KEYWORD: Criminal Conduct; Alcohol; Personal Conduct 
DIGEST: Applicant is 44 years old and has worked for his current employer for 25
years. Over the course of the last twenty years, he has been arrested and charged
with criminal conduct five times, four of which involved alcohol, the most recent
being in July 2005. He was also charged with possessing marijuana at the time of
that arrest. He remains on criminal probation until December 2007. When he
completed his security clearance application in November 2005, he intentionally
failed to disclose the marijuana charge. He failed to mitigate the Criminal Conduct,
Alcohol Consumption and Personal Conduct security concerns. He mitigated the
Drug Involvement security concerns. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-23965.h1
DATE: 07/17/2007
DATE:  July 17, 2007
)
In re:
)
)
---------------------
)
ISCR Case No. 06-23965
SSN:  --------------
) 
)
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
SHARI DAM
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Robert E. Coacher, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
On August 30, 2006, the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) published a memorandum directing1
application of revised Adjudicative Guideline to all adjudications and other determinations made under the Directive
and Department of Defense (DoD) Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program  (Regulation), dated January 1987,
as amended, in which the SOR was issued on or after September 1, 2006.
James H. Shoemaker, Jr., Esq.
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is 44 years old and has worked for his current employer for 25 years. Over the
course of the last twenty years, he has been arrested and charged with criminal conduct five
times, four of which involved alcohol, the most recent being in July 2005. He was also charged
with possessing marijuana at the time of that arrest. He remains on criminal probation until
December 2007. When he completed his security clearance application in November 2005, he
intentionally failed to disclose the marijuana charge. He failed to mitigate the Criminal Conduct,
Alcohol Consumption and Personal Conduct security concerns. He mitigated the Drug
Involvement security concerns. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 On November 22, 2005, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (e-QIP).  On March 14, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, pursuant to Executive
Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, 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,
modified and revised.  The SOR alleges security concerns under Guidelines J (Criminal1
Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Involvement), and E (Personal Conduct). The
SOR 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 him, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a
clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.
In an answer notarized on April 2, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and
elected to have his case decided at a hearing. On April 18, 2007, the case was assigned to me. A
Notice of Hearing was issued on May 15, 2007, setting the hearing for June 6, 2007. At the
hearing, the Government introduced Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 4 into evidence.
Applicant testified and called two witnesses.  He introduced two exhibits that were marked and
admitted as Applicant Exhibits (AX) A and B without objection.  The record was left open until
June 18, 2007, to give Applicant an opportunity to submit additional exhibits.  On June 13, 2007,
Applicant submitted an exhibit that I marked AX C and admitted without objection by
Department Counsel. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on June 14, 2007.   
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Prior to the commencement of the Government's case, Department Counsel indicated that
he did not intend to produce evidence in support of the allegation contained in SOR ¶ 1.b, which
Applicant denied. That allegation is found in Applicant’s favor.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
 Applicant’s admissions are incorporated as findings of fact. After a complete and
thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the following findings of fact.  
Applicant is 44 years old. He has been married for 16 years.  He has one child and one
stepchild. He has been employed as a sheet metal mechanic with his current employer for 25
years. He refuels a U.S. Naval carrier. (Tr. 25). He has held a security clearance since 1983.  He
is subject to random drug testing as a condition of his job. (Tr. 26).  His last test, in the fall of
2005, was negative. (Tr. 26).
Applicant has been arrested four times for charges related to alcohol consumption. In
September and November 1988, he was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence
of Alcohol (DUI). As a result he was ordered to attend alcohol counseling classes. In September
1992, he was again arrested and charged with DUI. He attended inpatient treatment for one
month and subsequently attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) for one year. (Tr. 52-53). He
also lost his driver’s license for seven years and had to find alternate means of transportation to
get to work. (Tr. 43). He stopped attending AA because he believed he had the problem “under
control.” (Tr. 53).
Applicant essentially maintained sobriety from 1992 until 2005. During that time, he
drank on about five occasions, once when his father died in 1997. (Tr. 29; 45). 
In July 2005, Applicant was arrested and charged with Misdemeanor DUI and
Misdemeanor Possession of Marijuana-First Offense.  He was found guilty of the DUI and
sentenced to 60 days incarceration, suspended, fined $350, and ordered to pay $66 in court cost.
He was placed on unsupervised probation for two years. His driver’s license was restricted for
one year and he was only permitted to drive to work or AA. (Tr. 44). He was also ordered to
attend an alcohol-counseling program for 16 weeks. He successfully completed the alcohol
safety action program in December 2006, but remains on criminal probation until December
2007. (AX C). He tries to attend AA once a week and estimates that he has gone at least 50 times
over the last year. (Tr. 58). He does not have a sponsor, despite recognizing that it would be a
good idea. (Tr. 59). He goes to church regularly. (Tr. 47-48). The marijuana charge was nolle
prossed.
Prior to this arrest, Applicant and his wife became embroiled in a serious argument that
arose from the accumulated stress of caring for his 44-year-old developmentally disabled sister-
in-law, who has lived with them since 2004. (Tr. 31).  After he left the house, he went to a local
bar and “went on a drinking binge.” (Tr. 32). While at the bar, one of the other patrons gave him
some marijuana. He did not purchase it. (Tr. 42).  On his way to his sister’s home that night, he
was stopped by the police for erratic driving, at which time the police discovered the marijuana.
He did not use the marijuana, but intended to. (Tr. 31-34; 39; 60).  He has not used alcohol since
that night, and has no intention of every using drugs or alcohol again. (Tr. 35).  He knows he did
not handle the situation with his wife very well. (Tr. 31).
 
Applicant admitted that he used marijuana in the 1980’s and once in 1992 after he had an
argument with his wife. The last time he used it was in 1997 when his dad died.  (Tr. 28). He
acknowledged using it after obtaining a security clearance in 1983. (Tr. 39).
Although Applicant disclosed his alcohol arrests in the SF 86, he did not list the 2005
marijuana charge on his SF 86.  He admitted that he intentionally omitted it because he was very
embarrassed and ashamed of his conduct. He knew the information would be discovered. (Tr.
48-49; 61).  He is very “sorry for not telling the truth.” (Tr. 37).  He understands that future use
of alcohol or drugs could adversely affect his job and family. (Tr. 38). He disclosed his problem
to his supervisor, wife and stepson. (Tr. 61).  In his answer, he admitted the allegations contained
in SOR ¶¶ 4.a and 4. b pertaining to the falsification of the SF 86.
 Applicant’s wife testified.  She does not allow alcohol in their home. She is aware of her
husband’s alcohol problem.  To the best of her knowledge, he has not consumed alcohol since
the 2005 arrest. He is a very good husband and father.  He has been very helpful with her sister
since she moved in.  She was unaware that her husband ever used marijuana in the past. (Tr. 77).
Applicant’s supervisor testified. He has a security clearance. He has known Applicant
since 1982 and has supervised him for about eight to ten years. He is aware of Applicant’s
previous marijuana use and current problems. (Tr. 68). He considers Applicant to be a very
reliable employee. (Tr. 65). He has no reason to believe Applicant poses a national security risk,
as there have not been any complaints of him mishandling confidential or classified information
over the years. (Tr. 69). 
 
POLICIES
In an evaluation of an applicant’s security suitability, an administrative judge must
consider the “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility For Access to Classified
Information” (Guidelines). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the
adjudicative Guidelines are divided into Disqualifying Conditions (DC) and Mitigating
Conditions (MC), which are used to determine an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified
information.
These Guidelines are not inflexible ironclad rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge should apply these Guidelines in
conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. Guideline ¶ 2. An administrative
judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. Because
the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole
person concept,” an administrative judge should consider all available, reliable information
about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. Guideline ¶
2(c).
Specifically, an administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at Guideline ¶ 2(a): “(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the
 “Substantial evidence [is] such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might  accept as adequate to2
support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.”  ISCR Case No. 04-11463 at 2 (App. Bd.
Aug. 4, 2006) (citing Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1).  “This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the
possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [a Judge’s] finding from
being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). 
“Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area
Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4  Cir. 1994).th
“The Administrative Judge [considers] the record evidence as a whole, both favorable and unfavorable,3
evaluate[s] Applicant’s past and current circumstances in light of pertinent provisions of the Directive, and decide[s]
whether Applicant ha[s] met his burden of persuasion under Directive ¶ E3.1.15.”  ISCR Case No. 04-10340 at 2
(App. Bd. July 6, 2006). 
frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the
conduct; (5) extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent 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.”
Since the protection of the national security is the paramount consideration, the final
decision in each case is arrived at by applying the standard that “[a]ny doubt concerning
personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of
national security.” Guideline ¶ 2(b). In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those
conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on the evidence contained in the record.
Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
In the decision-making process, facts must be established by “substantial evidence.”  The2
Government initially has the burden of producing evidence to establish a case which
demonstrates, in accordance with the Directive, that it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue an applicant’s access to classified information. Once the
Government has produced substantial evidence of a disqualifying condition, the burden shifts to
Applicant to produce evidence and prove a mitigating condition. Directive ¶ E3.1.15 provides,
“The applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain,
extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and
[applicant] has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”
The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case
No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).3
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship
with the government predicated upon trust and confidence. It is a relationship that transcends
normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours as well. It is because of this special
relationship the government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those
individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions under this Directive
include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk an applicant may deliberately or
inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain
degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise
of classified information.
 
The scope of an administrative judge’s decision is limited.  Nothing in this Decision
should be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express
or implied determination as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism.  Executive Order
10865, § 7. 
See generally, e.g. ISCR Case No. 98-0394 at 4 (App. Bd. June 10, 1999) (Although the passage of three years since
19
Applicant’s last act of misconduct did not, standing alone, compel the Judge to apply CC MC 1, as a matter of law, the
Judge erred by failing to give an explanation why he did not apply that mitigating condition.). 
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate
legal precepts, factors, and conditions, including those described briefly above, I conclude the
following with respect to the allegations set forth in the SOR:
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct
Guideline ¶ 30 articulates the Government’s concern concerning criminal
conduct stating, “[c]riminal 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.”
Based on the evidence, the Government raised a security concern under three
Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions: “a single serious crime or multiple lesser
offenses,” an “allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted,” and the “individual
is currently on parole or probation.” Guideline ¶¶ 31(a), (c), and (d).  Applicant was
arrested and convicted of five criminal charges, and arrested for possession of
marijuana, which was not prosecuted. He is currently on probation until December
2007. 
T he  G o vernment  p ro d uced  sub s tan t ia l  ev idence  o f these  th ree  d i sq ua l ifying  co nd it io ns , and
the  bu rden  sh if ted  to  A pp licant  to  p roduce  ev idence  and  p rove  a  mit iga ting  cond it ion .  T wo  C r imina l
C o nd uc t  M it iga t ing  C o nd it io ns a re  po ten t ia l ly  ap p l icab le  und er  G uide l ine  ¶  3 2  and  the  fac ts  o f  th is
pa r ticu la r  case :
(a )  so  m uch t ime  has e lapsed  s ince  the  c r imina l  b ehav io r  happened ,  o r  i t  happ ened
und e r suc h unusua l c irc um sta nc es  tha t i t  is  un like ly to  re cur  and  d o e s  no t  ca st  d o ub t
o n  the  ind iv id ua l’s  re l iab i l i ty ,  trustwo r th iness,  o r  go o d  judgm ent;  and
(d)  the re  is  ev id ence  o f success fu l  rehab i li ta t io n ;  inc lud ing  bu t  no t  l im ited  to  the
p a ssa ge  o f t im e  w itho ut  re curre nc e  o f c r im ina l ac tiv i ty ,  re m o rse  o r  re st i tu t io n ,  jo b
tra ining  o r  h igher  ed uca t ion ,  go o d  em p loym ent  reco rd ,  o r  co nstruc t ive  co m m unity
invo lvem ent .
There are no “bright line” rules for determining when a crime is “recent.”  If11
the evidence shows “a significant period of time has passed without any evidence of
misconduct,” then an administrative judge must determine whether that period of
time demonstrates “changed circumstances or conduct sufficient to warrant a finding
of reform or rehabilitation.” Id. Applicant’s last SOR-alleged criminal conduct was
in July, 2005, approximately two years before his hearing. This serious misconduct
is too recent to merit application of Guideline ¶ 32(a), given his previous history of
alcohol problems.  Additionally, the circumstances leading to his alcohol
consumption related to on-going family stresses, which cannot be considered to be
entirely out of the ordinary or unusual as contemplated under this condition.
G uid e l ine  ¶  32 (d)  has  l im ited  ap p lica t io n  as  the re  is  som e ev id ence  o f success fu l
rehab i l ita t ion .  App lican t  pa id  his  f in e ,  suc cessfu l ly  co m p le ted  the  a lco ho l  co unse l ing  c lasse s  in
D ecem b er  2 0 0 6 ,  per io d ica l ly  a t tend s  A A , and  has  a  go o d  em p lo ym ent  reco rd .   H o wev e r ,  h e  remains
on  p roba tion ,  and  hence  is  unab le  to  dem onstra te  successfu l rehab i l i ta t ion  unti l  he  is  comp le te s  tha t
te rm  and  is  re leased  from  the  co urt  system . 
Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption
Guideline ¶ 21 articulates the Government’s concern about 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 raised a security concern under this Guideline.  Applicant
has been arrested and charged four times for incidents that were related to alcohol
consumption: twice in 1988, once in 1992, and once in 2005.  Those charges
established a disqualification under Guideline ¶ 22(a): “alcohol-related incidents
away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse
abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the
individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.”
After reviewing all four of the Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions
under this Guideline, I conclude Guideline ¶ 23(b) provides some mitigation. It is
applicable when “an individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of
alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has
established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an
alcohol abuser).” Applicant acknowledged that he has had an alcohol problem for
some time and has received treatment for it in 1992 and 2005. Over the last year, he
thinks he has attended AA about 50 times although he has not obtained a sponsor,
normally an integral part of the recovery program. Although he has not consumed
alcohol in two years, that length of sobriety is not sufficient to establish a pattern of
abstinence required under this condition, given his recent serious relapse after 13
years.  
Guideline H: Drug Involvement
Guideline ¶ 24 sets forth the Government’s concern about drug involvement:
“Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may impair judgment and
because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with
laws, rules, and regulations.”  
The Government raised a disqualification under Guideline ¶ 25(c): “illegal
drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or
distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia.” Based on his admission that he
used it while holding a security clearance, the Government also established a case
under Guideline ¶ 25(g): “any illegal drug use after being granted a security
clearance.”
 Applicant admitted in his answer and during his testimony that he previously
used marijuana and possessed it at the time of his arrest in July 2005, intending to
use it.  He vigorously stated that he has no intention of ever using it again, realizing
the problems it has created for him and his employment situation. That assertion,
along with his tremendous embarrassment over the situation, is sufficient to trigger
the application of the mitigating condition set forth in Guideline ¶ 26(b): “a
demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future.” I  d o  n o t  b e l i e v e  h e  w i l l
use it again.
Guideline E: Personal Conduct
Guideline ¶ 15 articulates the Government’s concern about 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.”
Based on Applicant’s candid admissions that he intentionally withheld
information from his e-QIP, the Government established a Personal Conduct
Disqualifying Condition under Guideline ¶ 16(a): “deliberate omission, concealment,
or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal
history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine
employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.”
I reviewed the seven Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions, and conclude
two of them provide some mitigation. (1) Guideline ¶ 17(d) is applicable when “the
individual has acknowledged the behaviour and obtained counselling to change the
behaviour or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or
factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behaviour, and
such behaviour is unlikely to recur.” In this case, Applicant’s sincere
acknowledgement of his wrongful conduct is noteworthy. However, he did not
present evidence of counselling for the underlying behaviour that lead to the
misrepresentation or of other positive steps taken to alleviate the stressor or factors
causing the problem, which is necessary to support the entire application of the
condition. (2) He disclosed his wrongful conduct to his wife and supervisor,
indicating that he “has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress,”  and warranting the application of Guideline
¶ 17(e).  
“Whole Person” Analysis
In addition to the enumerated disqualifying and mitigating conditions, I have
considered the general adjudicative Guideline related to the whole person concept
under Guideline ¶ 2(a). As noted above, Applicant’s 2005 arrest and subsequent
falsification of his SF 86 are sufficiently serious to raise a security concern. His
actions were knowledgeable and voluntary. His crime occurred in July 2005 and he
remains on probation. He is 44 years old, sufficiently mature to be fully responsible
for his conduct. The motivation for his criminal offense was the culmination of
See ISCR Case No. 04-06242 at 2 (App. Bd. June 28, 2006). 11
stress related to his family situation and the reason for the falsification related to his
underlying embarrassment and disappointment with himself. His conduct in both
situations was not prudent or responsible.  These offenses “create doubt about [his]
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness, [and] call into question [his] ability or
willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.”
 
Applicant presented some mitigating evidence, but not enough to mitigate all of
the disqualifying conditions. He was extremely forthright and remorseful during his
testimony about his alcohol problems and his shame over his drug involvement and
failure to tell the truth about it.  He is hard-working and dedicated to his job and
employer.  He appears to be a good family man, and has obviously assumed a
tremendous burden in caring for his disabled sister-in-law.  All of those facts attenuate
the SOR allegations.
However, they are not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised, in
particular, by his alcohol relapse and falsification. Although Applicant did not
experience any alcohol related incidents for about 13 years, his relapse in 2005 was
significant. Not only did he attempt to drive while inebriated, but he was willing to
smoke marijuana after a long hiatus. Clearly, his alcohol problems are not minor and
potentially dangerous.  Although he participated in treatment in 1992 and attended AA
for one year, he stopped because he thought the problem was “under control.” 
While I believe Applicant is committed to sobriety, I find that he has not
presented sufficient independent evidence of participation in a recovery program at
this time to support his assertion that he will never drink again.  Until he documents a
pattern of solid ongoing participation in a program and addresses the stressors at home
that triggered his relapse (possibly with professional assistance), I am concerned that
he may backslide again.  I also believe that as he continues with his recovery work, the
likelihood that the falsification conduct would recur is minimal. Unfortunately, his
rehabilitative efforts to-date have not sufficiently removed my doubts about his good
judgment, as related to the concerns raised under Guidelines G and E.  Until he is
released from criminal probation, the security concerns raised under Guideline J
remain.  He has however, mitigated those raised under Guideline H.  
I take this position based on the law, as set forth in Department of Navy v.
Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), my “careful consideration of the whole person factors”11
and supporting evidence, my application of the pertinent factors under the
Adjudicative Process, and my interpretation of my  responsibilities under the
Guidelines. Applicant has not mitigated or overcome the Government’s case. For the
reasons stated, I conclude he is not eligible for access to classified information.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the
SOR, as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:         
Paragraph 1, Guideline J:  AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b:           For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.c-1.f: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
      Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
      Subparagraph 3.a: For Applicant
                Subparagraph 3.b: For Applicant
Paragraph 4, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
       Subparagraph 4.a: Against Applicant
                          Subparagraph 4.b: 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 eligibility for a
security clearance for Applicant.  Clearance is denied.
Shari Dam
Administrative Judge