could consider him appropriate to handle very sensitive duties and information.

Appellant stated that he was totally honest in a 40 minute interview with this licensed clinical psychologist. He chose not to go into treatment after the June 2005 interview as he felt alcohol did not interfere with his functioning. (TR 41-44)

In August 2005 this staff psychologist, a licensed clinical psychologist, stated that Appellant's prognosis for future adaptive function was "guarded due to the fact that [Appellant] has never satisfactorily completed an alcohol treatment program, and remains in considerable denial." He raised the concern that Appellant "remains at risk for excessive and even irresponsible drinking in the future when exposed to sustained and/or extreme stress." Again, he recommended that Appellant seek treatment for alcohol dependence and a one-year aftercare program before he could consider him appropriate to handle very sensitive duties and information. These concerns were summed up in the Summary of Disqualifying Information attached to the LOI in September 2005.

Assessment and Treatment

After receiving the LOI, Appellant went to the Navy EAP on October 12, 2005, to seek assistance for his abuse of alcohol. The EAP licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) reported that he volunteered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and to stop drinking. He agreed to seek treatment if needed. (Exhibit 3; TR 44-46; 63-64) An individual in AA reported in February 2006 that Appellant had regularly attended one meeting three times a week. (Exhibit 4; TR 45) Someone else in AA reported Appellant attended a Sunday evening AA meeting in January 2006 where he sought a sponsor; this individual agreed to be his sponsor. Appellant testified he talked to his AA sponsor daily for two months. (Exhibit 5; TR 49-51)

After receiving the LOI, Appellant sought an assessment at a hospital Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Services (CATS) center. In February 2006 the medical director diagnosed Appellant as alcohol dependent in full early remission. No other psychiatric disorders were in evidence. Appellant sought outpatient treatment; he was compliant with the treatment recommendations. He attended sessions three nights a week for six weeks. (Exhibit 6; TR 51-55; 65-66) His addictions counselor reported that he maintained perfect attendance in the early recovery phase of treatment of three two-hour sessions per week. He completed 18 sessions as of February 24, 2006. He then entered a relapse prevention program in March 2006. (Exhibits 7, 8; TR 51-56) He now has a support network and will continue to attend AA. (TR 59-60) His Department of Motor Vehicles transcript of November 2005 shows no adverse information. (Exhibit 11) His criminal history record has no adverse information. (Exhibit 12)

Appellant explained that earlier he denied the problem because he had never had any adverse consequences such as legal problems or marital problems. Through AA and through treatment he learned more about his previous denial that he had an alcohol problem. (TR 61-62) Appellant also sought a personal trainer and began working with him in January 2006. (Exhibit 9; TR 48-49)

References and Evaluations

Appellant has favorable performance reviews. His rating for 2005 notes his diligent work ethic, his effectiveness as a mentor and his technical expertise and good judgment. (TR 32-33; Exhibit 13)

In March 2006 the commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command sent a recommendation with enclosures directly to the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB). A copy was also forward to DOHA. The commander commended Appellant for his "dedication, professionalism, and strength of character." He stated that Appellant has a "long history with NAVSEA, both as a support contractor and, for the last five years, as a federal employee." He has an "excellent reputation as a dedicated professional with a can-do attitude." (Exhibit 14)

The deputy commander of a directorate commended Appellant's solid performance, reliability, stability, integrity, honesty, good judgment and leadership abilities. He stated that Appellant "has never exhibited characteristics that would indicate alcohol has affected his professional performance or personal demeanor." He recommends that Appellant "not be denied a security clearance." (Exhibit 14)

The executive director commended Appellant as a competent, reliable and stable employee who is a valuable asset. He recommended that he retain his security clearance. (Exhibit 14)

His former military supervisor who knew him from 2003 to June 2005 saw no indications of an issue with alcohol. He was a trusted advisor that this captain relied on. He viewed Appellant's performance as outstanding. (Exhibit 14)

Another captain who knew Appellant from 2001 to 2003 stated that he spoke to Appellant on a daily basis and worked with him regularly. He assessed Appellant as a complete professional who did superior work. He never showed up to work with the smell of alcohol. He never saw Appellant intoxicated in that period. He highly recommended Appellant be allowed to retain his security clearance. (Exhibit 14)

The director of quality assurance stated that in August 2005 Appellant was selected for a key position. He only supervised Appellant for five months. He stated unequivocally that Appellant never demonstrated any behavior that caused him concern. He strongly recommended Appellant be allowed to retain his security clearance. (Exhibit 14)

Appellant's supervisor for five years who has seen him on an almost daily basis and has traveled with him on temporary duty (WY) states that he never observed Appellant show signs of alcohol abuse or dependency. He recommended that Appellant not be denied a security clearance. (Exhibit 14)

A supervisory general engineer who has known Appellant for five years has observed him in work and social situations. He never observed any behavior that would lead him to questions Appellant's integrity or judgment. He has always displayed "exceptional judgment, unerring reliability and unwavering trustworthiness." (Exhibit 14)

Appellant's supervisor from 2000 to 2003 attested that he was never concerned about Appellant's use of alcohol. He strongly recommended retention of Appellant's security clearance. (Exhibit 14)

Appellant's wife stated that he had always been a drinker throughout their __ years of marriage. His drinking never led to any hardship for the family. For the last five months he has made positive changes: Appellant stopped drinking and began attending AA meetings. He sought treatment and has participated in that program. She attends the family participation group sessions with him. (Exhibit 10)

CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol Issues

Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment, unreliability, failure to control impulses, and increases the risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information due to carelessness. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: d. diagnosis by a credential medical professional of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence; and e. habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. The LOI summarized the issues raised during his OPM interview over his alcohol abuse and referenced interviews of others who raised concerns over his alcohol-related conduct. In addition, the LOI cited the August 2005 medical evaluation report which included a diagnosis of alcohol dependence, in sustained partial remission, and concerns over Appellant's consistent denial about the extent of his alcohol problem which led to a guarded prognosis. Although this licensed clinical psychologist in his written report to DON CAF recommended Appellant seek an evaluation and treatment program along with aftercare, this assessment was not provided to Appellant at that time.

However, to his credit there is no evidence that Appellant even had any alcohol-related arrests or any alcohol-related incidents. In fact, despite his documented heavy drinking, Appellant was in denial that he had a problem with alcohol and did not seek treatment until after the LOI was issued to him. Subsequently he sought help from the EAP at his agency, stopped drinking in October 2005, and started attending AA where he obtained a sponsor.

Despite these preliminary efforts, the December 2005 LOR declared, "your recent evaluation was unfavorable and more time is required for you to demonstrate a sustained sobriety and adherence aftercare recommendations." While they did not cite which alcohol evaluation they were relying on. I assume it was the August 2005 evaluation of the government clinical psychologist who gave him a guarded prognosis as he had never satisfactorily completed a treatment program. However, his diagnosis was alcohol dependence in sustained partial remission (DSM Code 303.90)

After he received the LOR and understood the seriousness of the security concern, Appellant next sought an assessment and treatment in February 2006 at a hospital-based comprehensive addiction treatment center. In February 2006 the medical director diagnosed Appellant as alcohol dependent in full early remission. No other psychiatric disorders were in evidence. Appellant nevertheless sought outpatient treatment and was compliant with the alcohol treatment recommendations. He attended sessions three nights a week for six weeks. His addictions counselor reported that he maintained perfect attendance in the early recovery phase of treatment of three two-hour sessions per week and had completed 18 sessions as of February 24, 2006. He now has a support network and will continue to attend AA.

Thus, Appellant has demonstrated that he meets conditions that mitigate this security concerns including:

c. Positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety: he has complied with all treatment recommendations and has performed in an outstanding manner in work assignments and has the enthusiastic backing of his chain of command.

In assessing whether or not Appellant needs to meet the stricter standards of mitigating condition d , I note that even the Navy expert in June 2005 diagnosed him in "sustained partial remission" from alcohol dependence. While his report recommended treatment, it is not clear that Appellant understood that treatment would be required in order to maintain a security clearance. Certainly, he was not provided a copy of the report and the recommendations.

Since Appellant never had an alcohol-related accident or incident, he did not recognize the seriousness of his drinking. Thus, he did not take any action to seek treatment until after the LOI was issued in September 2005. Then Appellant stopped drinking in October 2005 and immediately began attending AA and EAP sessions. After he received the December LOR and learned more was needed to demonstrate his commitment to sobriety, he finally sought a formal treatment program at a hospital in February 2006. Nevertheless, the medical expert he consulted in February 2006 diagnosed him as being in full remission from alcohol dependence. He noted that Appellant was actively engaged in outpatient treatment and was compliant with all recommendations. Appellant then continued in a relapse prevention program in March 2006.

Appellant has successfully completed the initial treatment and is continuing in aftercare and has shown a commitment to AA. In looking at Appellant in the context of the whole person standard, I note that He has consistently exemplified professionalism in all of his assignments as a Navy civilian and has the unqualified endorsement of a wide array of officials who have personally supervised his work and found that he has performed consistently in a stellar manner. He is uniformly praised and viewed as an asset by all who have observed him. These officials see Appellant as an outstanding person both in his work and attitude. Thus, I recommend a finding for the Appellant under Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption.

While concerns were also raised about his conduct invoking personal conduct concerns or emotional, mental, and personality disorder security concerns, the recent evaluation by a medical expert established that Appellant does not have any psychiatric disorders in evidence. Thus, I recommend a finding for Appellant under Guideline E, personal conduct, and Guideline I, emotional, mental, and personality disorder.

FORMAL FINDINGS

In reviewing the allegations of the LOI in the context of the Adjudication Policy I recommend the following formal findings:

Personal Conduct	FOR APPELLANT
Alcohol Consumption	FOR APPELLANT
Emotional, Mental, and Personality Disorder	FOR APPELLANT

RECOMMENDED DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue a security clearance for the Appellant. Accordingly, I recommend to the Navy Personnel Security Appeal Board that the LOI previously issued be overturned and that the security clearance be granted.