DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-09400 
SSN: ----------------- ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOWE, Philip S., Administrative Judge: 
 
On May 2, 2008, Applicant submitted his electronic version of the Security 
Clearance Application (SF 86) (e-QIP). On September 23, 2009, the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 
detailing security concerns under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and E (Personal 
Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified 
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense 
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG) 
promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the 
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
  
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on October 16, 2009. Applicant requested 
his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  
 
On December 7, 2009, Department Counsel submitted the Department=s written 
case. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to the 
 
 
 
 
 
1
 
 
 
 
 
2
                                           
Applicant on February 1, 2010. He was given the opportunity to file objections and 
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant received the file on 
February 1, 2010. Applicant filed a Response to the FORM within the 30 day time 
allowed that would have expired on March 3, 2010, by submitting a Response dated 
February 1, 2010. The Department Counsel had no objection to the Response. I 
received the case assignment on February 17, 2010. Based upon a review of the 
complete case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information 
is denied 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant admitted all the alcohol and falsification allegations in the SOR. Those 
admissions are incorporated into these findings of fact. (Item 4)  
 
 Applicant is 30 years old, married and has two children, born in 2004 and 2008. 
He works for a defense contractor. He served in the U.S. Army from July 1997 to June 
2004. He was administratively discharged in June 2004 with a General Discharge under 
Honorable Conditions, pursuant to Army regulation, for a pattern of misconduct. This 
action resulted from his non-judicial punishments under Article 15 of the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ) in November 2002 and September 2003 for failure to go to 
his place of duty in violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ. He also received an Article 15 in 
January 2004, for failure to go to his place of duty at the appointed times and dereliction 
of duty in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Applicant did not disclose these Article 15 
actions in his e-QIP in his response to Question 23 (e) (“In the last 7 years, have you 
been subject of court-martial or other disciplinary proceedings under ht e Uniform Code 
of Military Justice? [include non-judicial, Captain’s mast, etc.]). Applicant answered the 
question “no.” (Items 5 and 6) 
 
 Applicant was arrested on May 17, 1998, on charged with driving under the 
influence of alcohol, improper use of disabled parking privileges, and illegal 
consumption of ethyl alcohol by an underage person. Applicant committed these 
offenses when he was 19 years old and serving in the U.S. Army. Applicant pled guilty 
to the lesser charge of driving while ability impaired. The other charges were dismissed. 
Applicant received a 12-month deferred sentence, ordered to pay $200 in fines and 
court costs, ordered to perform 24 hours of community service, and had his driving 
privileges for six months. Applicant did not list this arrest on his e-QIP in answer to 
Question 23 (d) (“Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) 
related to alcohol or drugs?”), responding to this question with a negative reply. 
Applicant also failed to disclose in his response to the March 2009 DOHA 
Interrogatories this arrest in response to Question 51 (“Have you ever been arrested, 
charged or held by any law enforcement authorities for any reason.”). Applicant 
 
1 The SOR alleges this question is “25,” but there are only six questions in the interrogatory marked as 
Item 7. The text cited in the SOR is Question 5 in the interrogatory. This error is a typing error and not a 
substantial error.   
 
 
 
 
 
3
answered the question with an affirmative reply and disclosed his 2007 arrest, but not 
this 1998 arrest. (Items 5, 6, 7, 10, and 12) 
 
 Applicant was arrested on December 8, 2007, on charges of driving while 
intoxicated (first offense) (DWI) and failure to maintain a traffic lane. He pled guilty to 
driving while intoxicated. In February 2008 Applicant was placed on one year of 
supervised probation, ordered to pay fines of $85, to attend and complete 24 hours of 
community service, to attend DWI school, and to attend a victim impact panel. Applicant 
did not list this arrest on his e-QIP in answer to Question 23 (d) (“Have you ever been 
charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?”), responding to 
this question with a negative reply. Applicant did not complete the community service 
ordered, nor pay the fines ordered, nor attend the DWI school and the victim impact 
panel. The court issued bench warrants on January 14, 2008, January 24, 2008, 
February 18, 2008, and again on March 24, 2008, to enforce these requirements. 
Applicant pled guilty to the offenses of failure to attend the DWI school and the victim 
impact panel and ordered to forfeit his bond on each offense. Applicant explained these 
failures to attend the required classes as caused by his busy travel schedule which 
allowed him to be home only one weekend a month. The classes only met during the 
week when he was not in his home area. (Items 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12) 
 
 In May 2006 Applicant was terminated by his former defense contractor employer 
for being late for work. Applicant was late for work 11 times between January 6, 2006 
and April 27, 2006. He was counseled verbally and in writing six times between 
September 19, 2005 and December 21, 2005. Applicant did not disclose this termination 
in response to Question 22 on his e-QIP (“Has any of the following happened to you in 
the last 7 years? 1. Fired from a job; 2. Quit a job after being told you’d be fired; 3. Left 
a job by mutual agreement following allegations of misconduct; 4. Left a job by mutual 
agreement following allegations of unsatisfactory performance; 5. Left a job for other 
reasons under unfavorable circumstances.”). He answered the question with a “no.” 
Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator on July 11, 2008. During that 
interview he stated he voluntarily resigned from his prior employment with the first 
defense contractor, denied any written warnings were given, denied being terminated, 
and stated he was eligible for rehiring. His Answer to the SOR admits he was 
terminated because of tardiness resulting from his 64 mile drive one-way daily from his 
home to his place of employment. (Items 4, 5, 6, and 13) 
 
 Applicant’s Answer to the SOR denies any falsification of any of his information 
on the e-QIP or as given to the government investigator in July 2008. He explained he 
answered the e-QIP “in a quick manner and forgot to include the information.” He also 
stated he knew his background information would be found during the investigation. 
Applicant denied that his past actions reflect on his current trustworthiness and says he 
is a productive employee for his company. (Item 4) 
 
 Applicant did not list his first-born child in his response to Sections 14/15 of the e-
QIP. That child was born in 2004. He also failed to list a former home address in his e-
 
 
 
 
 
4
QIP. Applicant admitted these failures to the government investigator in July 2008. 
(Items 4 and 6) 
 
 Applicant told the government investigator his current alcohol consumption in 
July 2008 was “one to three beers with dinner per month.” He told the investigator that 
his last intoxication, which he did not feel as such, was his December 2007 DWI arrest 
and his blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.12%. Applicant also told the investigator he 
has never received any alcohol counseling nor been referred for treatment. His answers 
to the March 2009, DOHA Interrogatory state he drank a beer with dinner at home one 
month prior to completing the interrogatory, and he drinks one to two beers monthly. He 
also stated he does not drink to intoxication and only at home when he is not going to 
drive. Drinking has not hampered his work performance, according to Applicant. (Items 
6 and 7) 
 
 Applicant has had a security clearance since 1997 when he was in the Army. His 
security access was suspended after his 1998 DWI arrest. It was granted in 1999 after 
that incident was concluded. (FORM Response; Item 11)  
 
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, the administrative judge applies the guidelines 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 Awhole 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[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. 
 
According to Directive & E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to 
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive & E3.1.15, an 
“applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, 
 
 
 
 
 
5
extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, 
and 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. 
  
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be Ain 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 G, Alcohol Consumption 
 
 AG ¶ 21 expresses the security concern pertaining to alcohol consumption: 
 
Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable 
judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about 
an individual's reliability and trustworthiness. 
 
 AG ¶ 22 describes seven conditions that could raise a security concern and may 
be disqualifying. Of these seven conditions, two conditions are applicable: 
 
(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under 
the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or 
other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is 
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; and 
 
(g) failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, 
evaluation, treatment, or abstinence. 
 
 Applicant has two DWI arrests with resulting court sentences to his guilty pleas. 
The two offenses occurred in 1998 and 2007. The second offense is recent and 
occurred away from work. He was ordered to attend certain classes and a victim impact 
panel, along with paying fines and performing community service. He did not complete 
those requirements. Bench warrants were issued by the state court for Applicant to 
compel compliance. Applicant did not submit any documentary proof he ever complied 
 
 
 
 
 
6
with those requirements. Therefore, these two disqualifying conditions apply to 
Applicant.  
 
 AG ¶ 23 provides four conditions that could mitigate security concerns. None of 
them apply based on the evidence Applicant presented: 
 
(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or 
does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, 
or good judgment; 
 
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol 
abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and 
has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or 
responsible use (if an alcohol abuser); 
 
(c) the individual is a current employee who is participating in a counseling 
or treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse, 
and is making satisfactory progress; and 
 
(d) the individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient 
counseling or rehabilitation along with any required aftercare, has 
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or 
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, such as 
participation in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar 
organization and has received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified 
medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff 
member of a recognized alcohol treatment program. 
  
 Applicant does not admit to any alcohol problem. He did not attend any alcohol 
counseling and has not been referred for any alcohol rehabilitation program. His latest 
DWI arrest was in 2007, which was recent. It is of concern because of this arrest was 
his second such arrest in nine years, and his BAC was 0.12%, more than the standard 
minimum amount for intoxication under state laws. Therefore, none of the mitigating 
conditions apply to Applicant.  
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct: 
 
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 
 
 
 
 
 
7
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other 
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process. 
 
The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or 
administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility: 
 
(a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or 
cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting 
with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms 
or releases, and cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation; 
and, 
 
(b) refusal to provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful 
questions of investigators, security officials, or other official 
representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness 
determination. 
 
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. I have specifically considered: 
 
(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; 
 
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning 
relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent 
medical authority, or other official government representative; 
(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: 
 (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations. 
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct, 
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such 
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's 
personal, professional, or community standing, or (2) while in another 
 
 
 
 
 
8
country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is 
legal in that country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a 
basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence 
service or other group 
 
 Applicant intentionally, deliberately, and repeatedly falsified information about his 
two DWI arrests and convictions, his prior employment and termination by his former 
employer, and his Army Article 15 actions and subsequent administrative discharge for 
a pattern of misconduct under Army regulations on his May 2, 2008 e-QIP. He also 
gave false and misleading information to the government investigator in July 2008 about 
his job termination. While the SOR did not allege Applicant’s failure to list his child and a 
prior home address on the e-QIP, they do strengthen the showing that there is a pattern 
of falsification and failures to disclose perpetrated by Applicant on official government 
security forms. AG ¶ 16 (a) and (b) apply. 
 
The reasons for Applicant’s Article 15, administrative discharge, and workplace 
termination by his prior employer were credible adverse information showing a pattern 
of inappropriate workplace behavior and rule violations. Applicant was habitually late for 
work both as an Army service member and a civilian employee. This conduct creates 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress because it affects Applicant’s ability 
to retain and obtain other employment in the future. I find AG ¶ 16 (d) and (e) apply. 
 
The guideline also includes seven examples of conditions that could mitigate 
security concerns arising from personal conduct. I have considered all of the mitigating 
conditions under AG ¶ 17. None of them apply: 
 
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, 
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; 
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was 
caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of 
authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual 
specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made 
aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the 
individual cooperated fully and truthfully; 
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is 
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; 
 
(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, an such behavior is unlikely to recur; 
 
 
 
 
 
9
 
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; 
 
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable 
reliability; and 
(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. 
 Applicant did not correct his deliberate falsifications concerning his alcohol-
related driving offenses, his failure to complete the sentencing requirements ordered by 
the state court judge for those offenses, nor his non-judicial punishments under the 
UCMJ, and the termination by his former employer, until confronted by the government 
investigator in the July 2008 interview. The omitted information casts doubt on 
Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment because it is material and 
substantive in security clearance process. Applicant has not acknowledged any 
wrongdoing nor obtained any counseling or rehabilitation for his past alcohol use. The 
information about his termination is substantiated. I find none of the above mitigating 
conditions apply. 
 
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 relevant 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 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant was over 18 years old when 
 
 
 
 
 
10
he committed the driving offenses, when he received the non-judicial punishment while 
in the U.S. Army for tardiness, and when he failed to answer the e-QIP questions 
truthfully.  
 
His historical pattern of misconduct shows he was late for military formations and 
was derelict in his duty which resulted in his administrative discharge from the Army 
with a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions, then late for work as a civilian 
which resulted in his termination, committed two DWI offenses, and lastly failed to 
disclose all these incidents on his e-QIP when the government asked him to make a full 
disclosure of his past activities. His alcohol incidents show a pattern of disrespect for 
the law and a gross lack of judgment. He did not submit any information concerning 
alcohol rehabilitation. Instead, he minimized his alcohol use and involvement. This 
inaction leaves him vulnerable to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress based on 
the repeated and serious nature of these offenses and his deliberate failure to disclose 
them.  
 
His pattern of falsification and deprecation of his past activities continues to this 
day and is obviously voluntary. His FORM Response attempts to persuade the 
government to grant a security clearance based on his current work performance and 
ignoring his pattern of falsifications and workplace tardiness. His actions of this type will 
continue based on his past performance. Applicant displayed a lack of good judgment in 
the Army and as a civilian employee of a defense contractor.  The Army suspended his 
security access after his 1998 DWI arrest. In 2007 he committed another serious DWI 
offense (BAC of 0.12%) and then failed to complete the sentencing requirements. Next, 
he exhibited a continued lack of appropriate judgment by failing to make proper and 
complete disclosures on his e-QIP. Applicant displays a pattern of inattentiveness, self-
centeredness, and lack of responsibility for his obligations. 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or substantial doubts as to 
Applicant=s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising under the guideline for 
Alcohol Consumption. He did not mitigate the security concerns under the guideline for 
Personal Conduct. I conclude the “whole person” concept against Applicant.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline G:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
           Subparagraph 1.a to 1.b:   Against Applicant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 2.a to 2.o:   Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by 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. 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
_________________ 
PHILIP S. HOWE 
Administrative Judge