DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-02785
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard Stevens, Department Counsel
For Applicant: J. Hatcher Graham, Esq.
March 6, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On February 29, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant detailing the security concerns under
Guidelines F, G 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 answered the SOR in writing on March 24, 2008, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on October 22, 2008. Applicant filed a
response to the FORM on December 16, 2008. The case was assigned to me on
January 6, 2009. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility
for access to classified information is denied.
Applicant’s attorney’s statements are not evidence.
1
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 42 year old employee of a defense contractor.
Applicant is indebted to DISCOVER CD on a credit card account that has been
placed for collection in the approximate amount of $18,267.00. This debt has been
delinquent since at least March 2006. In his response to the FORM, applicant’s attorney
stated that applicant contacted the law firm handling the collection and arranged for a
payment plan to liquidate the debt. He further stated applicant “has been, and continues
to make the payments in accordance with this plan.” Attached to the FORM response
was a July 31, 2008 letter from the creditor’s law firm confirming a repayment plan
requiring applicant to make monthly payments of $450.00, beginning in August 2008.
Although by the time the response to the FORM was submitted applicant should have
made at least four payments to the creditor pursuant to the agreement, no credible
evidence was offered to show that applicant made any of the $450.00 payments.  In1
view of the detailed response to the FORM prepared by his attorney, which included
numerous attachments, it is reasonable to assume that if applicant had made the
payments, evidence of such payments would have been attached to the response to the
FORM.
In or about 1990, applicant was arrested and charged in Georgia with Driving
Under the Influence (DUI). He was convicted and paid a fine.
In or about 1992, applicant was arrested and charged in Georgia with DUI. He
was convicted of the charge, fined $795.00, and placed on probation for 12 months.
In or about March 1999, applicant was arrested and charged in Georgia with DUI.
He was convicted of the charge, sentenced to one year in jail (suspended), fined
$700.00, and ordered to perform community service.
In or about June 1999, applicant was arrested and charged in Georgia with DUI.
He was convicted of the charge, sentenced to 20 days in jail, fined $1,000.00, placed on
probation for a little less than a year, and ordered to perform community service.
In about December 2000, applicant was arrested and charged in Florida with (1)
DUI, (2) Failure to Drive in a Single Lane, and (3) Open Container by Operator. He was
convicted of the DUI charge, fined $1,500.00, placed on probation for two years, and his
drivers license was suspended. His probation ended in 2002.
In June 2007, the State of Florida granted executive clemency to applicant. As
Department Counsel conceded in the FORM, it is reasonable to conclude from this that
applicant has not had any adverse contact with law enforcement since the 2000 DUI.
In response to interrogatories sent to him by DOHA in 2007, applicant stated he
has “made bad decisions and foolish judgments in the past and now that is behind me.”
He further stated that he has learned from his mistakes.
3
Applicant submitted numerous letters from current and former coworkers and
supervisors. Applicant is described as an excellent worker by these individuals. 
Policies
The President has “the authority to . . . control access to 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.” (Department of
the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,527 (1988).) In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), the President set out
guidelines and procedures for safeguarding classified information within the executive
branch. The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant
applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” (Exec. Ord. 10865, Section 2.)
To be eligible for a security clearance, an applicant must meet the security
guidelines contained in the Directive. Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personnel
security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
under each guideline.
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in
the SOR that disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to
classified information. (Directive, Paragraph E3.1.14.) Thereafter, the applicant is
responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.
(Directive, Paragraph E3. 1.15.) An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.” (ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).) “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, Paragraph E2.2.2.)
A person granted access to classified information enters into a special
relationship with the government. 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. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not a
determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. (Exec. Ord. 10865, Section 7.) It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
has established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to Financial Considerations is set forth in
Paragraph 18 of the new AG, and is as follows:
Failure or inability to live within one*s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
 Applicant’s attorney’s statement in response to the FORM that applicant “has resolved any problems that
2
caused the incurring of the large [DISCOVER CD] debt” is not supported by any credible evidence.
4
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual*s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds.
The AG note several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
Paragraph 19.a., an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” is potentially
disqualifying. Under Paragraph 19.c., “a history of not meeting financial obligations” may
raise security concerns. The evidence shows applicant has a history of not paying his
large, unsecured debt to DISCOVER CD.  Accordingly, these disqualifying conditions
are applicable.
The guidelines also set out mitigating conditions. Paragraph 20.a. may apply
where “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual*s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” Applicant’s DISCOVER CD debt
is still outstanding. Because no evidence was provided concerning how and why such a
large credit card debt was incurred, and why it has remained unpaid for so long, there is
no basis to conclude applicant is unlikely to experience further financial delinquencies.2
This mitigation condition is not applicable.
Under Paragraph 20.b., it may be mitigating where “the conditions that resulted
in the financial problem were largely beyond the person*s control (e.g., loss of
employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce
or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.” There is
no evidence that would support application of this mitigating condition.
Evidence that “the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control”
is potentially mitigating under Paragraph 20.c. Applicant reached a repayment
agreement with his creditor in July 2008. If he had offered any credible evidence that he
made the agreed-upon payments, this mitigating condition might have been applicable.
But with no such evidence, it is not applicable.
Paragraph 20.d. applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” This mitigating
condition is not applicable for the same reason Paragraph 20.c. is not applicable.
Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption
The security concern for alcohol consumption is set forth in Paragraph 21 of the
AG, and is as follows:
Applicant’s attorney’s statements in response to the FORM that “after [applicant’s] last arrest in 2000, [he]
3
entered a program for the purpose of ridding himself of this addiction,” and “in the ensuing eight (8) years
[applicant] has eliminated alcohol from his life . . .,” are not supported by any credible evidence.
5
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 AG note several conditions that could raise a security concern. Under
Paragraph 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,” may be disqualifying. Under Paragraph 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,” may be
disqualifying. Applicant’s history of consuming alcohol to excess and five DUI
convictions requires application of these disqualifying conditions.
Paragraph 23 of the AG sets out potentially mitigating conditions. Under
Paragraph 23.a., it may be mitigating if “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.” Applicant was arrested for and convicted of DUI five times between
1990 and December 2000. Because over six years elapsed between his second and
third arrests, the passage of time since his last DUI (almost eight years) is insufficient by
itself to safely conclude his alcohol abuse will not recur. Since applicant offered no other
evidence that would support a finding that he is unlikely to consume alcohol to excess in
the future (e.g., alcohol counseling, abstinence),   this mitigation condition is not3
applicable.
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct
The security concern for criminal conduct is set forth in Paragraph 30 of the AG,
and is as follows:
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.
Paragraph 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying: Under Paragraph 31.a., “a single serious crime or multiple lesser
offenses” may be disqualifying. Applicant’s multiple DUI convictions raise this
disqualifying condition.
Paragraph 32 of the AG sets forth conditions that could mitigate security
concerns. Under Paragraph 32.d., it may be mitigating if “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’s criminal
6
conviction occurred about eight years ago, he has shown remorse, and he has offered
numerous character reference letters, which describe him as a dependable and
hardworking employee. These facts support application of this mitigating condition.
“Whole Person” Analysis 
Under the whole person concept, the AJ must evaluate an applicant’s security
eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances.
An AJ should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG Paragraph
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 Paragraph 2c, 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.       
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature man with a
long history of alcohol abuse and one significant financial delinquency. His alcohol
abuse, as evidenced by his five DUI convictions, was frequent and serious. Although
the passage of time since his last alcohol-related incident is a factor in his favor, he
offered no positive evidence of rehabilitation or permanent behavioral changes that
support a conclusion his abuse of alcohol is unlikely to recur. With respect to his
financial delinquency, applicant provided evidence of a repayment agreement, but no
evidence that he followed through with it. This unsecured debt is rather substantial, and
given the fact applicant ignored it for so long - even after he knew the Government was
concerned about it - it is reasonable to assume that he is not financially able to satisfy it.
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guidelines F and G.
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 F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Paragraph 2, Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Paragraph 3, Guideline J:  FOR APPLICANT
7
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
JOSEPH TESTAN
Administrative Judge