1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 08-08968
SSN: --------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: 
Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant:
Pro se
August 13, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted his Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF86),
on May 29, 2008 (Government Exhibit 1). On February 19, 2009, the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant,
which detailed security concerns under Guidelines F, J, and E stating why DOHA could
not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant, and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether
a clearance should be denied or revoked. 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 President Bush on December 29,
2
2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September
1, 2006. 
 
The Applicant answered the SOR in writing on March 16, 2009, and requested a
hearing before an Administrative Judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on March 30, 2009. The case was assigned to another administrative judge on April 2,
2009. This case was reassigned to me on April 6, 2009. DOHA issued a notice of
hearing on April 6, 2009, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on April 28, 2009.
The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 8, which were received without
objection. The Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits A
through C, also without objection.  The record was left open at the Applicant’s request
for the submission of additional documentation.  The Applicant submitted Applicant’s
Exhibit D on May 22, 2009. This exhibit was also received without objection.  DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing on May 13, 2009.  The record closed on May 22,
2009.  Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,
eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
The Applicant is 46 and divorced. He is employed by a defense contractor and
seeks a security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense industry.
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in the SOR, with
the exception of subparagraph 1.e. Those admissions are hereby deemed findings of
fact. He also provided explanations with his responses.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he in financially overextended and therefore at risk of engaging in
illegal acts to obtain funds.
1.a.  The Applicant admits that he is indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $205 for a returned check. The Applicant sent a letter to the creditor in
October 2008 to determine how he could pay this debt. He had not heard from them as
of the date of the hearing.  He has obtained other contact information and intends to pay
this debt as soon as possible. (Transcript at 45-46; Applicant’s Answer at 1.)
1.b.  The Applicant admits that he owed a jaywalking ticket in the amount of $85.
The debt was paid in April 2009.  (Transcript at 46-47; Applicant’s Exhibit B.) 
1.c.  The Applicant admits that he owes a medical bill in the amount of $614. The
Applicant testified that the first time he knew he owed this debt was October 2008, when
he obtained a credit report.  He stated that he had insurance at the time this debt was
incurred and believed all of his medical expenses were covered. He intends to pay this
bill quickly.  (Transcript at 48-49; Applicant’s Answer at 1.)
3
1.d. The Applicant admits that he owes a medical bill in the amount of $297.
The Applicant testified that the first time he knew he owed this debt was October 2008,
when he obtained a credit report.  He stated that he had insurance at the time this debt
was incurred and believed all of his medical expenses were covered. He intends to pay
this bill quickly.  (Transcript at 48-49; Applicant’s Answer at 1.)
1.e. The Applicant denied that he owes $649 for a past due credit card bill. The
Applicant presented documentary evidence that he paid this debt in August 2008. The
Government’s latest credit report confirms that this debt has been paid. (Transcript at
44-45; Government Exhibit 2 at 14, and Exhibit 7at 2.) 
The Applicant testified that his financial situation was severely impacted by the
incident described below under subparagraph 2.a. (Transcript at 44.) The Applicant was
accused of a crime and, because he could not make bail, spent seven months in pre-
trial confinement. He was acquitted of the charge at trial.  
In addition to the debts in the SOR, which he has recently paid, the Applicant
provided documentary evidence showing that he has also paid the State almost $4,000
to clear various driving fines on his record.  The Applicant stated that his priorities were
taking care of his past due credit card bill and the courts.  (Transcript at 45; Applicant’s
Exhibit C.)
Paragraph 2 (Guideline J - Criminal Conduct)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he has engaged in criminal acts, which call into question the
Applicant’s ability to comply with rules, laws and regulations. In order to provide a
workable context to the allegations they will be discussed in chronological order, rather
than the order they are alleged in the SOR.
2.k. In 1981, when he was 18 years old, the Applicant was involved in a fight in
State A with a person to whom he had lent money. While chasing this person, the
Applicant hit and broke a door. He was charged with Breaking and Entering and spent
two months in pre-trial confinement because he could not afford the bail. He pled guilty
and received credit for time served. He was also awarded two years probation and
fined. (Transcript at 24-26; Government Exhibit 2 at 7-8.)
2.j. The Applicant’s next arrest occurred in October 1993. The Applicant had
moved to State B, where he still lives. The Applicant had bought a double edged knife at
the flea market.  Such knives are illegal in State B. During a traffic stop the police found
the knife and confiscated it. He was charged with Carrying a Deadly Weapon. The
Applicant did not appear in court until 1995. At that time he was charged with Criminal
Contempt of Court and forfeited his $50 bail. The underlying charge was dismissed.
Both charges were misdemeanors. (Transcript at 27-28; Government Exhibit 2 at 8, and
Exhibit 3 at 6-7.)
4
2.i. The Applicant has no current memory of a Criminal Contempt of Court
citation in December 1993. For this misdemeanor he was sentenced to pay a $25 fine.
(Transcript at 28-29; Government Exhibit 3 at 5-6.)
2.h. The Applicant was arrested in December 1993 as the result of a fight that
he got into with his now ex-wife. During an argument he threatened her, hit her truck
with a hammer, and then drove the truck away to try and get it fixed. When he returned
he was arrested and charged with Making a Terrorist Threat, Criminal Property Damage
and Unlawful Control of a Powered Vehicle. He was found guilty and served 57 days in
jail, five years probation, required to take a mental health assessment and pay
restitution. He successfully completed all the terms of his sentence. (Transcript at 29-
33; Government Exhibit 3 at 5-6.)
2.g. The Applicant has no current memory of a Criminal Contempt of Court
citation in January 1995.  This misdemeanor charge was dismissed.  (Transcript at 33-
34; Government Exhibit 3 at 4.)
2.f. The Applicant testified that he cannot remember the particulars of a
charge of Abusing a Family Member in January 1995.  The police records state that the
disposition is unavailable. In his Answer, the Applicant stated that he believes the
charges were dismissed. (Transcript at 34; Government Exhibit 3 at 4; Applicant’s
Answer at 3.)
2.e. The Applicant testified, and stated in his Answer, that he has no current
knowledge of a Criminal Contempt of Court charge in February 2001. This
misdemeanor charge was nolle prosequi by State B authorities. (Transcript at 34-35;
Government Exhibit 3 at 4; Applicant’s Answer at 3.)
2.d. The events in subparagraphs 2.d., 2.b. and 2.a. all concern the same
person. This was a woman (Miss One) that the Applicant became involved with who,
after a period of time, began stalking the Applicant. On May 21, 2005, she had the
Applicant arrested for Abuse of a Family Member and Criminal Property Damage. The
Applicant could not make bail and spent 23 days in jail. The charges were dismissed
without prejudice on June 13, 2005. The Applicant obtained an Order For Protection
against Miss One on June 29, 2005. This Order continues in effect to this day.
(Transcript at 35-38; Government Exhibit 2 at 8; Applicant’s Exhibit D at 4-11.)
2.c. The Applicant was arrested in August 2005 for Unauthorized Control of a
Propelled Vehicle. According to the Applicant, he was involved in a dispute with a
former employer that involved a vehicle. The Applicant was discharged by the police
pending further investigation. There is no evidence the case ever went to court.
(Transcript at 39-40; Government Exhibit 3 at 3.)
2.b. The Applicant ran into Miss One in January 2006. He saw that she needed
help, so he bought some groceries and other items for her at a grocery store.
According to the Applicant, while at a drug store, she put stolen items into a bag he was
5
carrying.  He was stopped by store security, arrested and charged with Petty Theft.
(Government Exhibit 2 at 8-9; Government Exhibit 3 at 2.) This incident is not alleged in
the SOR, but is connected to the incident alleged in subparagraph 2.b.  
Subparagraph 2.b. states that, in May 2006, Miss One accused the Applicant of
assaulting her and stealing her cell phone. He was charged with Petty Theft, Abuse of a
Family Member and Criminal Contempt of Court. As part of a plea bargain, he plead
guilty to the two misdemeanor counts of Petty Theft and the other charges were
dismissed. The Applicant states that, in retrospect, it was a mistake to plead guilty to
something he did not do. (Transcript at 40-41; Government Exhibit 2 at 9; Exhibit 3 at 2-
3.)
2.a. The Applicant was arrested for allegedly assaulting Miss One on August
23, 2007. She claimed that the Applicant threw her off of a cliff. As stated earlier, the
Applicant could not make bail and spent seven months in pre-trial confinement. The
Applicant’s lawyer submitted a letter describing the mental problems of Miss One and
stated, “After 7 months of preparation for trial and 1 week of testimony in a jury trial, it
took the jury less than 30 minutes in rejecting [Miss One’s] claims and finding [the
Applicant] not guilty.” The acquittal occurred on March 17, 2008. The Applicant’s ex-wife
also confirms the attorney’s statements. (Transcript at 41-42, 68-72; Government
Exhibit 2 at 9-10, Exhibit 3 at 1-2; Applicant’s Exhibit D at 12-13.)  
Paragraph 3 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he has made false statements to the Department of Defense during
the clearance screening process.
3.a. The Applicant started work for his current employer in May 2008. He filled
out an SF86 the same month.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  Question 23.a. asks whether
the Applicant had ever been charged or convicted of any felony offense.  He answered
“No.” This answer was false, as described above. 
3.b. Question 23.f. of Government Exhibit 1 asks the Applicant whether, in the
last seven years, he had been arrested, charged with or convicted of any offense not
listed elsewhere on the form.  He answered “No.”  This answer was also false, as
described above.
3.c. The Government also alleges that the facts stated in Paragraph 2 above,
have separate security significance under this Guideline as well.  
The Applicant testified at length on the falsification issue. He did not attempt to
minimize his falsification in any way.  Rather, he stated that he had been declined
employment close to 100 times because of his record.  He stated that he felt if he could
get his foot in the door he could show his employer what he could do.  According to the
Applicant, he fully expected his employer or the Government to do a criminal
6
background check and he would have to explain himself. He testified that his employer
knows all about his criminal history background and his lying on the questionnaire and
still wants him to work for them. The Applicant further testified that he realizes his
decision to falsify his SF86 was a mistake. Finally, the Applicant credibly testified that
he would always be truthful in the future. (Transcript at 52-56.)
Mitigation
The Applicant’s supervisor submitted letters on the Applicant’s behalf.
(Applicant’s Exhibit A and Exhibit D at 2-3.)  She states that the Applicant is a “very
reliable and trustworthy person, on and off the job.”
The Applicant’s ex-wife also submitted a letter.  She says, “He [the Applicant]
never misses work and very much enjoys what he [is] doing.  He is very proud of his job
and feels like what he does makes a difference not only for [him] self but other
people[‘s] lives.”  (Applicant’s Exhibit D at 12.)
The Applicant’s attorney for the allegation in 2.a. submitted a letter where he
states, “During the 7 months that I worked with [the Applicant], I found him to be a very
kind and respectful gentle man. He was a very intelligent, calm, rational and patient
individual. He did not exhibit any signs of hostility or irrational behavior. Without any
reservations, I would recommend [the Applicant] for employment.”  (Applicant’s Exhibit
D at 13.)
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 commonsense 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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on his own
common sense, as well as his knowledge of the law, human nature, and the ways of the
world, in making a reasoned 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
7
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 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized by President Eisenhower in Section 7 of Executive Order
10865, “Any determination under this order . . . shall be a determination 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
It is the Government's responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant's conduct and the
continued holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the
burden then shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation
or mitigation which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government's case.  The
Applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case, the Government has met its initial burden of proving by substantial
evidence that the Applicant had financial difficulties (Guideline F), has engaged in
criminal conduct (Guideline J), and that the Applicant made false statements in the
clearance screening process (Guideline E.)  The Applicant, on the other hand, has
successfully mitigated the Government's case.
8
Paragraph 1 (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 conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), a history of not meeting financial obligations may raise
security concerns.  The Applicant failed to pay several of his debts for a period of years.
The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions, requiring a
closer examination.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties.  Mitigating Condition ¶ 20(a) states that the
disqualifying conditions may be mitigated 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.  As described above, the Applicant’s seven month pre-trial confinement for a
crime he did not do was detrimental to the Applicant’s ability to pay his debts.  Since his
acquittal, he has paid over $4,000 to resolve several of his past due debts.   
Under AG ¶ 20(b), the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where the
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
control (e.g., loss of employment . . .), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances.  The Applicant was not earning income during the time he was
wrongfully incarcerated. As soon as he was released from jail and employed, he began
to pay his bills. 
Evidence that the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts is also mitigating under ¶ 20(d).  The Applicant showed that
he has successfully paid off two of the debts alleged in the SOR, in addition to showing
a credible intent to pay his remaining debts.  I conclude this potentially mitigating
condition applies.
The Applicant has successfully mitigated the security concerns of this allegation.
Paragraph 1 is found for the Applicant.
9
Paragraph 2 (Guideline J - Criminal Conduct)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Criminal Conduct is set out in
AG & 30:      
Criminal activity creates doubts 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.
The Applicant was allegedly involved in criminal incidents from 1981 to 2007.  AG
¶ 31(a) applies to this case, stating that a disqualifying condition is a single serious
crime or multiple lesser offenses.  In addition, AG ¶ 31(d) also applies, which states that
a disqualifying condition is an allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of
whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted. 
The Applicant’s criminal conduct can be divided into two distinct periods.  The
first, from 1981 through 1995, occurred when the Applicant was a young man.  (SOR
subparagraphs 2.f. through 2.k.) All of these events took place over 13 years ago.
Several of them involve the Applicant not showing up for court and being found in
contempt.  While still important in determining the Applicant’s security worthiness, the
span in time must be considered as a mitigating factor.
Three of the four incidents since 2005 revolve around the relationship of the
Applicant and Miss One. The Applicant has presented compelling evidence, including a
letter from his lawyer, that he was the subject of a stalker for several years. The truth of
this event is shown by the fact that, after seven months in pre-trial confinement and a
week long jury trial, he was acquitted in less than 30 minutes. The other incident (2.c.)
can be explained as a conflict between employer and employee. Of importance is the
fact that no court case ever occurred because of the incident in 2.c.  
The Applicant’s credible testimonial evidence is that he has learned his lesson
from these incidents and they will not be repeated.  In determining his credibility, I
specifically considered all of the SOR allegations, and his admission that he falsified his
SF86.  He showed a mature grasp of what happened here, why, and how to avoid such
incidents in the future.  He is not the same person who got into trouble.  
Under the particular facts of this case, several of the mitigating conditions also
apply and justify a finding for the Applicant as to this Guideline.  They are 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 AG ¶ 32(b), 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. Upon
cursory review, the Applicant’s criminal history may be troubling, but a closer inspection
shows that he has mitigated the concerns.  Paragraph 2 is found for the Applicant.
Such a conclusion finds support in DOHA/DISCR Appeal Board precedent.  See DISCR OSD Case No. 88-1
2635 (Ap. Bd. January 19, 1990).
10
Paragraph 3 (Guideline E - 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.
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 16(a), the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, is potentially disqualifying. The Applicant did
provide false information on his questionnaire concerning his criminal history. Such
falsifications normally result in an Applicant being denied a security clearance. I find that
such a result is not justified in this case.  
As described at length above, the Applicant had been released from jail after
spending seven months there for a crime he did not commit. He needed to get back to
work.  Telling prospective employers the truth about his criminal history resulted in his
being turned down many times. In order to get the job he now holds, the Applicant made
the regrettable decision to lie about his criminal history. He credibly testified that the
situation was desperate and that he would not make the same mistake again. He states
that his employer is completely knowledgeable of the falsification and his criminal
record, and still wants him to be an employee.
This is such a compelling case, based on the singular situation found here, I find
that the Applicant meets the requirements of AG ¶ 17(c).  This condition states that it
can be mitigating where the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the
behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it
is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness,
or good judgment.  (Emphasis supplied.) Human beings, and not just the Applicant,1
make mistakes.  There is no denying this is a serious mistake.  Yet, taking all of the
evidence into account, considering all the circumstances of this particular case, I find
that his conduct can be mitigated.  
I have also separately considered the Paragraph 2 allegations under this
Guideline. AG ¶ 16(c) sets forth the applicable disqualifying condition: credible adverse
information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse
determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole,
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
11
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other
characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected
information. However, based on all the available evidence, I find that Mitigating
Condition AG ¶ 17(d) applies: the individual has acknowledged the behavior and
obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other
inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.  It became obvious during
the hearing, and is supported by the letter from his lawyer, that the seven months the
Applicant spent in jail on a spurious charge have changed him for the better. 
The Applicant has mitigated all of the subparagraphs under Paragraph 3.
Guideline E is found for the Applicant.
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) 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.” Under AG ¶ 2(c), 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.
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, in particular the Applicant’s criminal
history, his payment of several of his bills since his release, and particularly his
falsifications on a Government questionnaire.  Three of the factors have the most
impact on this case.  First, I find that there is the “presence or absence of rehabilitation
and other permanent behavioral changes,” as set forth under AG ¶ 2(a)(6).  The
Applicant has shown that he has truly turned a corner on his life, his financial situation is
under control, his falsifications were a unique circumstance not to be repeated, and he
has demonstrated reliability and trustworthiness since he began working for his current
employer.  I find that he is eligible for a security clearance. Under the particular facts of
this case, there is little or no “potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress” as
set forth in AG ¶ 2(a)(8).  Finally, given all the circumstances, I do not find that there is
the “likelihood of continuation or recurrence” as discussed in AG ¶ 2(a)(9) . 
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a DoD security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding for the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
12
allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Government's Statement of
Reasons.
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: FOR THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For the Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline J: FOR THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.f.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.g.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.h.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.i.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.j.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.k.: For the Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: FOR THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 3.c.: For the Applicant
13
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge