1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 08-02589 
 SSN: ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Perry Douglas West, Esquire 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOGAN, Erin C., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing  
(e-QIP) on March 27, 2006. On September 15, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings 
and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security 
concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations; Guideline E, Personal Conduct; 
and Guideline J, Criminal Conduct, for Applicant. 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.  
  
 On November 8, 2008, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on January 
7, 2009. The case was assigned to me on January 8, 2009. On February 6, 2009, a 
Notice of Hearing was issued, scheduling the hearing for February 25, 2009. The case 
was heard on that date. The Government offered 13 exhibits which were admitted as 
Government Exhibits (Gov) 1 – 13. Applicant’s counsel called Applicant as a witness 
and offered one exhibit which was admitted without objection as Applicant Exhibit (AE) 
 
2 
 
 
A. The transcript was received on March 10, 2009.  Based upon a review of the case 
file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is 
denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 
2.a, 2.b, 2.c, and 3.b.  He admits the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.c – 1.u, 3.a, 3.c, and 3.d.  
 
Applicant is a 54-year-old employee with a Department of Defense contractor 
seeking to maintain his security clearance. He has had a security clearance since 1995. 
He has been employed with his company since July 1995. He is currently married. He is 
twice divorced and has three adult children from his prior marriages. (Tr at 25, 28-29; 
Gov 1)  
 
On March 27, 2006, Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) in order to apply for a security clearance. Applicant 
answered “No” in response to section 24(a) “Since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, 
whichever is shorter, have you illegally used any controlled substance, for example, 
marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, 
heroin, etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs?” In response to 
the financial questions on the same security clearance application, Applicant answered 
“No” in response to question 28(a) “In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days 
delinquent on any debt(s)?” He also answered “No” in response to question 28(b) “Are 
you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?” (Gov 1)  
 
A subsequent background investigation revealed that Applicant has the following 
delinquent accounts: a $1,379 state tax lien filed against Applicant in August 1997 (SOR 
¶ 1.a: Gov 7 at 3; Gov 12); a $2,360 state tax lien filed against Applicant in February 
1998 (SOR ¶ 1.b: Gov 7 at 3; Gov 12); a $1,145 account placed for collection in March 
2002 (SOR ¶ 1.d: Gov 6 at 3); a $3,125 credit card account charged off in April 2002 
(SOR ¶ 1.e: Gov 6 at 2); an $802 account placed for collection in October 2002 (SOR ¶ 
1.f: Gov 6 at 3; Gov 7 at 7); a $64 grocery store account related to a bad check placed 
for collection in November 2005 (SOR ¶ 1.g: Gov 6 at 2); a $63 grocery store account 
related to a bad check placed for collection in November 2005 (SOR ¶ 1.h: Gov 6 at 2); 
a $58 grocery store account related to a bad check placed for collection in November 
2005 (SOR ¶ 1.i: Gov 6 at 2); and a $75 grocery store account related to a bad check 
placed for collection in November 2005. (SOR ¶ 1.j: Gov 6 at 2) 
 
Additional delinquent debts include: a $101 account placed for collection in 
March 2006 related to a bad check written at a restaurant (SOR ¶ 1.k: Gov 6 at 1); a 
$121 account placed for collection in March 2006 related to a bad check written at a 
restaurant (SOR ¶ 1.l: Gov 6 at 1-2); an $81 account placed for collection in April 2006 
related to a bad check written at a restaurant (SOR ¶ 1.m: Gov 6 at 1); a $67 account 
placed for collection in June 2006 related to a bad check written at a restaurant (SOR ¶ 
1.n: Gov 6 at 1); a $599 credit card account that was charged off in September 2006 
 
3 
 
 
(SOR ¶ 1.o: Gov 6 at 2; Gov 7 at 4); and a $745 credit account that was charged off in 
January 2007. (SOR ¶ 1.p: Gov 6 at 2) 
 
Additional delinquent debts include: a $735 credit card account that was charged 
off in February 2007 (SOR ¶ 1.q: Gov 6 at 2); a $374 bank account that was charged off 
in February 2007 (SOR ¶ 1.r: Gov 6 at 2; Gov 7 at 5); a $799 account that has been 
delinquent since March 2007 (SOR ¶ 1.s: Gov 6 at 3); a $1,490 judgment entered 
against Applicant in June 2007 for a delinquent credit card account (SOR ¶ 1.t: Gov 6 at 
1); and a $25 account placed for collection in September 2007 for a bad check written at 
a restaurant. (SOR ¶ 1.u: Gov 6 at 1) 
 
On October 12, 1999, Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. His 
assets totaled $78,905. His liabilities totaled $121,907.  On January 27, 2000, all of his 
dischargeable debts were discharged. (SOR ¶ 1.c: Tr at 43; Gov 8; Gov 12 at 1) 
 
Applicant states that his financial problems were caused by his two divorces and 
poor money management.  When his children were minors, he was responsible for 
significant monthly child support payments. (Tr at 28; Gov 2 at 6) He claims he did not 
list his delinquent debts on his security clearance application because he was not aware 
of the delinquent accounts. His current wife is an accountant. She is responsible for all 
of the household finances. (Tr at 29) 
 
Applicant’s wife is a recovering drug addict. She has attended drug rehabilitation 
programs on two occasions. In 2008, she attended a 60-day program. In 2005, she 
attended a 30-day program. (Tr at 29-32)   
 
Applicant has been unable to pay the debts because his wife’s employment has 
been sporadic over the past couple of years. His wife recently found a new job. He has 
called several credit counseling agencies but has not entered into an agreement with 
any of them. His focus is to pay the bills that are current as well as the mortgage.  
Applicant gives his paycheck to his father-in-law. His father-in-law lives nearby. He pays 
Applicant and his wife’s bills. (Tr at 31-32, 46, 48) 
 
The two state tax liens were the result of a mistake Applicant’s accountant made 
on his state tax returns. He has paid the amount owed for both liens and the liens have 
been released. (Tr at 32; AE A) Applicant has not made many payments towards any of 
the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d – 1.u. (Tr at 44)  
 
Applicant owes federal income taxes for tax years 2004, 2005 and 2006. He 
thinks he owes approximately $6,000. He also thinks that he has not filed taxes for one 
of the tax years but is not sure which one it is. Applicant claims that his wife was 
responsible for filing and paying the tax returns. (Tr at 40-42) He also had federal 
income tax problems in 1994 and 1995. (Gov 8, Schedule F; Gov 10) (Applicant’s 
federal income taxes were not alleged in the SOR. His recent federal income tax 
problems for tax years 2004, 2005, and 2006 were not discovered until the hearing. I 
am considering Applicant’s federal tax problems for the purposes of mitigation of the 
 
4 
 
 
security concerns raised under financial considerations because it is not alleged in the 
SOR.)   
 
Applicant does not follow a monthly budget. He believes his father-in-law might 
have a budget for their bills. (Tr at 48) He earns $4,800 a month in take home pay. The 
mortgage is $1,500. His cars will be paid off after one more $600 car payment. His 
utilities are about $600. He owes his father about $5,000. He has not been making 
payments towards this loan. He pays for his son’s college. (Tr at 48-49)  
 
On September 18, 2007, Applicant was interviewed by an investigator who was 
conducting his background investigation. He told the investigator that he used cocaine 
once in 2000 or 2001.  He tried cocaine after drinking alcohol. He used the cocaine on 
an experimental basis and has not used it since. He held a security clearance at the 
time he used cocaine. At hearing, Applicant testified that his wife bought the cocaine. In 
the summary of his personal subject interview, it states Applicant bought the cocaine at 
an undisclosed location. (Tr at 50-53, 59; Gov 2 at 3; Gov 13) 
 
Applicant did not list his use of cocaine in 2000 or 2001 on his security clearance 
application in response to section 24(a) because he did not consider himself a drug 
user. He only tried it once.  During his meeting with the security investigator, he 
believed that the investigator asked the question in a different way. He told the 
investigator that he used cocaine once when the investigator asked him whether he had 
ever used illegal drugs. (Tr at 36-37)   
 
On February 28, 2006, Applicant was arrested and charged with Possession of 
Cocaine and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He was pulled over for having expired 
tags. The car was a rental. The police officer asked Applicant for his driver’s license and 
registration. When he reached into his right rear pocket for his wallet, a glass tubular 
item fell to the ground. The police officer recognized this glass tubular item to be a pipe 
that is used for smoking crack cocaine. The police officer searched the vehicle and 
discovered under the driver’s side seat a plastic zippered bag which contained four 
more tubular pipes that are used for smoking crack cocaine. He also discovered a 
peppermint tin which contained ten “chore boy” scrubbing balls. These balls are used in 
pipes to smoke crack cocaine. His wife was sitting in the passenger’s seat and denied 
all knowledge of the pipes.  Field tests on one of the balls and one of the pipes received 
a presumptive positive for cocaine. (Gov 3) 
 
On September 18, 2007, Applicant was interviewed by an investigator who was 
conducting his background investigation. He told the investigator that on the day of the 
arrest, he found drug paraphernalia in the rental that did not belong to him. He put the 
drug paraphernalia in his pocket. He did not contact the rental car agency about his 
discovery. (Gov 2 at 3, 6) 
 
During the hearing, Applicant testified that the drug paraphernalia in the car 
belonged to his wife. He put the drug paraphernalia in his pocket and got arrested for it. 
The charges were nolle prossed on March 30, 2006. Applicant has not failed a drug test 
 
5 
 
 
at work in over 26 years. (Tr at 37-38; Gov 4; Gov 5) He listed the arrest in response to 
section 23 on his March 27, 2006, security clearance application. (Gov 1)  
 
Applicant did not provide any evidence pertaining to his work performance and 
overall character.  
 
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.  
 
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 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. 
  
 
6 
 
 
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).   
 
Analysis 
  
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set 
out in AG & 18:       
 
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 guideline notes several disqualifying conditions that could raise security 
concerns. I find Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) &19(a) (an 
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and FC DC &19(c), (a history of not meeting 
financial obligations) apply to Applicant’s case. Applicant has encountered financial 
difficulty since the 1990s. In 1997, two state tax liens were filed against Applicant. In 
1999, he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He continued to incur delinquent debts after his 
bankruptcy discharge. The SOR alleged 18 delinquent accounts that were incurred after 
Applicant’s bankruptcy discharge, a total approximate balance of $10,469. 
 
The Government’s substantial evidence and Applicant’s own admissions raise 
security concerns under Guideline F. 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. Sept, 22, 2005)).  
 
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition 
(FC MC) ¶ 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) is not applicable. 
Applicant has a long history of financial problems. Aside from the state tax liens, he has 
not started to resolve his remaining delinquent accounts alleged in SOR ¶¶1.d – 1.u. He 
also owes federal income taxes for tax years 2004, 2005 and 2006. He claims that his 
wife handled all of the finances and was responsible for filing the tax returns. 
Considering her substance abuse problems, this raises further questions about his 
 
7 
 
 
judgment since it is likely that his wife could not be relied on to pay the bills when she 
was using illegal drugs. While Applicant’s father-in-law has taken responsibility for  
paying the current bills, nothing has been done with regard to the delinquent accounts.   
 
 FC MC & 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 apply. Applicant has been 
continuously employed with the same company for 11 years. Nothing has occurred 
during that time which would have prevented Applicant from taking responsibility for his 
expenses.  He entrusted control of the family finances to his wife who had substance 
abuse problems. It was and is within his discretion to take control of his financial 
situation. He chose not to do so. He did not act responsibly under the circumstances.  
 
FC MC ¶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) does not apply. Applicant contacted several credit counseling agencies over the 
phone but never attended financial counseling. He has no plan to resolve his delinquent 
accounts. It is unlikely that his financial problems will be resolved in the near future.  
 
FC MC &20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies with respect to the state tax liens alleged in 
SOR ¶¶ 1.a – 1.b. However, his remaining delinquent debt remains unresolved and he 
has not developed a plan to resolve his remaining delinquent accounts. His father-in-law 
pays his current bills for him but his delinquent accounts remain unresolved. Nine of the 
delinquent accounts are about $100 or less and should have been manageable to 
resolve. Applicant is not accepting responsibility for his financial situation. He has not  
made a good-faith effort to resolve his delinquent accounts.   
 
Applicant has not mitigated the concerns raised under Guideline F.    
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in 
AG &15: 
 
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. 
 
 Personal conduct concerns are raised because Applicant failed to list his  
financial delinquencies in response to sections 28(a) and 28(b) on his security 
clearance application, dated February 9, 2007.  
 
8 
 
 
  Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) ¶ 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) potentially applies in 
Applicant’s case. For PC DC ¶ 16(a) to apply, Applicant’s omission of his delinquent 
accounts must be done with a deliberate intent to deceive. I find Applicant intended to 
falsify his security clearance application. He must have been aware that the finances 
were not being handled properly given his wife’s drug addiction. Applicant claims that he 
was not aware of all of his financial delinquencies. I do not find his explanation credible.  
 
 Personal conduct concerns are also raised because Applicant did not list his 
2000/2001 cocaine use in response to section 24(a) on his March 27, 2006, security 
clearance application. Applicant claims that he did not list his 2000/2001 cocaine use in 
response to section 24(a) because he does not consider himself to be an illegal drug 
user. He interpreted the question to mean habitual user. He disclosed the illegal drug 
use during his September 18, 2007, interview with the investigator conducting his 
background investigation. He claims the investigator asked a more direct question. He 
listed his February 2006 arrest for possession of cocaine and possession of drug 
paraphernalia on his March 27, 2006, security clearance application which put the 
government on notice as to Applicant’s issues with illegal drugs. I give Applicant the 
benefit of the doubt with respect to SOR ¶ 2.a.  
 
 I find for Applicant with respect to SOR ¶ 2.d because it is alleged and more 
appropriately considered under Guideline H, Drug Involvement.  
 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Drug Involvement is set out in 
AG &24:       
 
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 guideline notes several disqualifying conditions that could raise security 
concerns. I find Drug Involvement Disqualifying Condition (DI DC) & 25(a) (any drug 
abuse); DI DC ¶ 25(c) (illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, 
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia); and 
DI DC ¶ 25(g) (any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance) apply to 
Applicant’s case. He admits to illegally using cocaine on one occasion in 2000 or 2001. 
He held a security clearance at the time he used cocaine. He was arrested in February 
2006 for possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The policeman 
who stopped Applicant during a routine traffic stop observed a pipe used for smoking 
 
9 
 
 
crack cocaine fall out of Applicant’s pocket. The residue on the pipe tested positive for 
cocaine. 
 
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from drug involvement. Two potentially apply to Applicant’s case. Drug 
Involvement Mitigating Condition (DI MC) ¶ 26(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. While Applicant’s use of cocaine occurred more than eight 
years ago, his arrest for drug paraphernalia is fairly recent. A disposition by the court of 
nolle prosse does not mean Applicant was exonerated of the charge. Doubts about 
Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment remain because of Applicant’s 
inconsistent statements pertaining to his involvement with illegal drugs.   
 
Regarding his 2000/2001 cocaine use, Applicant told the investigator during his 
personal subject interview that he purchased the cocaine at an undisclosed location. At 
hearing, he claimed his wife provided him with the cocaine. 
 
Regarding his February 2006 arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia, the 
police report contains no information as to whether Applicant denied that the drug 
paraphernalia was his.  The police report indicates Applicant’s wife was in the car and 
she denied any knowledge of the drug paraphernalia. During his personal subject 
interview, Applicant claimed he found the drug paraphernalia in his rental car and put it 
in his pocket. It did not belong to him. During the hearing, Applicant claimed the drug 
paraphernalia belonged to his wife. Applicant’s inconsistent statements pertaining to his 
illegal drug involvement continue to raise questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, 
and good judgment. DI MC ¶ 26(a) does not apply. 
 
 The second mitigating condition that potentially applies is FC MC & 26(b) (a 
demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: (1) disassociation 
from drug-using associates and contacts; (2) changing or avoiding the environment 
where drugs were used; (3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and (4) a signed 
statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation.)  Applicant 
provided no evidence to support application of this mitigating condition. 
   
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 Applicant’s 
conduct and all the circumstances. The 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, 
 
10 
 
 
coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.” 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for 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. While Applicant has taken steps 
towards ensuring that his current financial accounts are being paid, he has no plan in 
place regarding resolving his delinquent accounts. Considering Applicant’s long history 
of financial irresponsibility, it is too soon to conclude that his financial issues will be 
resolved due to the significant amount of his unresolved delinquent debt. He did not 
mitigate the concerns raised under financial considerations. I find against Applicant 
under the personal conduct concern because his explanation that he was not aware of 
his financial situation was not credible. Questions remain under Guideline H because of 
Applicant’s inconsistent statements pertaining to his illegal drug involvement. Applicant 
has not mitigated the security concerns raised under Financial Considerations, Personal 
Conduct, and Drug Involvement.  
 
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:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:    For 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:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.i:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.j:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.k:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.l:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.m:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.n:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.o:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.p:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.q:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.r:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.s:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.t:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.u:    Against Applicant 
 
11 
 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.b:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.c:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.d:    For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline H:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.a:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 3.b:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 3.c:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 3.d:    Against Applicant 
 
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. 
 
                                                
_________________ 
ERIN C. HOGAN 
Administrative Judge