KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct; Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant, a 25 year old engineer, employed since his graduation in 2005 mitigated
security concerns arising from youthful criminal conduct four to eight years ago while in high school
and college by the passage of time and evidence of successful rehabilitation. He also mitigated
financial security concerns arising from less than $4,000 in delinquent debts. He earns $55,000 per
year since his graduation. He paid one of the major debts six months before the hearing and entered
negotiation for the remaining two which now total less than $3,000. He also mitigated allegation of
failure to report as use of an alias the use of a friend’s drivers license without his permission when
his own license was suspended. He credibly established that this was not a deliberate omission.
Clearance is granted. 
CASENO: 06-17579.h1
DATE: 04/11/2007
DATE:  April 11, 2007
In Re:
-----------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-17579
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHARLES D. ABLARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant, a 25 year old engineer, employed since his graduation in 2005 mitigated security
concerns arising from youthful criminal conduct four to eight years ago while in high school and
college by the passage of time and evidence of successful rehabilitation. He also mitigated financial
security concerns arising from less than $4,000 in delinquent debts. He earns $55,000 per year since
his graduation. He paid one of the major debts six months before the hearing and entered negotiation
for the remaining two which now total less than $3,000. He also mitigated allegation of failure to
report as use of an alias the use of a friend’s drivers license without his permission when his own
license was suspended. He credibly established that this was not a deliberate omission. Clearance
is granted. 
STATEMENT OF CASE
On August 31, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, as amended and
modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to 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 Applicant. DOHA recommended the case be
referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued,
denied, or revoked.
On September 18, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations, and requested a
hearing. The matter was assigned to me on January 8, 2007. A notice of hearing was issued on
January 10, 2007, for a hearing on January 26, 2007, and held that day. The government and
Applicant each offered nine exhibits into evidence, and all were accepted. The record was left open
for 30 days. Applicant offered three additional exhibits that were admitted without objection. The
transcript was received on February 6, 2007 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted some and denied some of the SOR allegations relating to criminal
conduct, delinquent debts, and personal conduct with explanatory information for all. After a
complete review of the record, I make the following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is a 25-year-old engineer who has worked for a major defense contractor since
August 2005 after he graduated from a leading U.S. engineering school with an outstanding
academic record. He had a double major in aerospace engineering and physics and is working on a
masters degree while being employed full time. He intends to get a Ph.D. 
Applicant had drug arrests involving possession of marijuana in 1998 when he was 17 years
old and in 2002 when he was 21. The later arrest also involved use of another person’s drivers
licence and placing false information on official documents. He admitted both these arrests and
incidents. He paid fines for both matters (Exh. G). He was also arrested in 1999 when he was 18 and
charged with aggravated assault, resisting arrest, making “terroristic threats” and disorderly conduct.
3
This incident grew out of a dispute with a girl friend whom he threatened to kill. He plead and was
fined $253 for one count of resisting arrest. 
Applicant was alleged in the SOR to have four delinquent debts totaling nearly $4,000
incurred during his student years. He is contesting the smallest debt of $102 for a telephone bill
(SOR ¶ 1.2.a.) but will pay the debt if it cannot be resolved. He has been in contact with the credit
card creditors for two delinquent debts of $1,849 and $877 (SOR ¶ 1.b and c.) He paid the fourth
delinquent debt of $1,452 (SOR ¶ 1.d.) six months before the hearing (Exh. E). He has paid several
other delinquent debts including fines and court costs not alleged in the SOR over the past years both
before and since his present employment. These amounted to several thousand dollars in excess of
those alleged in this matter (Exhs. 7, E, and I).
Applicant used a friend’s drivers license without his permission in connection with his 2002
arrest (SOR 1.a.). He did not have a valid license at that time because his had been suspended for
traffic violations. He did not state this use of another’s name on his Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations (e-QIP) processing for a security clearance in 2005 in response to a question about
using names other than his own as an alias as he did not interpret this conduct as using an “alias”.
Applicant’s background indicates a long struggle with family adversity. He and his brother
were principal care-givers for their mother who was a single mother who suffered from mental
problems. They literally raised themselves. Applicant had behavioral difficulties in his youth with
anger and authority figures. He dropped out of high school in his senior year but obtained his GED
and was admitted to college through a state sponsored special program for educationally and
financially disadvantaged students who show promise. Both he and his brother are graduate
engineers and excelled even beyond the program’s expectations. Both have radically changed their
life-style and have promising careers ahead of them (Exhibit C Post hearing submission). 
The annual salary of Applicant is $55,000. He has no dependents but continues to provide
financial assistance to his mother. His financial obligations consist primarily of monthly rent of $825
and payments on a three year old auto of $512 per month. He has school loans that are deferred
pending completion of his graduate studies. He has adequate funds to resolve his remaining
outstanding delinquent debts and is in the process of doing so. He has been in touch with financial
counseling services but has not yet engaged their services (Exh. B Post hearing submission).
Applicant is highly regarded by his supervisor (Exh. C) who deem him to be an excellent and
well motivated employee. His academic supervisors and deans at his university submitted strong
character and professional recommendations for him extolling his record of achievement, motivation,
and good character (Exhs. A, B, and Post hearing submission C). In addition to his graduate studies,
he serves as a tutor for other students at his university. 
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has “the authority to control access to
4
information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently
trustworthy to occupy a position that will give that person access to such information.” Id. at 527.
An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration
of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and
maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence
of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential
for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when “it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to do so.” Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).
Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the
evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which
disqualify, or may disqualify applicant from being eligible for access to classified information See
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance. “Any doubt as to whether access
to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the
national security.” Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must,
on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate
adjudicative factors, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR:
Security concerns were raised under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) over the three arrests
that occurred four to eight years ago. The allegations could be mitigated by the fact that the criminal
behavior was not recent (E2.A10.1.3.1.), the factors leading to the violations are not likely to recur
(E2.A10.1.3.4), and there is clear evidence of successful rehabilitation (E2.A10.3.6.). He
acknowledged his responsibility for the offenses, paid fines and has since changed his life style and
no longer associates with the same people with whom he knew during that period. I conclude
Applicant’s behavior and is mitigated by the passage of time, his lack of contact with those with
whom he knew in college and his successful rehabilitation. 
Applicant’s four delinquent debts prompted the allegation of security concern under
Guideline F since an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in
illegal acts to generate funds. (E2.A6.1.1.) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying include a history of not meeting financial obligations (E2.A6.1.2.1.) and evidence
of inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. (E2.A6.1.2.3.) 
Mitigating Conditions (MC) include the fact that the conditions that resulted in the behavior
were largely beyond the person’s control (E2.A6.1.3.3.), the person has received or is receiving
counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
5
under control (E2.A6.1.3.4.), and the person has initiated a good faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts. (E2.A6.1.3.6.). 
The evidence that the debts resulted from conditions beyond his control include the fact that
they accumulated during his youthful student days when he had limited income, financial
requirements, and more credit cards than he could manage. He has repaid one of the two
largestdelinquent debts as well as other large debts he incurred in his college years. He has not
engaged credit counseling although he indicated he had a need for those services at the hearing and
in his Post Hearing submission Exh. B. He has been in touch with credit counselors but has not
finalized their services. He intends to do so no matter the outcome of this matter because he
recognizes that he needs to achieve a good credit rating for future endeavors. 
Applicant acknowledged having made financial mistakes and agreed that he must resolve the
remaining debts. He has initiated good faith efforts to repay the creditors and has reduced the
delinquent debt substantially with only approximately $2,700 remaining to two creditors with efforts
to settle or pay those. 
Applicant’s failure to report his use of another person’s drivers license when he was 21years
old as his use of an alias on his e-QIP raised issues under Guideline E that might indicate
questionable judgment, unreliability, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations and
could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information (E2.A5.1.1.).
Specifically, the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from
a personnel security application could raise a security concern and be disqualifying. (E2.A5.1.2.2.)
While the arrest relating to drug possession and use of a false drivers license in 2002 were
serious offenses for someone who had reached maturity, he was found guilty and punished for them
(Exh. 7). Whether he should have realized that the use of the improperly obtained drivers license in
2002 would be deemed by the government as use of an “alias” when filling out his form is
problematic. I find his testimony that he had no intent to falsify to be credible (Tr. 66-67). Thus, I
conclude that the omission of an admission about use of an alias on the application was not
deliberate as required by the guideline and thus mitigated. 
The “whole person” concept recognizes we should view a person by the totality of their acts
and omissions. Each case must be judged on its own merits taking into consideration all relevant
circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. Applicant
established that he is now a hard-working professional whose juvenile conduct several years ago is
now behind him. His debts accumulated during his student days to the point that he had lost control
and account of them but will resolve them satisfactorily now that he has the financial means to do
so. The impressive submissions from his corporate supervisor and his advisors at his university speak
extremely well of him as a person of growth and character. 
In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons
who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns
of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense
assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information. 
After considering all the evidence in its totality, and as an integrated whole to focus on the
6
whole person of Applicant, I conclude a security clearance should be granted. 
FORMAL FINDINGS 
Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:
Paragraph 1. Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d.: For Applicant
Paragraph 3. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b.: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or renew a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is granted.
Charles D. Ablard 
Administrative Judge