DATE: September 24, 1998

-----------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT

William S. Fields, Esq., Department Counsel

FOR APPLICANT

Pro Se

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 (as amended by Executive Orders 10909, 11328 and 12829) and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992 (as amended by Change 3), issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR), dated May 8, 1998, to the Applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant. DOHA recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to conduct proceedings and determine whether clearance should be granted, continued, denied or revoked. The SOR was based on excessive alcohol consumption with alcohol-related treatment efforts (criterion G), and personal and criminal conduct concerns (criteria E and J, respectively) related to his failure to disclose certain alcohol-related treatments on his security clearance application and in a signed, sworn statement.

Pursuant to the directions set forth in DOHA correspondence dated May 8, 1998, Applicant by document notarized on July 11, 1998, responded to the allegations set forth in SOR and submitted additional information (nineteen enclosures). Applicant requested a hearing in the event his response failed to provide a basis for favorable resolution of his security clearance. By letter notarized on July 16, 1998, Applicant amended his Answer to the SOR.

On July 31, 1998, the case was assigned for resolution to Administrative Judge Claude Heiny. On August 6, 1998, it was transferred to the undersigned due to workload considerations. By formal notice dated August 6, 1998, a hearing was scheduled for August 27, 1998. At the hearing held as scheduled, twelve Government exhibits were admitted into the record. The Government also moved to strike the nineteen attachments to Applicant's Answer without prejudice to Applicant offering said documents as exhibits. The motion was granted and second copies of the documents were subsequently offered and admitted collectively as Applicant Exhibit D. Six additional Applicant exhibits were accepted into the record and testimony was taken from the Applicant, his spouse, and a professional colleague of the Applicant.

By facsimile on August 31, 1998, Applicant requested the record be reopened to allow for the submission into evidence of documents pertaining to a military award, formal approval of which was unknown to Applicant at the hearing. The Government having no objection thereto, the documents reflecting the grant of the award to Applicant were marked collectively and admitted into evidence as Applicant Exhibit J. With the receipt on September 14, 1998, of the transcript of the August 27, 1998, hearing, this case was ripe for a decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After a thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of same, this Administrative Judge renders the following findings of fact:

Applicant is a 58 year old senior program analyst who has worked for his current employer, a defense contractor, since September 1997. He seeks a Top Secret security clearance for his duties there.

Applicant first consumed alcohol in about 1955 when he had a glass of wine as a high school student in a foreign country. His drinking of alcohol remained limited to a beer or glass of wine every so often throughout the remainder of high school and during a two year stint following high school as a Private in branch A of the United States military. After he broke his leg playing football for branch A's military academy, Applicant was medically discharged from military branch A. In February 1960, Applicant went to college through military branch B's reserve officer training program. While in college he consumed alcohol at the rate of at most three or four beers while attending off-campus parties.

At his graduation in 1963, Applicant was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in branch B of the United States military and given a Secret clearance. Assigned as a missile launch officer from January 1964 to August 1967, his clearance was upgraded to Top Secret in February 1964. He continued to hold top level security clearances throughout his tenure in the military. Following his marriage in 1965, Applicant continued to consume alcohol in moderate amounts for purposes of relaxation. In addition to his duties as a combat crew member, he pursued graduate studies and earned a Master of Science degree.

In 1967, Applicant transferred to military branch A because he could not obtain a waiver to fly. For ten months in 1968, he served in a war zone as commander of a firing battery. Wounded during battle, he was awarded a number of decorations for heroism. Applicant did not drink during this time.

In 1969, Applicant began an overseas tour in Europe accompanied by his spouse. They drank socially with Applicant suffering from alcohol-related hangovers on occasion. As he continued his military career in the 1970's and early 1980's, Applicant engaged in occasional social drinking. In June 1986, he was assigned to a senior policy position which required access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). He began to imbibe cocktails in the evenings as a stress reliever. Over the next three years, he found his work interesting and did not allow his alcohol consumption to affect his job performance.

It became apparent to Applicant that he would not be promoted to General officer when in January 1989, he was assigned as military branch A's senior military advisor to state C's National Guard bureau. No longer needing access to Top Secret classified information, his security clearance was downgraded to Secret. Disappointed with the slowdown in his career and depressed at the death of his mother in early spring 1989, Applicant began drinking more than intended and he suffered at least two alcohol-related blackouts. He did not allow his alcohol consumption to affect his duties, and after a long and distinguished military career, Applicant in August 1991 retired from the United States military at the rank of Colonel.

Following his retirement, Applicant and his spouse pursued careers in real estate in state C, becoming part owners of an independent realty firm. Due to a significant downturn in the real estate market, Applicant and his spouse began to contribute personal funds and use their credit cards to keep the real estate company in business. Applicant began to find himself looking forward to his evening cocktails to relax. Concerned about his drinking, Applicant's spouse quit drinking herself in an effort to help him stop. Applicant resorted to hidden drinking. Depressed at his family's increasingly negative financial situation and at his failure to find a job or sell the family residence which had been on the market for over a year, Applicant by November 1994 was drinking one to one and a half pints of vodka plus two glasses of wine per day. In February 1995, Applicant managed eight days of sobriety while he was looking for a job. On his return from the interview, Applicant resumed covert alcohol consumption, drinking to avoid symptoms of withdrawal. Due to health problems, Applicant consulted with a physician who advise him to reduce his consumption. In June 1995 this physician referred him to a counselor at a local civilian hospital (treatment facility #1). After an interview with this counselor, Applicant admitted himself to treatment facility #1 on June 20, 1995, for inpatient detoxification. Diagnosed as suffering from alcohol dependence and possible alcoholic liver disease, Applicant was reminded daily of the necessity to remain abstinent from alcohol. He participated in all groups and activities and was removed from detox status after three days. On June 26, 1995, he was discharged to home with the recommendations that he attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and remain abstinent. His prognosis for remaining sober was assessed as good, but social stressors, to include his financial situation, presented a risk to continuing sobriety.

Applicant attended only two meetings of AA after discharge and he resumed drinking within two weeks, believing he could control his alcohol intake by limiting it to an occasional beer. In October 1995, they sold their home after two years on the market at almost a 50% loss in value. In November 1995, Applicant and his spouse, accompanied by a minor daughter, relocated near their adult children. At the time residing in a rental unit and unemployed, Applicant became increasingly depressed. By sometime in December 1995, his consumption returned to his baseline habit of a half pint to a pint of vodka per day with adverse effects on his physical health. Friends at a Christmas party that December commented as to how "bad" Applicant looked.

By about late January 1996, Applicant was drinking wine in the evenings, which he and his spouse thought he could handle. Following a party where he and his spouse had consumed some wine, Applicant engaged in covert drinking of vodka which made him sick and unable to continue as host. Confronted by family members over his drinking, Applicant drove himself on February 2, 1996, to a military outpatient clinic for an alcohol evaluation. His blood alcohol content tested at .09 % and treatment was recommended. On February 5, 1996, Applicant was admitted to the internal medicine ward of a military hospital (treatment facility #2) for detoxification and treatment of esophageal irritation. Applicant admitted to having consumed a half pint of vodka that day. On admission, he stated his belief he was an alcoholic but he also contemplated resumption of controlled drinking in the future. Diagnosed as suffering from alcohol dependence with physiological dependence (date of onset around 1993) and alcohol withdrawal, Applicant was put on detoxification protocol. Following an uneventful detoxification, on February 9, 1996, he was discharged on Antabuse medication to outpatient treatment, including weekly counseling and AA meetings.

Applicant participated in the outpatient program at military treatment facility #2 from February 14, 1996 to June 3, 1996, attending one session per week. He also went to AA almost every day initially, but his attendance declined and he never established a relationship with a sponsor. Sometime in February 1996, he obtained work as a consultant. In March 1996, his Antabuse medication was discontinued secondary to increased liver function tests. Applicant managed to remain completely abstinent from alcohol until late May 1996. Thinking he could socially drink, he started with beer but soon progressed to vodka. To the alarm of family members, Applicant drove his car one weekend while intoxicated with no memory of it. Outpatient detoxification was attempted but Applicant continued to drink in an effort to avoid feeling sick. Applicant agreed to inpatient detoxification and on June 4, 1996, he was readmitted to treatment facility #2. Applicant consumed a pint of vodka the night prior to admission and another pint the morning of admission to the inpatient psychiatry service. Diagnosed as suffering from alcohol dependence, continuous, and alcohol withdrawal, Applicant transitioned well into the therapeutic milieu and was active in individual, group and milieu therapies. Applicant remained ambivalent about transfer to inpatient rehabilitation but with the strong urging of his family, he agreed to direct transfer following completion of the detoxification protocol. On June 8, 1996, he was discharged for inpatient alcohol rehabilitation treatment at another military hospital (treatment facility #3).

During his intake interview at treatment facility #3, Applicant learned it was a four week inpatient program. Still denying the extent of his alcohol dependence problem, and wanting to continue to his work as a consultant, Applicant elected instead to participate in an outpatient program offered under the auspices of the facility's partial-hospitalization service. On June 13, 1996, he was admitted with a blood alcohol content of .07% for treatment which consisted of group therapy, individual counseling, formal education and daily AA meetings. On June 28, 1996, he was discharged, having completed the treatment, with recommendations to attend AA daily for ninety days, abstain from alcohol, and attend aftercare at least once per week for one year. On or about August 22, 1996, Applicant discontinued his participation in the aftercare program after attending only four sessions, electing to continue his recovery solely through AA as he did not feel he was getting any benefit out of the program. His condition at discharge was stable, but his prognosis for recovery was assessed as poor.

During the summer of 1996, Applicant and his spouse were having a residence built. Despite concerns over financing, Applicant managed to remain abstinent from alcohol. In about early September 1996, Applicant started drinking beer but soon relapsed into a pint to two pints of vodka. Experiencing chest pain and abdominal problems, Applicant's spouse drove him to a military hospital (treatment facility #4) on October 1, 1996, where he was put on detoxification protocol. Complaining of chest pain, Applicant was transferred on the first day to the intensive care ward. On October 5, 1996, Applicant was discharged from the facility against medical advice in order to attend the scheduled walk through inspection at their new residence which was mandatory for closing on the property. In October 1996, he began work as a senior associate with an executive recruiting firm. Applicant remained alcohol-free until Thanksgiving 1996 when with the approval of his spouse, he drank a couple of beers with his in-laws who were visiting. He continued drinking beer thereafter.

By January 1997, he was imbibing up to five beers per day with a pint of vodka in order to feel well enough to function. Feeling ill, Applicant on January 17, 1997, voluntarily admitted himself for inpatient detoxification to yet another military hospital (treatment facility #5). Out of embarrassment, he did not want to return to an institution where he had been treated in the past. Applicant stayed at the hospital for only two days. Applicant was unable to stay alcohol-free once home and on January 20, 1997, he consumed alcohol to intoxication and fell, fracturing several ribs. He returned to treatment facility where he underwent detoxification until January 24, 1997.

Transferred on January 24, 1997, for further detoxification and inpatient rehabilitation treatment to civilian treatment facility #6, Applicant was placed there under the care of psychiatrist Dr. D, the medical director of the hospital's addiction treatment program. They established a rapport and she convinced him of the need to remain as an inpatient for rehabilitation. Following a therapeutic regimen of counseling, lectures and AA for treatment of alcohol dependence with withdrawal and bipolar disorder, Applicant was discharged from the facility to home on February 18, 1997, to continue in outpatient treatment with Dr. D. Additional aftercare recommendations included total abstinence from alcohol and any mood altering substances; completion of formal aftercare at treatment facility #6 consisting of thirty sessions over fifteen weeks; a minimum of three AA meetings weekly, obtaining a sponsor and home group within two weeks; Antabuse medication and random urinalysis.

One week after his discharge, Applicant commenced treatment facility #6's outpatient aftercare program. Applicant attended the required twice weekly meetings focusing on continuing self-diagnosis and prevention of relapse as well as daily AA meetings. Applicant successfully completed the program on July 14, 1997. He continued to attend AA thereafter from five to seven times per week until he began his current employment in September 1997.

Throughout 1997 Applicant remained under the care of psychiatrist Dr. D who prescribed Antabuse and anti-depressant medication. Following Dr. D's untimely death on January 3, 1998, Applicant was referred to Dr. E, who had been a professional colleague of Dr. D. Since their first session on January 4, 1998, Dr. E has seen Applicant on the order of two to three times per year. As of August 1998, Dr. E was very impressed by Applicant's mental and physical status and he gave him a very favorable prognosis for the future.

Abstinent from alcohol since January 20, 1997, Applicant has no intent to consume alcohol in the future. Since mid September 1997, Applicant has gone to AA meetings twice per week on the weekends. He intends to continue his weekend AA attendance in the future, eventually increasing the frequency of meetings if possible. Since February 1997 Applicant has had a sponsor in AA. This sponsor has eight to ten years of sobriety.

In mid September 1997, Applicant was hired as a senior program analyst for company F. His employment was conditioned on reinstatement of a security clearance. His first day on the job, Applicant was requested to complete a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86). The following day, he executed the SF 86 on which he responded affirmatively to question 21 ["In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a mental health professional (psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, etc.) or have you consulted with another health care provider about a mental health related condition?] and to question 25 ["In the last 7 years, has your use of alcoholic beverages (such as liquor, beer, wine) resulted in any alcohol-related treatment or counseling (such as for alcohol abuse or alcoholism)?]. Required to provide the dates of any such treatment as well as the name of the therapist or doctor, Applicant listed treatment from January 1997 to present with Dr. D at treatment facility #6. At the time Applicant executed the SF 86, he also signed release forms authorizing the Federal Government access to his medical records. While Applicant did not list his prior alcohol treatment on his SF 86, he thought he was expediting the process by giving the Government access to the locations and dates of all prior treatments as they were on record at treatment facility #6 and well known to his current physician Dr. D. On October 6, 1997, company F's security officer (FSO) submitted Applicant's SF 86 with a request that Applicant's clearance be processed as quickly as possible. In her forwarding letter, the FSO informed the Defense Security Service Operations Center--Columbus (formerly designated Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office aka "DISCO") of Applicant's desire that an investigator contact him early in the investigation process for a personal interview as it might help expedite the process.

On December 3, 1997 and December 11, 1997, Applicant was interviewed by a Special Agent of the Defense Security Service (DSS), formerly designated Defense Investigative Service. During these interviews, Applicant admitted to his detoxification at military treatment facility #2 in February 1996, his readmission for inpatient detoxification to facility #2 in June 1996, his inpatient detoxification at military treatment facility #5 in January 1997, his transfer to civilian hospital #6 for an extended stay and outpatient follow-up, to include ongoing consultations with Dr. D. Applicant admitted he failed to list on his SF 86 his detoxification treatment at military hospitals #2 and #5, but he denied any intent to conceal that information. He explained that he felt it was not necessary to list that information as Dr. D was aware of all the treatment he had undergone. He added that to his recollection, he had not received any other alcohol-related treatment or counseling within the last seven years and executed a signed, sworn statement reflecting same on December 11, 1997. On December 3, 1997, Applicant signed specific releases, authorizing the DSS Agent to obtain medical record information from treatment facilities #2 , #5 and #6.

On January 6, 1998, Applicant informed the DSS Agent of Dr. D's death and that he had requested from Dr. D's widower a copy of his medical record. Three days later, Applicant contacted the DSS Agent telephonically and indicated he would be seeing a new doctor on January 21, 1998. On January 13, 1998, Applicant was interviewed to obtain releases for his new doctor and also for his counselor in treatment facility #6's aftercare program. Applicant executed the releases as requested and indicated that he elected instead to see Dr. E, with whom he had an appointment for the following day. On January 13, 1998, Applicant executed a release authorizing the DSS Special Agent to contact Dr. E.

On or about January 16, 1998, the DSS Special Agent obtained the records of military treatment facility #2. Review of the records disclosed Applicant had received care there on two occasions and that he had entered an alcohol treatment program in 1995 which had not been previously identified by the Applicant. On January 21 and 29, 1998, the Agent obtained the records of civilian hospital #6. Those records also reflected Applicant had undergone detoxification treatment at civilian hospital #1 in 1995. On February 11, 1998, Applicant was reinterviewed to afford him an opportunity to address the issue of unlisted counseling/treatment. Applicant discussed his alcohol-related treatment at civilian hospital #1, his outpatient counseling at military treatment facility #2, his care at military treatment facility #4 and volunteered he had attended alcohol education seminars at military hospital #3 for about five weeks in 1996 and that he was currently under the care of Dr. E. Applicant denied any intent to conceal this treatment during his December 1997 interviews, and explaining that he had failed to recall his treatments at civilian hospital #1 and #4 and that he considered his outpatient sessions at treatment facility #2 in spring 1996 part of that February 1996 reported treatment and at treatment facility #3 in summer 1996 to be education rather than medical treatment. Applicant executed medical releases for his medical care at treatment facilities #1, #3 and #4.

Review of the medical records obtained on February 17, 1998, from civilian hospital #1 by the DSS Special Agent indicated Applicant had received some treatment from a local physician prior to his June 1995 admission to its facility. Applicant was reinterviewed on March 11, 1998, about possible unlisted treatment with this physician. Applicant admitted consulting with this family doctor for about six months and that she had referred him for an assessment to a counselor at treatment facility #1. With respect to his treatment at military treatment facility #3 during the summer of 1996, Applicant expressed his understanding that it was an education program as opposed to partial hospitalization. Applicant indicated that he had identified all of his prior alcohol and mental/emotional treatment to the best of his recollection.

A professional colleague who has known Applicant for approximately thirty years, first as another military officer and more recently since December 1997 as a co-worker, has observed Applicant handle national security matters appropriately. On the four occasions where they have socialized since renewing their acquaintance in December 1997, Applicant has not consumed any alcohol. He regards Applicant as an "asset" to security.

POLICIES

The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept. All available, reliable information about the person, past and present, is to be taken into account in reaching a decision as to whether a person is an acceptable security risk. Enclosure 2 to the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be carefully considered according to the pertinent criterion in making the overall common sense determination required. Each adjudicative decision must also include an assessment of the seriousness, recency, frequency and motivation for an applicant's conduct; the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the circumstances or consequences involved; the age of the applicant; the absence or presence of rehabilitation, the potential for coercion or duress, and the probability that the conduct will or will not recur in the future. See Directive 5220.6, Section F.3. and Enclosure 2. Because each security case presents its own unique facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed that the factors exhaust the realm of human experience or that the factors apply equally in every case. Moreover, although adverse information concerning a single criterion may not be sufficient for an unfavorable determination, the individual may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility or emotionally unstable behavior.

Considering the evidence as a whole, this Administrative Judge finds the following adjudicative guidelines to be most pertinent to this case:

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

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:

(1) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence

(3) diagnosis by a credentialed medical professional⁽¹⁾ of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence

(4) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment

(5) consumption of alcohol, subsequent to a diagnosis of alcoholism by a credentialed medical professional and following completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program

Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

(3) positive changes in behavior supportive of sobriety

(4) following diagnosis of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence, the individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation along with aftercare requirements, participates frequently in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar organization, abstained from alcohol for a period of at least 12 months, and received a favorable prognosis by a credentialed medical professional.

* * *

Under the provisions of Executive Order 10865 as amended and the Directive, a decision to grant or continue an applicant's clearance may be made only upon an affirmative finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest. In reaching the fair and impartial overall common sense determination required, the Administrative Judge can only draw those inferences and conclusions which have a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. In addition, as the trier of fact, the Administrative Judge must make critical judgments as to the credibility of witnesses. Decisions under the Directive include consideration of the potential as well as the actual risk that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to properly safeguard classified information.

PERSONAL CONDUCT

Conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.

The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or administrative termination of further processing for security clearance eligibility:

(1) refusal to undergo or cooperate with required security processing, including medical and psychological testing; or

(2) refusal to complete required security forms, releases, or provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying also include:

None.

CRIMINAL CONDUCT

A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

None.

Burden of Proof

Initially, the Government has the burden of proving any controverted fact(s) alleged in the Statement of Reasons. If the Government meets its burden and establishes conduct cognizable as a security concern under the Directive, the burden of persuasion then shifts to the applicant to present evidence in refutation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to demonstrate that, despite the existence of criterion conduct, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.

A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. Where the facts proven by the Government raise doubts about an applicant's judgment, reliability or trustworthiness, the applicant has a heavy burden of persuasion to demonstrate that he is nonetheless security worthy. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988), "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." As this Administrative Judge understands the Court's rationale, doubts are to be resolved against the Applicant.

CONCLUSIONS

Having considered the evidence of record in light of the appropriate legal precepts and factors, and having assessed the credibility of the Applicant, this Judge concludes the following with respect to criteria G, E and J:

A social drinker while in the military, Applicant began to imbibe more alcohol than intended during his last duty assignment when it became apparent he was not going to be promoted to General grade. His consumption increased following his discharge from the military as Applicant turned to alcohol to alleviate the stresses of maintaining a real estate business in a time of economic downturn. By about late 1994, he had started his habit of consuming a pint to a pint and a half of vodka per day and he was feeling adverse physical effects from drinking. Drinking at night to go to sleep, to repeated intoxication and occasional blackouts by June 1995, Applicant admitted himself for detoxification to civilian treatment facility #1 where he was diagnosed as suffering from alcohol dependence and possible alcohol liver disease. Applicant made several attempts to stop drinking over the next eighteen months, admitting himself for detoxification to military hospitals. Applicant continued to drink despite knowledge of the adverse medical and psychological pathological effects of alcohol. After drinking to intoxication on January 20, 1997, Applicant fell and fractured his ribs.

Those to whom classified information is entrusted must be relied on to safeguard this material both during business and non-business hours. The abuse of alcohol to repeated intoxication is incompatible with this duty due to the obvious potential for intentional or inadvertent disclosure when one is under the influence. Given his record of very serious problem drinking to as recently as January 20, 1997, and his failed alcohol treatment efforts,⁽²⁾

Applicant bears a heavy, although not insurmountable, burden to demonstrate reform.

2. As of January 20, 1997, Applicant had undergone detoxification at one civilian and three military treatment facilities and had received alcohol education and counseling under the auspices of treatment facility #3's partial hospitalization service. With the glaring exception of his treatment at military hospital #4 where he was discharged prematurely in order to attend a mandatory walk-through on his home, Applicant complied for the most part with the therapeutic regimens. These programs were not ultimately successful in effecting a significant change in Applicant's drinking behaviors, however. As rehabilitation efforts, they are therefore regarded as failures.

3. In the medical information questionnaire which he completed for DSS, Dr. E indicates Applicant came in with diagnoses of "depression and alcohol abuse." Yet, in response to whether substance abuse was admitted to by Applicant, Dr. E responded, "Yes, alcoholism." See Exhibit 6. Records of treatment facility #6 reflect Dr. D's assessment that Applicant is alcohol dependent.