KEYWORD: Personal Conduct; Alcohol; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is a 49-year-old senior structural designer employed by a defense contractor.
Between 1983 and 2001, he was convicted of six offenses, which included a felony and five alcohol
related offenses, including a DWI. In 2003, he deliberately failed to disclose in his security clearance
application his convictions and the full extent of his alcohol related treatment. Applicant failed to
present sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns raised by his criminal conduct, alcohol
consumption, and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 04-12279.h1
DATE: 05/23/2007
DATE:  May 23, 2007
In re:
-----------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 04-12279
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JUAN J. RIVERA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
John Bayard Glendon, Esquire
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
  See Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960, as amended,1
and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Jan.
2, 1992) (Directive), as amended. On August 30, 2006, the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) published a
memorandum directing application of revised adjudicative guidelines (Guidelines) to all adjudications and other
determinations made under the Directive in which the SOR was issued on or after September 1, 2006. 
  Government Exhibit (GE) 3 (Applicant’s answer to the SOR).2
  The motion was included in the FORM. The text of the new allegations is as follow: “SOR ¶¶ 2.b You were3
arrested on or about August 22, 1993, in Warwick, Rhode Island, and charged with Domestic Assault and Domestic
Disorderly Conduct. You pleaded nolo contendere to both counts. You were intoxicated at the time.” “SOR ¶¶ 2.c That
information set forth in subparagraphs 1.a.(1), 1.b.(1), 1.b.(2), 1.b.(3), 1.c.(1), 1.c.(2), and 1.c.(3).” 
2
Applicant is a 49-year-old senior structural designer employed by a defense contractor.
Between 1983 and 2001, he was convicted of six offenses, which included a felony and five alcohol
related offenses, including a DWI. In 2003, he deliberately failed to disclose in his security clearance
application his convictions and the full extent of his alcohol related treatment. Applicant failed to
present sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns raised by his criminal conduct, alcohol
consumption, and personal conduct. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 10, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The SOR
informed Applicant that, based on information available to the government, DOHA adjudicators
could not make a preliminary affirmative finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant him access to classified information.  On November 11, 2006, Applicant answered the SOR1
(Answer),  and requested a clearance decision based on the written record without a hearing. 2
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) which was mailed to
Applicant on March 13, 2007. He acknowledged receipt of the FORM on March 21, 2007, did not
object to anything contained in the FORM, and submitted additional information for consideration
within the 30-day time period provided to him. The case was assigned to me on April 30, 2007.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
The government moved to amend SOR ¶ 2, by adding ¶¶ 2.b, and 2.c.  Applicant did not3
object to the motion and failed to answer the new allegations. I granted the government’s motion
without objection.
FINDINGS OF FACT
  GE 4 (Office of Personnel Management Security Clearance Application (SF86), dated May 1, 2003), unless4
indicated otherwise, is the source for the facts in this paragraph.
  GE 4, question 31.5
  GE 8.6
  GE 9.7
  GE 11.8
  GE 5.9
3
Applicant admitted all SOR allegations with explanations, except for amended SOR ¶¶ 2.b,
and 2.c, which he failed to answer. I considered ¶¶ 1.a - 1.f (all Guideline E allegations), denied,
because he denied providing false information with the deliberate intent to mislead the government.
I also considered the additional allegations, ¶¶ 2.b, and 2.c, denied. His admissions and explanations
are incorporated herein as findings of fact. 
After a thorough review of the pleadings, Applicant’s response to the FORM, and the FORM
evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is a 49-year-old senior structural designer.  He has worked for a defense contractor4
since 1979. He has had access to classified information at the secret level since March 1989.5
Applicant married his first wife in August 1980, and they were divorced in February 1998. He has
three children for whom he provides support. He disclosed no education beyond junior high school.
All the SOR allegations are based on the following facts and behavior:
In November 1983, Applicant was charged with second degree sexual assault, a felony.  He6
pled nolo contendere to assault with intent to commit sexual assault, a felony. He was found guilty
and sentenced to serve one year at a correctional institution (suspended), to pay court costs, and
placed on two-years probation.
In August 1993, Applicant had been drinking and was involved in an altercation with his
wife. He was charged with domestic assault and domestic disorderly conduct. He pled nolo
contendere to both charges.  7
In December 1996, Applicant had been drinking and was involved in an altercation with his
wife. He pled nolo contendere to the charge of domestic assault and battery. The court found him
guilty and sentenced him, among other things, to undergo domestic violence counseling, to continue
his alcohol counseling, and placed him on one-year probation.  His then wife tried to stop him from8
drinking and he refused to do so. After he assaulted his wife in 1996, she filed for divorce.
In 1997, he drove his car after consuming alcoholic beverages. He was charged with driving
while intoxicated (DWI) after failing a Breathalyzer Test. As part of a prosecution deferment
program for first time alcohol offenders, the court allowed Applicant to enter into a pretrial alcohol
education program. He signed in the first day of the program and never returned.  He failed to9
complete the alcohol treatment program.
  GE 6 (Applicant’s March 2004 statement), and GE 13.10
  GE 19, (Hospital records, with an admission date of 5/24/00 - 5/31/00. The records indicate Applicant has11
a long and extensive history of alcohol dependence since age 12, consuming up to a case of beer on a day, and
undergoing detoxification treatment in 1986).
  GE 15 and 16.12
  GE 17.13
  GE 18.14
4
In January 2000, Applicant consumed alcoholic beverages and was involved in an altercation
with his new live-in girlfriend.  He pled nolo contendere to domestic assault. The court found him10
guilty and sentenced him, among other things, to serve one year at a correctional institution
(suspended), and placed him on one-year probation with the condition that he undergo domestic
violence counseling and substance abuse counseling. 
From May 22, 2000 to May 31, 2000, Applicant underwent inpatient treatment for alcohol
detoxification and was admitted into a hospital alcohol and drug program. He was diagnosed with
“alcohol dependence, acute, and current.”  He then received alcohol treatment from approximately11
June 7, 2000, to January 8, 2001. During that period of time, he tested positive for alcohol in July
2000, and was involved in the two alcohol related offenses listed in the next two paragraphs. After
undergoing intensive alcohol treatment from July 25, 2000 to August 7, 2000, Applicant continued
to consume alcoholic beverages. From October 2000 to February 2001, Applicant underwent
treatment with a physician who diagnosed him with alcohol dependence. Applicant failed to
complete his alcohol treatment program. From April to June 2001, Applicant received outpatient and
impatient residential alcohol treatment for his alcohol dependence.
In July 2000, Applicant drove his car after consuming alcoholic beverages. He was stopped
by police officers and charged with refusing to submit to a chemical test, operating an unregister
vehicle, and a lane roadway violation. He was convicted of refusing to submit to a chemical test.12
The court sentence him to pay a fine, to pay court costs, to complete a DWI program, to perform
community service, his driver’s license was suspended, and placed him on probation.
In January 2001, while serving probation, Applicant drove his car after consuming alcoholic
beverages. He was involved in a car accident and left the scene of the accident. He was charged with
probation violation and leaving the scene of an accident. His probation was revoked.  He was found13
guilty of leaving the scene of an accident and sentenced to serve six months at a correctional
institution.  The sentence was suspended on the condition that he undergo residential alcohol14
treatment, serve two months home confinement, and comply with the terms of his one-year
probation.
In his May 2003 security clearance application, Applicant answered “No” to question 21,
which asked whether he had ever been charged with or convicted of any felony offense. Applicant
failed to disclose that in 1983 he was charged with second degree sexual assault, a felony offense,
and that he was found guilty of a felony offense, i.e., assault with intent to commit sexual assault.
(SOR ¶1.a.1). In his answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that his failure to disclose the information
  GE 19.15
  GE 5.16
5
was not deliberate. He claimed that in 2003, he told a background investigator that he did not
disclose the information because he believed the felony charge had been reduced to a misdemeanor.
Applicant answered “No” to question 24, which asked whether he had ever been charged
with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs. Applicant failed to disclose his 1997
DWI charge/conviction; his July 2000 charge and conviction for failure to submit to a chemical test;
and his January 2001 charges/conviction for probation violation (consuming alcoholic beverages)
and leaving the scene of an accident. 
Applicant also answered “No” to question 26, which asked whether in the last seven years
he had been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense(s) not listed elsewhere in the SF
86. Applicant failed to disclose he was arrested, charged, and found guilty of three different offenses,
i.e., domestic assault both in December 1996 and January 2000, and for leaving the scene of an
accident in January 2001. Applicant claimed his failure to disclose the information was not deliberate
because he did not know what to answer at the time he completed the security clearance application.
Applicant also answered “Yes” to question 30, which asked whether in the last seven years
his use of alcoholic beverages resulted in any alcohol-related treatment or counseling. Applicant
disclosed he received treatment from April 2000 to July 2000 at one institution. He failed to disclose,
however, inpatient treatment for alcohol detoxification at other hospital from May 22 to May 31,
2000; that he received additional alcohol treatment at two other institutions by qualified medical
professionals from approximately June 2000 to January 2001; and that he underwent outpatient and
impatient residential alcohol treatment from April 2001 to June 2001. Applicant also failed to
disclose alcohol detoxification treatment he received in 1986.15
In August 2003, Applicant was interviewed and provided a written, sworn statement to a
government background investigator.  During the interview, he was asked to disclose any adverse16
contacts with law enforcement officials. He disclosed his 1996 charge/conviction for domestic
assault, his 1997 DWI, and his 2001 conviction for leaving the scene of an accident. He failed to
disclose, however, his 1983 felony charge/conviction for assault with intent to commit a sexual
assault, his 2000 charge/conviction for refusal to submit to a chemical test, and his 2000
charge/conviction for domestic assault. Applicant claimed his omissions were not deliberate, because
he believed his 1983 felony charge had been reduced to a misdemeanor. He did not explain why he
failed to disclose the other two convictions. During the interview, he claimed he has not consumed
alcoholic beverages since June 2001 to the day of the interview. He explained that when he used to
drink, he did not drink regularly or on a daily basis, but from time to time he would go on weekend
drinking binges.
In his February 2005 response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant stated that the last day
he consumed alcoholic beverages was in August 2000. Applicant’s last consumption of alcohol was
at least on January 5, 2001, when he consumed alcoholic beverages, was involved in a car accident,
and left the scene of the accident. He explained he made an honest mistake and reported the wrong
date (the date he was released from treatment), and that he did not intend to mislead the government.
  Directive, Section 6.3. “Each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination17
based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy
in enclosure 2 . . .”
  Directive, ¶ 2(a). “. . . The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as18
the whole person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable,
should be considered in reaching a determination. . . .” The whole person concept includes the consideration of the
nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; the
extent to which participation was voluntary; the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and the likelihood
of continuation or recurrence. . .” 
  See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).19
  ISCR Case No. 98-0761 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 27, 1999) (Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less20
than a preponderance of the evidence.); ISCR Case No. 02-12199 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 3, 2006) (Substantial evidence
is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the
contrary evidence in the record.); Directive, ¶ E3.1.32.1.
6
Applicant expressed remorse numerous times, stating that he was sorry for his past behavior,
and for providing the wrong information in his security clearance application. He claimed he has not
been in trouble during the last six years, and asked that his past mistakes not be considered against
him. He averred he is reliable, truthful, a hard-worker, and a good person. There is no evidence he
has mishandled or caused the compromise of classified information while employed by a defense
contractor. Applicant highlighted that he has been working for his current employer for the last 28
years, and that he needed his job to support his children.
POLICIES
The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be considered in evaluating an
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Foremost are the Disqualifying and
Mitigating conditions under each adjudicative guideline applicable to the facts and circumstances
of the case. However, the guidelines are not viewed as inflexible ironclad rules of law. The presence
or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative of a conclusion for or
against an Applicant. Each decision must also reflect a fair and impartial common sense
consideration of the factors listed in Section 6.3 of the Directive,  and the whole person concept.17 18
Having considered the record evidence as a whole, I conclude Guideline J (Criminal Conduct),
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) are the applicable relevant
adjudicative guidelines.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The purpose of a security clearance decision is to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified
information.  The government has the initial burden of proving controverted facts alleged in the19
SOR. To meet its burden, the government must establish a prima facie case by substantial evidence.20
  Egan, supra n.10, at 528, 531.21
  See Id; Directive Enclosure 2, ¶ 2(b).22
  Guidelines ¶ 30. Hereinafter, the particular paragraph of the Guidelines will be cited as part of the relevant23
disqualifying and mitigating condition. See n.1 supra.
  It is a criminal offense to knowingly and willfully make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent24
statement or representation, or knowingly make or use a false writing in any matter within the jurisdiction of the
executive branch of the Government of the United States. Security clearances are within the jurisdiction of the executive
branch of the Government of the United States. Egan, 484 U.S. at 527 (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 1001). 
  ISCR Case No. 04-09959 at 3 ( App. Bd. May 19, 2006).25
7
The responsibility then shifts to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant carries the burden of persuasion.21
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the government based on trust and confidence. The government, therefore, has a compelling interest
to ensure each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability and trustworthiness of one who
will protect the national interests as his or her own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access to
classified information in favor of protecting national security.22
CONCLUSIONS
Since this case is being decided without a hearing, my evaluation is necessarily limited to the
contents of the various documents in the case file.
Under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.  The government established its case23
under Guideline J by showing that Applicant was convicted for seven offenses between 1983 and
2001, including a conviction for a felony offense. I also find, as discussed below under Guideline
E, that Applicant deliberately falsified his 2003 security clearance application. His falsification of
the SF 86 is a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001, a felony.  Disqualifying Condition (DC) 31(a): a single24
serious crime or multiple lesser offenses and DC 31(c): allegation or admission of criminal conduct
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted, apply.
Applicant’s past behavior, from 1983 to 2003, forms a pattern of criminal activity. His
falsification brings to the forefront the criminal conduct and alcohol consumption concerns raised
by his past behavior. I am required to consider Applicant’s overall questionable behavior when
evaluating the seriousness of the conduct alleged in the SOR to determine factors such as the extent
to which his behavior is recent; the likelihood of recurrence; Applicant’s explanations concerning
the circumstances of the incidents alleged; and his rehabilitation.25
Under the totality of the circumstances, I find Applicant’s criminal behavior is recent and not
isolated. Applicant engaged in criminal misconduct over a period of at least 20 years, from the time
  I specifically considered Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition (MC) 32(a): so much time has elapsed since26
the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does
not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and MC 32(d): there is evidence of
successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity,
remorse or restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community
involvement.
  Guidelines ¶ 21.27
  In his answer to the FORM, Applicant stated “last year I went back to “KH” (institution) for a revelation to28
get my drivers license back.” It is not clear from Applicant’s evidence whether he has been sober since 2001 or if he had
a relapse. 
8
he was 25 until he was 45. The available evidence indicates he has not been involved in criminal
misconduct since 2003. However, considering his 20-year history of criminal behavior, the nature
and seriousness of his misconduct, his falsification of the SF 86, and his prolonged, disregard for the
law, I find his favorable information (i.e., good employee records, change in lifestyle, and remorse)
is not sufficient to mitigate the Guideline J security concerns. His behavior raises questions about
his ability and willingness to follow the law, and ultimately, to protect classified information. His
falsification weighs against a finding of rehabilitation and positive behavioral changes. I find that
none of the mitigating conditions apply.  Guideline J is decided against Applicant.26
Under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), excessive alcohol consumption often leads to
the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.  The government established its case under27
Guideline G by showing that from 1983 to 2001, he was charged/convicted for six alcohol-related
incidents, including a DWI conviction. Applicant abused alcohol, and that resulted in his exercising
questionable judgment. Guideline G Disqualifying Condition (DC) 22(a): alcohol-related incidents
away from work, such as driving while under the influence . . . applies. 
There is no evidence that Applicant has been involved in any alcohol-related misconduct
since January 2001. As such, Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition (AC MC) 23(a): so much
time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment, may apply. 
Notwithstanding, the record establishes Applicant was diagnosed with acute alcohol
dependence several times, and underwent repeated alcohol rehabilitation treatment numerous times.
Considering Applicant’s lengthy abuse of alcohol, the number of alcohol-related incidents, and the
seriousness of his alcohol-related misconduct, he has failed to provide sufficient information as to
his current level of alcohol use to show he is now a responsible user.  Nor does the available28
evidence establish a favorable diagnosis or prognosis for the Applicant, or that he has no alcohol
related problems. In light of the extent of Applicant’s alcohol related behavior, the passage of time
since 2001, alone, is not sufficient to show that his past behavior is not likely to recur, or to show
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Under the totality of the circumstances, I conclude
that Applicant’s favorable information is not sufficient to mitigate the alcohol consumption security
concerns. I find that none of the mitigating conditions apply. 
  Guidelines ¶ 15.29
9
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of
candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about
an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Of special
interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process
or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.29
Applicant admitted he failed to disclose relevant information in his answers to SF 86
questions 21, 24, and 26. He further admitted providing false information to a defense investigator
in 2003. In light of Applicant’s admissions, age, length of employment, the number of incidents that
he failed to disclose, the seriousness of those incidents, the circumstances surrounding those
incidents, and the fact he has had access to classified information since 1989, I find Applicant’s
omissions were deliberate and made with the intent to mislead the government. Disqualifying
Conditions (DC) 16(a): deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel security questionnaire . . ., DC 16(b): deliberately providing false or misleading
information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent
medical authority, or other official government representative; and DC 16(e): personal conduct or
concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation, or duress . . ., apply.
Concerning SOR ¶ 1.f, I find for Applicant. He disclosed his 2001 alcohol-related incident
in his 2003 statement to a defense investigator. Thus, I considered Applicant’s failure to provide the
correct date he last consumed alcohol an oversight.
I specifically considered all Guideline E Mitigating Conditions (MC) and conclude that none
apply. Although the falsification occurred in 2003, considering the totality of the circumstances in
Applicant’s case, the passage of time alone is not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised
by his behavior. Furthermore, he presented no evidence that he has reduced his vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress. Additionally, for the same reasons outlined above under the
discussions of Guidelines J and G incorporated herein, I conclude none of the MCs apply. Guideline
E is decided against Applicant.
I have carefully weighed all evidence, and I applied the disqualifying and mitigating
conditions as listed under the applicable adjudicative guidelines. I specifically considered
Applicant’s age, the lack of any misconduct or questionable behavior since 2003, his 28 years
working for a defense contractor, and his positive changes in behavior since 2003. As previously
discussed, Applicant’s overall past behavior forms a pattern of disturbing criminal activity and
alcohol abuse with significant adverse security implications. His falsifications bring to the forefront
the criminal conduct, drug use, and alcohol abuse concerns raised by his past behavior. His failure
to provide truthful answers in his security clearance application shows he cannot be trusted, and
show a serious lack of judgment. Applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to mitigate the
overall judgment and trustworthiness security concerns raised by his behavior, and the likelihood of
recurrence remains a concern.
10
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings regarding each SOR allegation as required by Directive Section E3.1.25 are
as follows:
Paragraph 1, Personal Conduct (Guideline E) AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.e Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Criminal Conduct (Guideline J) AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.c Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Alcohol Consumption (Guideline G) AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Juan J. Rivera
Administrative Judge