1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE   
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )     ISCR Case No. 08-01295
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on August 24, 2007. On September 24, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant. The SOR detailed
the security concerns under Guideline F and Guideline E that provided the basis for its
decision to deny him a security clearance and refer the matter to an administrative
judge. 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 as of September 1, 2006.
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 13, 2008. He submitted
an undated written response to the SOR allegations and requested a hearing. The case
was assigned to me on November 17, 2008, to conduct a hearing and to determine
whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security
2
clearance for Applicant. On November 21, 2008, I scheduled a hearing for December
18, 2008.
The parties appeared as scheduled. The government offered six exhibits (Ex. 1-
6). Exhibits 1-5 were admitted without any objections. Applicant objected to proposed
exhibit 6, a Letter of Intent to Revoke Eligibility for Security Clearance, and related
documents. I sustained the objection. Three Applicant exhibits (Ex. A-C) were admitted
with no objections. A chart prepared by Department Counsel as an aid to his closing
argument was accepted as a hearing exhibit (H. Ex. 1). Applicant and three witnesses
testified on his behalf, as reflected in a transcript received on December 31, 2008.
During his closing argument, Department Counsel moved to amend SOR ¶ 2.b to reflect
that Applicant’s clearance had been suspended as opposed to revoked. Applicant did
not object and I granted the motion.
I held the record open until January 17, 2009, for Applicant to submit additional
documentary exhibits. No documents were received. Based on a review of the SOR,
Answer, transcript, and documentary exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In the SOR as amended, DOHA alleged under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) that Applicant owes a former employer (company X) a past due debt of
$18,176 (SOR ¶ 1.a), a military housing debt of $865 in collection (SOR ¶ 1.b), and
seven delinquent consumer credit debts totaling $3,012 (SOR ¶¶ 1.c-1.i). Applicant was
alleged under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) to have been fired from his employment
with company X for substandard performance and for creating a hostile work
environment (SOR ¶ 2.a). He was also alleged to have had his security clearance
suspended by his command in May 2006 while he was on active duty in the U.S.
military after he was charged with possession of marijuana (SOR ¶ 2.b).
In his Answer, Applicant admitted owing the debt balances in SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.d,
and 1.g, $25 on the account in SOR ¶ 1.e, and $638.61 on the account in SOR ¶ 1.f. He
indicated he had arranged to pay off the debt in SOR ¶ 1.e in November 2008, and to
make monthly payments of $20 per month on his other debts (with his payments on
SOR ¶ 1.a to increase over time). He denied SOR ¶ 1.h because the creditor could not
confirm a second debt balance in addition to SOR ¶ 1.f (duplicate listing). He also
denied SOR ¶ 1.i as that creditor had no record of a past due balance. Concerning the
Guideline E allegations, Applicant explained that he had been involuntarily terminated
from company X as mandated under corporate policy for a second violation, but he
contended “[t]he first offence was a false harassment report.” Regarding the suspension
of his security clearance, Applicant admitted he had formerly associated with drug-using
friends through his spouse, who he has since divorced. To the best of his knowledge,
none of his current associates use illegal drugs.
After considering the pleadings and evidence of record, I make the following
findings of fact.
Applicant indicated on his August 24, 2007, e-QIP that he was apprehended in February 2005 and1
that his clearance was suspended as a result in April 2005 (Ex. 1). The incident took place in 2006 (Exs. 2,
5, Tr. 34).
3
Applicant is a 31-year-old engineer technician who has worked for his current
employer, a defense contractor, since February 2008 (Ex. C, Tr. 52-53). He requires a
secret-level security clearance for access to certain areas to perform his duties (Tr. 66).
The day after he turned 18, Applicant enlisted in the U.S. military, and in
September 1996, he entered active duty (Ex. 2). He was granted a secret clearance for
his duties in or about December 1996. In January 1999, Applicant married. His spouse
(now ex-wife) had a son born in May 1993 from a previous relationship. In September
1999, Applicant and his spouse had a daughter. (Ex. 1)
From March 1999 to July 2006, Applicant and his family lived in military housing,
initially in his current geographic area (state A). From September 2001 to November
2003, they lived in Hawaii where Applicant was assigned to a boat home-ported there.
In December 2003, they moved back to state A where Applicant remained stationed
until he left the military (Ex. 1).
In January 2006, Applicant lent his vehicle to his spouse’s friend, who was
helping them move her mother across town. This friend took a break to smoke
marijuana, and placed stems and seeds in the ashtray of Applicant’s vehicle. A month
later, Applicant was pulled over for a random vehicle inspection on entering the military
base. He was charged with two counts of wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled
substances in violation of Article 112.a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,  after the1
marijuana residue was discovered. Applicant apparently continued to associate with the
person who put the marijuana in his vehicle thereafter in an effort to clear his name (Tr.
30-31). The command suspended Applicant’s security clearance in May 2006 after he
was placed on report for possession of illegal drugs (Ex. 5). The charges were dropped
at an Executive Officer’s inquiry during which Applicant presented a statement from his
spouse’s friend confirming he had placed the marijuana residue in the ashtray without
Applicant’s knowledge or consent (Ex. 2). The Executive Officer declined to apply for
reinstatement of Applicant’s security clearance because of his questionable judgment in
associating with drug users (SOR ¶ 2.b) (Tr. 35-36). In July 2006, Applicant was
granted an honorable discharge with reduction in force being the reason for the
separation (Ex. 2).
When Applicant separated from the military, he owed some costs for military
housing and for cleaning the premises after he vacated. In January 2007, a delinquent
balance of $865 was placed for collection (SOR ¶ 1.b) (Ex. 4, Tr. 42-43). In July 2006,
Applicant stopped paying on a credit account opened in October 1997 with a home
furnishings/electronics retailer. A $953 balance was charged off as of February 2007
(SOR ¶ 1.g) (Exs. 2, 3). An unpaid balance of $90 owed to a cable television provider
since February 2006 was placed for collection in November 2007 (SOR ¶ 1.d) (Exs. 3,
4).
Applicant testified that he was on track to earn $100,000 in his previous job. His hourly wage was2
only $24 but he worked a lot of overtime (Tr. 55).
SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.h appear to be the same debt based on the account numbers, with an updated3
balance of $638.61 rather than $305 as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f or $570 as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h.  
4
In July 2006, Applicant went to work as an equipment technician in the civilian
sector in state B (Ex. 1). He accepted a substantial relocation allowance (about
$16,000) from his new employer (company X) (SOR ¶ 1.a) with the understanding that if
he did not stay with the company for two years, he would have to repay the monies (Tr.
31-32, 41). Applicant’s spouse got a job with company X as well, and she developed a
friendship with a coworker whose husband also worked for the company. The couples
socialized together (Tr. 37). In March 2007, Applicant was involuntarily terminated from
his employment following two incidents (Ex. 1, Tr. 37). His spouse and her coworker
had a “falling-out.” Thereafter, as Applicant passed his spouse’s coworker in the
hallways, he made what he terms “friendly eye contact” with this coworker in an effort to
keep their friendship going (Tr. 37-38). She interpreted the gestures as harassing and
intimidating, and complained to their employer (SOR ¶ 2.a). Then in an unrelated
incident, a female coworker accused him of lying and falsifying equipment records.
Applicant responded in a rude manner with an obscene gesture (Tr. 38). In March 2007,
he was fired for substandard performance and creating a hostile work environment
(being a disruptive member to the team) (Tr. 39).
Applicant was without a job until June 2007, when he started working as an
electronic technician for a defense contractor at $18 an hour (Tr. 55). This meant a
relocation from state B back to state A (Ex. 1). He took a “huge pay cut” from what he
had earned at company X,  and had trouble paying his cellular phone bill, or his electric2
bill from his previous locale. In February 2007, a cellular phone provider had placed a
$102 debt balance for collection (SOR ¶ 1.e). After making a payment in March 2007,
he still owed $18 (Ex. 2), and that went unpaid. As of October 2008, the balance of the
debt was $25 (Answer, Tr. 43). In August 2007, a credit card lender charged off a
delinquent balance on an account opened since February 2005 (SOR ¶ 1.f). As of
October 2008, the unpaid balance was $638.61.  A $288 delinquent debt was placed for3
collection by his former utility provider in April 2008 (SOR ¶ 1.c) (Exs. 2, 3). He also
made no effort to repay the military housing debt (SOR ¶ 1.b) or the relocation costs
paid on his behalf by company X (SOR ¶ 1.a). As of December 2008, the debt to
company X had increased to about $18,176 (Answer).
On August 24, 2007, Applicant executed an e-QIP on which he disclosed his
termination from company X, the drug possession charge in the military which was
dropped, and the suspension of his security clearance by the military command as a
result of the charge. Concerning his financial record, he indicated that he owed about
$16,000 to company X for relocation assistance, and that he had been past due on
other accounts in the past (Ex. 1). While his clearance was pending, Applicant was laid
off by his employer in November 2007 (Tr. 53).
5
In February 2008, Applicant began working for his current employer at an hourly
wage of $18.26 (Ex. 52-53). At DOHA’s request, Applicant completed a personal
financial statement on or about March 24, 2008. He reported a net monthly remainder of
$122.20 after paying monthly expenses and nothing on his debts. He also denied any
ongoing association with known illicit drug users (Ex. 2).
In July 2008, Applicant and his spouse divorced (Answer, Tr. 36). He has
“reasonable visitation” with his daughter, who lives in state B with his ex-wife (Tr. 50).
He was ordered to pay child support and alimony of $230 a week (Tr. 45, 54) and $50 a
week to assist with day care costs (Tr. 47). To supplement his income, Applicant started
working a second job as a security guard (Tr. 46).
In about October 2008, Applicant contacted his creditors to make payment
arrangements. He arranged to make payments of $20 per month on each of the debts in
SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.g, with his payment amount to increase over time on the debt in SOR ¶
1.a, and to settle the $25 balance of his wireless phone debt (SOR ¶ 1.e) in November
2008. In October 2008, Applicant’s roommate ran up $600 in telephone charges on
Applicant’s account. Applicant paid the telephone bill so he could keep in contact with
his ex-wife and children (Tr. 45), and he was unable to honor the payment
arrangements on his old debts. Applicant moved in with a friend of his from the military.
Due to other financial obligations, Applicant had yet to pay his full $570 monthly
obligation (shares of rent and Internet costs) to his current roommate. He paid about a
“couple hundred” each month but also covered some of the food costs (Tr. 80-81).
On December 10, 2008, Applicant learned that his offer to pay $20 per month on
the debt in SOR ¶ 1.a is no longer acceptable to company X (Ex. A, Tr. 29, 53).
Similarly, the utility owed the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c is no longer amenable to $20 monthly
payments (Ex. A, Tr. 29). The creditors owed the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.g have
accepted the $20 per month repayment term (Tr. 29). Applicant arranged for the first
$20 checks to be posted on January 16, 2009, to the assignee of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.g,
and on January 23, 2009, to the assignee of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b. He plans to pay the
$25 wireless phone debt (SOR ¶ 1.e) in January 2009 as well (Ex. A, Tr. 42-43).
Applicant’s weekly take-home pay from both jobs totals $615. His monthly
expenses total between $2,160 and $2,210 ($80 for car insurance, $150 to $200 for
cellular phone service for himself, his nine-year-old daughter, and his 15-year-old
stepson, $70 for cable/Internet, $500 for rent and utilities, $200 for groceries, $40 for
gasoline) (Tr. 46-49). He has about $17 in his checking account and nothing in savings
(Tr. 49). He does not have any active credit card accounts (Tr. 49). Applicant has not
had any contact with any known drug users since 2006 (Tr. 31).
Applicant’s current manager has been professionally acquainted with Applicant
for the past five or six years, since Applicant was in the military. Applicant was “a good
conscientious counterpart” when served as this manager’s contact or liaison with the
military. He has rated Applicant’s performance as satisfactory since coming to work for
the company in a civilian capacity (“He comes to work. He does his job. That’s an
average employee.”) (Tr. 59-61). In terms of professionalism and judgment, he
6
considers Applicant to be “outstanding,” better than most of his coworkers (Tr. 62).
Applicant’s facility security officer has also found him to be professional and courteous
at work (Tr. 70). An engineering technician familiar with Applicant’s work since February
2008 described Applicant’s character at work as “stable and mature” (Ex. B). Likewise,
an engineer has observed Applicant’s progression to becoming a “valuable and reliable
employee” (Ex. C).  
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 overarching 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 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
that 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. Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national
interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant
concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access
to classified or sensitive information).
Equifax was also reporting as of March 21, 2008, an additional debt of $232 owed the creditor in SOR4
¶ 1.e on a second account (Ex. 2), but the basis for that debt listing was not explored at the hearing. 
7
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern about finances is set out in AG ¶ 18 of the adjudicative
guidelines:
Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
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 evidence establishes that Applicant owes unpaid delinquent debt totaling
about $21,035.61 of the debt originally alleged in the SOR (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.f and 1.g).4
SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.h appear to be the same debt based on the account numbers, with an
updated balance of $638.61 rather than $305 as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f or $570 as
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h.  Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts,” and ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply.
Moreover, AG ¶ 19(f), “financial problems that are linked to drug abuse, alcoholism,
gambling problems, or other issues of security concern,” is implicated as well. As a
consequence of his involuntary termination from company X for, in part, creating a
hostile work environment (see Guideline E, infra), Applicant has to repay his former
employer for the relocation costs expended on his behalf (SOR ¶ 1.a). This debt
obligation to his former employer is of primary concern, given the financial pressures
caused by the amount of the debt ($18,176) and the company’s unwillingness to accept
the repayment terms proposed by Applicant.
While a September 28, 2007, consolidated credit report listed a $704 debt
balance placed for collection by a telephone services provider in February 2004 (SOR ¶
1.i) (Ex. 4), Applicant denied the debt, apparently based on the creditor’s inability to
confirm it (Answer), and there is no mention of that debt on the September 2007 or
September 2008 (Ex. 3) credit reports. The evidence is not sufficient to establish the
debt in SOR ¶ 1.i (see AG ¶ 20(e), “the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the
legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of
actions to resolve the issue”).
Concerning the potentially mitigating conditions, AG ¶ 20(a), “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,” does not apply. Available credit records show that
his accounts became delinquent in the past few years, and they have not been paid. 
8
 
Applicant attributes the $638 credit card delinquency (SOR ¶ 1.f/1.h) to his
unemployment in March 2007, and the $288 utility debt in SOR ¶ 1.c to a significant
decrease in pay once he returned to work. AG ¶ 20(b), “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,” does not
extenuate delinquencies that can be traced to his own behavior. Even if I accept his
denials of any intentional harassment, he does not deny that he made an obscene
gesture to a female coworker. His unemployment was a direct consequence of his
failure to conform his behavior to acceptable standards of the workplace. However, AG
¶ 20(b) applies in part, in that his divorce and the obligations of alimony and child
support have strained his finances and impaired his ability to repay his delinquent debt.
After the SOR was issued, Applicant contacted his creditors and offered to make
$20 monthly payments until the debts are satisfied. He took on a second job for the
income to make those payments. While these are credible first steps toward resolving
his debts, I am unable to fully apply either AG ¶ 20(c), “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,” or AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” He had not made any
payments to his creditors as of mid-December 2008, because he had to pay
unexpected telephone costs of $600 incurred by a former roommate. Regardless of
ability or willingness, he failed to satisfy even the most minor of his debts (SOR ¶ 1.e).
Applicant testified that he arranged for $20 payments to be made electronically in
January 2009 to the creditors in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.g. The record was held open for four
weeks so that he could submit proof of those payments, as well as satisfaction of the
debt in SOR ¶ 1.e. To date, no documentation has been received. Company X and the
utility company are no longer willing to accept his offer of repayment at $20 per month,
and even with a second job, he does not have the finances to pay the full amount of his
rental obligation. With a reported $17 in his checking account, and zero savings, his
financial problems are unlikely to be resolved in the near future.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The security concern for personal conduct is set out in Guideline E, ¶ 15 of the
adjudicative guidelines:
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.
Applicant exhibited poor judgment within the context of AG ¶ 15 by knowingly
associating with drug users while he held a security clearance as a member of the U.S.
military. The record is not clear about the extent of his contacts with known drug users.
9
A high school friend of his ex-wife’s left marijuana residue (stems and seeds) in
Applicant’s vehicle in January 2006, and it was discovered during a search of
Applicant’s car on a U.S. military base in February 2006. The evidence does not show
that Applicant knew the marijuana was in his vehicle, but he also testified as follows:
As for my continued association with users of illegal drugs. Those were
old high school friends of my ex-wife’s. We had no reason to believe they
were still using marijuana at that time. The only reason that we were still–I
was still in contact with these people was to try and figure out exactly how
the remnants got into my car, so that I could not have to worry about it still
being mine, so to speak. (Tr. 30-31)
He argued in closing that he had not known that his ex-wife’s friends were drug users,
but explained that he continued to associate with them “to clear [his] own name within
[his] command” (Tr. 92). In response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant admitted he
had been in situations where he had been offered illegal drugs (“I told the people
offering that I would wait for them to be done in a different location.” Ex. 2). He was not
specific about the time frame, but his statement has to be read in context with his
negative response to whether he associates with persons who use illegal drugs or
frequents places where he has reason to believe drugs are being used. Apparently, he
was referring to situations in the past where he was offered marijuana and not to any
ongoing association with drug users as of March 2008.
Judgment concerns are raised by his inappropriate conduct in the workplace that
led to his involuntary termination in March 2007. Applicant denies any validity to the
charge of harassment, claiming that he made “friendly eye contact” with the female
coworker in an effort to keep the friendship between them. Yet, his employer did not
consider the claims of intimidation baseless. As for the second incident, Applicant does
not deny that he made an obscene gesture to a female coworker. 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 and
regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly
safeguard protected information. This includes but is not limited to consideration of: . . .
(2) disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior in the workplace” applies. 
Applicant disclosed his job termination from company X and the suspension of
his security clearance following the drug charge when he applied for his secret
clearance in August 2007 for his duties with a previous employer. This candor does not
excuse his previous poor judgment, but it does lead me to accept as credible his denials
of any knowing associations with drug abusers since 2006, especially where there is no
evidence to the contrary. AG ¶ 17(g), “association with persons involved in criminal
activity has ceased or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations” applies.
10
As for mitigation of his inappropriate behavior at the workplace, several
coworkers, including supervisory personnel, attest to Applicant’s professional demeanor
in his current job. Yet, Applicant’s denials of any harassment of his former coworker are
difficult to reconcile with his employment termination from company X. AG ¶ 17(d), “the
individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the
behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or
factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such
behavior is unlikely to recur,” applies only in part.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the conduct
and all the circumstances in light of 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) the 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.
The ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be
an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines
and the whole-person concept (see AG ¶ 2(c)).
Applicant continued to associate with at least one known drug user while he was
facing possible nonjudicial punishment in the spring of 2006. This poor judgment was
inconsistent with the obligations of his military service and his security clearance, but he
was granted an honorable discharge, and he has not had any contacts with drug
abusers since 2006. Similarly, there apparently has been no recurrence of the
inappropriate behavior that led to his involuntary termination in March 2007. His current
coworkers all attest to his professionalism on the job.  But he has not fully mitigated the
judgment concerns raised by the loss of his job at company X for reasons unrelated to
his work performance. He continues to maintain that all he did in the first instance was
make eye contact. After being given an opportunity to explain his version of events,
company X considered it “strike one” against him (Tr. 38-39). He acknowledged that he
made an obscene gesture in the second instance, for which he apologized (Tr. 38), but
he initially rationalized his conduct in describing it as a misunderstanding (“Both
incidents at [company X] were misunderstandings that I did cause. But, they have been
worked out. The incident that ended up with my termination, I still converse friendly with
the person that that happened to.” Tr. 31).
Nor has Applicant fully mitigated the financial concerns. Applicant knew as of
March 2007 that he would have to repay the sizable relocation allowance to company X.
11
He made no effort to contact any of his creditors until October 2008, and had made no
payments as of December 2008. Two of his creditors, including company X, are not
willing to accept only $20 per month, and he is so stretched financially that he cannot
afford to pay his full share of the rent. His financial problems are not likely to be
resolved in the near future.
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.h: (Duplicate of ¶ 1.f)
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
Administrative Judge