DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 07-06999 
 SSN: ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP), on June 27, 2006.  On April 30, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) for Applicant detailing security 
concerns for alcohol consumption, personal conduct, and criminal conduct under 
Guidelines G, E, and J.  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; 
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security 
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised 
adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and 
effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on May 9, 2008. 
  
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing on June 5, 2008.  Applicant denied the 
factual allegations under Guideline G that he consumed alcohol on a daily basis.  He 
admitted the other allegation under guideline G concerning a driving while intoxicated 
offense for which he received non-judicial punishment while on active duty in the Air 
Force.  He admitted three allegations of criminal conduct under Guideline J, and two 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
allegations of personal conduct under Guideline E.  He elected to have the matter 
decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  Department Counsel requested a 
hearing pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.3, and E3.1.7 (Hearing Exhibit 1, request dated 
June 24, 2008).  Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on August 18, 2008, 
and the case was assigned to me on August 19, 2008.  DOHA issued a notice of 
hearing on August 20, 2008, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on September 4, 
2008.  The government offered seven exhibits, marked Gov. Ex. 1-7, which were 
received without objection.  Applicant submitted 11 exhibits, marked App. Ex. A-K, 
which were received without objection.  Applicant testified on his behalf.  DOHA 
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on September 15, 2008.  Based upon a 
review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant testified in response to questions by Department Counsel that he was 
charged with driving while intoxicated in April or May 2008.  He was found guilty of the 
offense on August 19, 2008, and was fined, ordered to complete an alcohol education 
class, and his driver's license was suspended (Tr. 50-55). Based on this information, 
Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR to add the following allegation under 
Paragraph 1, Guideline G: 
 
"In about May 2008, you were charged with driving while under the 
influence in [City and State].  On or about August 19, 2008, you were 
found guilty as charged.  You were sentenced to a fine of $800, ordered to 
complete 12 hours of alcohol education classes, and your license was 
suspended for approximately seven months." 
 
Applicant had no objection to the request and the motion was granted amending the 
SOR to add subparagraph c to Paragraph 1 under Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, 
as stated above. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant is 44 years old and has been an air traffic control specialist and test 
engineer for a defense contractor for two years.  This position does not require him to 
be alcohol free since he is not directly controlling aircraft.  He previously served over 20 
years on active duty with the Air Force as an air traffic controller (Tr. 22-23, 57-58; Gov. 
Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated June 27, 2006).  He received an honorable discharge on April 30, 
2005 (Gov. Ex. 7, DD form 214, dated April 30, 2005). 
 
On August 12, 1999, while stationed in Korea as an air traffic controller, Applicant 
received non-judicial punishment for driving while intoxicated.  He was reduced one 
grade, and restricted to the installation (Tr. 22-23; Gov. Ex. 6, Record of non-judicial 
punishment proceedings, dated August 18, 1999).  He was also required by Air Force 
regulation to attend alcohol counseling classes.  He started those classes in Korea but 
 
3 
 
 
changed duty stations back to the United States before completing the classes.  He was 
told not to consume alcohol because of his duty as an air traffic controller.  He 
participated in some alcohol counseling and abstained from alcohol consumption for 
about a month in Korea after the offense before he resumed the consumption of alcohol 
(Tr. 24-26).   
 
After his change of station to an Air Force base in the United States in early 
2000, Applicant completed alcohol evaluation and counseling and it was determined 
that he was an alcohol abuser.  He was ordered not to drink alcohol because of his 
duties in air traffic control.  His command requested a waiver of the prohibition for him to 
work in air traffic control because of the alcohol abuse diagnosis.  The waiver was 
granted.  Applicant was not to consume any alcohol if he wanted to continue in his 
career field of air traffic control.  Applicant did not consume alcohol for about six 
months, but then started to again consume alcohol.  He did not inform his commander 
that he was drinking alcohol.  In 2004, a subordinate informed Applicant's commander 
that Applicant was harassing subordinates and drinking alcohol.  The commander 
investigated and determined there was no harassment but Applicant admitted to the 
commander that he was drinking alcohol.  He was removed from the duty of direct 
contact and control of aircraft and assigned to administrative functions until he retired in 
early 2005.  While assigned to administrative duties, Applicant continued to drink 
alcohol.  He was not required to refrain from alcohol consumption because he was no 
longer assigned to the duty of controlling aircraft (Tr. 19-36; Gov. Ex. 3, Interrogatories, 
dated March 2, 2007). 
 
Applicant denied that he consumes alcohol on a daily basis (SOR allegation 1.a).  
He did admit that he consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication about two or three 
times a week (Tr. 16-17).  Applicant denies that he is an alcoholic or that he has a 
problem with alcohol consumption.  He has never been advised to stop drinking alcohol 
(Tr. 55-56). 
 
Applicant admitted that he last consumed alcohol the week-end (August 30, 
2008) before the hearing when he attended a wedding.  He admitted to consuming six 
or seven drinks of whiskey and was intoxicated.  He admitted he also drank to the point 
of intoxication the week-end before the wedding.  He admitted to drinking to the point of 
intoxication at least once a week.  It usually takes him three or five drinks to be 
intoxicated (Tr. 48-50). 
 
Applicant revealed that he was arrested about four months before the hearing for 
driving under the influence of alcohol.  He had consumed about four drinks of whiskey 
at a bar after work before starting to drive home.  He was stopped by police for failing to 
maintain a driving lane and given a field sobriety test that showed his blood alcohol to 
be a .25.  Even though he contested the accuracy of the breathalyzer, he was found 
guilty on August 19, 2008, and sentenced to an $800 fine, to attend a 12 hour alcohol 
awareness program, and his license was suspended for seven months (Tr. 50-55). 
 
 
4 
 
 
Applicant and his wife argued on the afternoon of August 13, 2005.  He had 
consumed alcohol the night before but had not been drinking the day of the argument.  
The couple pushed and shoved each other and Applicant admitted to pushing his wife 
to the ground twice.  The police arrested Applicant for simple assault.  He pled guilty to 
the offense and was sentenced to a fine of $564 and ordered to attend an anger 
management program.  Applicant and his wife were both arrested in October 2006 for 
arguing and assaulting each other.  The charges were dismissed in court (Tr. 36-40; 
Gov. Ex. 4, Interrogatories, dated March 2, 2007; Gov. Ex. 5, Criminal justice report, 
undated). 
 
As a result of the August 2005 incident, Applicant was required to attend an 
anger management course.  Applicant anticipated receiving a civilian air traffic control 
position in the Middle East.  Applicant, on his and his attorney's request, received 
permission to find their own anger management course rather than one run by the local 
court authorities.  Applicant attended only two or three session of this anger 
management course before he stopped attending.  He stated that he believed the 
matter of his need for the course was resolved and he did not have to attend any more 
classes because his attorney said he would send a letter to the court stating that he was 
attending the course.  He knew he was ordered to complete the course and knew he 
had not completed the course but thought the matter had been resolved by his attorney. 
He did not discuss the matter with his attorney before deciding not to complete the 
course.   
 
Applicant was questioned by security investigators concerning his attendance 
and completion of the anger management course.  He informed the investigators that he 
had completed the course.  He testified at the hearing that he did not complete the 
course but thought the matter had been resolved by his attorney.  He made a conscious 
decision not to continue to attend the course.  His attorney determined that Applicant 
had attended some sessions but did not complete the program.  Applicant tried to make 
arrangements to complete the program.  No arrangements were made because his 
original doctor is not taking new patients and he cannot find another doctor that 
conducts an anger management course.  He has not made inquiries on available 
courses in months (Tr. 40-43, 60-63; Gov. Ex. 4, Attorney's letter, dated August 16, 
2007). 
 
Applicant presented his evaluation reports for his entire Air Force career.  These 
evaluations show that Applicant was regarded as one of the best air traffic controllers in 
the Air Force.  His performance of duty was excellent and he was considered to be the 
"go to person" for air traffic control issues and problems.  Even though he was reduced 
in grade as a result of the non-judicial punishment, he was promoted again to the grade 
of master sergeant (E-7) before he retired (App. Ex. K, Evaluation Reports, 1984-2004).   
 
A former supervisor and colleague stated that Applicant worked directly for him 
on numerous occasions.  He considered Applicant to be his most trusted and competent 
worker and could count on him to do the job correctly.  His integrity is beyond reproach 
and he could trust his word and judgment (App. Ex. A, Letter, dated August 15, 2008). 
 
5 
 
 
Another former colleague and supervisor, who knew Applicant for his entire Air 
Force career, stated the Applicant is a straight forward and honest individual.  He has 
no doubt Applicant can be trusted with a security clearance and access to classified 
information (App. Ex. B, Letter, dated August 11, 2008). 
 
Another former colleague and supervisor stated that he has known Applicant for 
over eight years while he was in the Air Force.  Applicant did an excellent job as an air 
traffic controller.  He knows of Applicant's alcohol related incident in Korea since 
Applicant worked for him at the time.  Applicant was honest about the incident and his 
conduct and took responsibility for his actions.  He recommended Applicant for his 
present civilian position.  Applicant's best qualities are his honesty and truthfulness 
(App. Ex. C, Letter, dated August 26, 2008). 
 
Applicant received the Meritorious Service Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster 
(App. Ex. D, citation, dated January 4, 2005; App. Ex. E, Citation October 15, 1998).  
Applicant received the Air Force Commendation Medal and four Oak Leaf Clusters for 
his service in Air Traffic Control (App. Ex. F-I, Citations, Various dates).  
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition 
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list 
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in 
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s over-arching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶ 
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as 
the “whole person concept.” The Administrative Judge must consider all available, 
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in 
making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” 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. 
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, 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. . . .” The 
 
6 
 
 
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security 
decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk the 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. 
 
Analysis 
 
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. (AG ¶ 21)   
 
Applicant’s non-judicial punishment for driving while intoxicated, his recent arrest 
and conviction for driving while intoxicated, as well as his continued drinking to excess 
to the point of intoxication at least once a week raise Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying 
Conditions (AC DC) AG ¶ 22(a) (alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as 
driving 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), and AC DC ¶ 22(c) (habitual or binge 
consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the 
individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent).  The driving while 
intoxicated incidents are alcohol-related incidents away from work.  His drinking to 
excess at least once a week is an indication of binge or habitual consumption of alcohol.  
  
The SOR allegation states that Applicant generally consumed alcohol daily, that 
he drinks to the point of intoxication one or two times per week, and he has no intention 
to change his behavior.  Applicant denies that he consumes alcohol almost daily, but 
admits that he consumes alcohol once or twice a week to the point of intoxication, and 
does not intend to change his alcohol-related behavior.  There is no indication Applicant 
drinks alcohol every day, but there is ample evidence to establish that he drinks alcohol 
to the point of intoxication once or twice a week, and that he does not intend to change 
his behavior.  Applicant drank to the point of intoxication the week-end before the 
hearing and the week-end before that.  He had a recent arrest and conviction for driving 
while intoxicated.  This shows he has no intention of changing his drinking habits and 
behavior. 
 
 
7 
 
 
Applicant testified that while in the Air Force he was evaluated and determined to 
be an alcohol abuser.  There is no indication of the qualification or status of the 
individual that made the diagnoses.  For purposes of the disqualifying condition, the 
person that made the diagnose must be a qualified medical person or licensed social 
worker in a recognized alcohol treatment program, I find the AC DC ¶ 22(d) (diagnosis 
by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g. physician, clinical psychologist, or 
psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence), and AC DC AG ¶ 22 (e) (the 
evaluation of alcohol abuse or dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a 
staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program) have not been raised.  
Likewise, there is no indication Applicant was directed to attend an alcohol rehabilitation 
program.  Therefore, AC DC, AG ¶ 22(f) (relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or 
dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program) has not been raised.   
 
 Since Applicant admitted the SOR allegations and the government produced 
substantial evidence by way of exhibits to raise the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶ 
22(a) and (c), the burden shifted to Applicant to produce evidence to rebut, explain, 
extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns (Directive ¶E3.1.15).  An applicant has the 
burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to 
the government (See, ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005)). 
 
 Security concerns for excess alcohol consumption can be mitigated by 
consideration of Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions (AC MC) AG ¶ 23(a) (so 
much times 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), and AC MC AG ¶ 
23(b) (the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, 
provides evidence of action taken to overcome this problem, and has established a 
pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser).  
Applicant’s most recent driving under the influence of alcohol incident was just four 
months ago.  He admits to the continued consumption of alcohol once or twice a week 
to the point of intoxication.  He last drank to the point of intoxication only five days 
before the hearing.  He has a history of alcohol abuse.  Because of the recent 
consumption of alcohol to the point of intoxication and his continued consumption of 
alcohol with no indications of any attempts to stop, the alcohol-related incidents are 
likely to recur.  He has not acknowledged he has an alcohol-related problem and has 
not shown a pattern of responsible use.  Applicant has not mitigated security concerns 
for alcohol consumption. 
 
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. (AG ¶ 30)  Appellant’s two arrests and one 
conviction for a domestic related assault and battery in violation of state law, and the 
non-judicial punishment for driving while intoxicated in the Air Force raises Criminal 
Conduct Disqualifying Conditions (CC DC) AG ¶ 31(a) (a single serious crime or 
 
8 
 
 
multiple lesser offenses), and CD DC AG ¶ 31(c) (allegation or admission of criminal 
conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or 
convicted). 
 
Criminal conduct can be mitigated under Criminal Conduct Mitigating Conditions 
(CC MC) AG ¶ 32(a) (so much time has elapsed since 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 CC 
MC AG ¶ 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.)  Applicant and his wife were involved in marital disputes that led to 
assaults and criminal action in 2005 and 2006.  The criminal charges happened in the 
last two to three years and not under unusual circumstances.  In addition, Applicant was 
convicted in August 2008 of driving under the influence which shows that is criminal 
conduct is likely to recur and he has not been successfully rehabilitated.  Applicant has 
not presented any information to establish that these type incidents will not happen 
again or that he has been rehabilitated.  It is more likely that the criminal action of 
domestic assault will recur.  Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns for 
criminal conduct. 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 A security concern is raised because conduct involving questionable judgment, 
untrustworthiness, unreliability, 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. (AG ¶ 15)  Personal conduct is always a security concern 
because it asks the central question does the person’s past conduct justify confidence 
the person can be entrusted to properly safeguard classified information.   
 
 The security clearance system depends on the individual providing correct and 
accurate information.  If a person conceals or provides false information, the security 
clearance process cannot function properly to ensure that granting access to classified 
information is in the best interest of the United States Government.  Applicant’s false 
information to security investigators concerning the anger management course 
completion raises a security concerns under Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 
(PC DC) AG ¶ 16(b) (deliberately providing false and misleading information concerning 
relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical authority, 
or other official government representative).   
 
 Appellant denied intentional falsification.  He states that he informed the security 
investigator that he had completed the anger management course because his attorney 
informed him when he was sentenced that once he started the course, he would send a 
letter to the court.  Applicant admits that he did not complete the course but he believed 
 
9 
 
 
the issue was "resolved" by his attorney.  He never informed anyone, including the 
instructor, that he was dropping the course.  He did not verify with his attorney that he 
could drop the course.  While there is a security concern for an omission, concealment, 
or falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral statement to the 
government when applying for a security clearance, every omission, concealment, or 
inaccurate statement is not a falsification.  A falsification must be deliberate and 
material.  It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and willfully.  Applicant knew he had not 
completed the course.  Applicant decided himself not to complete the course.  He 
informed the investigator that he had completed the course.  He never informed him of 
any guidance from his attorney or that he had stopped attending classes on the advice 
of his attorney.  I find that Applicant deliberately provided false information to security 
investigators.  
 
 Applicant's failure to complete the anger management course raises security 
concerns under PC DC AG ¶ 16(d) (credible adverse information that is not explicitly 
covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse 
determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a 
whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, 
lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules or regulation, or other characteristics 
indicating that he person may not properly safeguard protected information).  As part of 
his sentence, Applicant was required to complete the course.  The information shows he 
decided on his own not to complete the course and did not inform the counselor or his 
attorney of his intent.  This indicates a willingness on the part of Applicant to follow his 
own rules and not those directed for the protection of classified information 
 
 I considered all of the Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 17 
and determine none apply.  Applicant never made a good faith effort to correct 
erroneous or inaccurate information.  He has not acknowledged that his information was 
false, but merely that he misunderstood what his attorney advised him. He deliberately 
decided not to follow the direction of his sentence and to take his own action. 
 
“Whole Person” Analysis  
 
 Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative 
process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): “(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the 
conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the 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.” Under AG ¶ 2(c), the 
ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall 
common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the 
whole person concept.  
 
10 
 
 
I have considered all of the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating 
Applicant’s security worthiness.  I have considered Applicant's 20 years of honorable 
service in the Air Force.  There is no doubt that he is a gifted and talented air traffic 
controller who has performed exceptionally well in his field.  He was honest and 
forthright in presenting his information concerning the consumption of alcohol at the 
hearing.  However, Applicant had alcohol-related incidents for many years and 
continues to drink alcohol.  He drinks to excess at least once or twice a week.  His most 
recent excess consumption of alcohol was only five days before the hearing.  He has 
not admitted he has an alcohol problem.  He was involved in two domestic violence 
incidents with his wife that led to criminal activity and he provided false information 
concerning a course he was required to complete to security investigators.  He did not 
complete the anger management course as required by his court imposed sentence.  
Applicant has not presented sufficient information to show that his consumption of 
alcohol, his criminal conduct, and his personal conduct are not security concerns.  
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts that Applicant will not 
consume alcohol to excess in the future.  I have doubts about his eligibility and 
suitability for a security clearance because he provided false information to security 
investigators and engaged in domestic violence criminal acts.  For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his alcohol 
consumption, personal conduct, and criminal conduct.  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 G:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a.:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.b:    Against Applicant   
  Subparagraphs 1.c.:   Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline J:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a.:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.b.:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.c.:    Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 3.a.:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 3.b.:   Against Applicant 
 
 
 
 
11 
 
 
DECISION 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national security to grant a security clearance for Applicant.  
Clearance is denied. 
 
 
 
__________________ 
Thomas M. Crean 
Administrative Judge