1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08–04887
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the security concern generated by his alcohol consumption,
but failed to mitigate the security concerns generated by his criminal conduct, personal
conduct, and troubled finances. Clearance denied.
Statement of the Case
On August 17, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guidelines J, Criminal Conduct, G, Alcohol Consumption, F, Financial Considerations,
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
adjudicative guidelines (AG).
2
Applicant answered the SOR on September 3, 2009, admitting all allegations
except SOR Paragraph 4. On October 29, 2009, the case was assigned to another
administrative judge who scheduled the hearing for December 11, 2009. On December
3, 2009, the hearing was continued. On December 15, 2009, the case was reassigned
to me.  On January 13, 2010, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case for
February 4, 2010. At the hearing, I received 20 government exhibits, 15 Applicant
exhibits and Applicant’s testimony. The transcript was received on February 25, 2010. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 48-year-old single man with one child, age 20. He was previously
married from 1986 to 1996. The marriage ended in divorce. Applicant graduated from
college in 1984 with a double major in Economics and Business Administration. (Tr. 55)
For the past two-and-a-half years, Applicant has worked for a defense contractor
as a software tester. His duties include maintaining the media library used for data
processing applications, and evaluating system test results for the purposes of
identifying defects. (AE I) According to a senior-level manager, Applicant is “the go-to
guy when the team needs a dependable and trustworthy person to get the job done.”
(GE A) His immediate supervisor characterized him as exceptionally dedicated to the
job, honest, and trustworthy. (AE C)
In September 2000, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving under the
influence (DUI) of alcohol. Subsequently, he was fined. (GE 1)
Two months later, in December 2000, Applicant was again arrested and charged
with DUI after the police stopped him driving down a one-way street. His blood/alcohol
content at the time of the arrest was .394. (GE 2 at 9) He was fined and ordered to
attend inpatient treatment. (GE 2) The record contains no evidence of whether he
attended the inpatient treatment, as ordered.
In February 2001, Applicant was arrested and charged with contempt of court for
failing to appear in court on a charge for inattention to driving. (GE 3 at 2) He was fined
and sentenced to community service.
On the morning of February 21, 2001, the police stopped Applicant after
observing that his car did not have any license tags. Because of the heavy odor of
alcohol emanating from Applicant’s car, the officer administered a field sobriety test.
Applicant failed, and was charged with DUI, driving without license tags, and driving on
a suspended license. (GE 16 at 4) Subsequently, he was fined.
In April 2001, Applicant was arrested and charged with theft after the proprietor
of a convenience store caught him stealing groceries and vodka. (GE 16 at 4; Tr. 44)
Applicant was homeless at the time. (GE 16 at 5) He was sentenced to a fine and
ordered to perform community service.
Applicant slashed the tires of an automobile in the parking lot.1
3
From February 2003 to August 2003, Applicant attended an inpatient alcohol
recovery program. (Answer at 1; GE 10 at 9) He was diagnosed alcohol dependent. (Tr.
48) Applicant completed the treatment, but still had “the mindset of an alcoholic.” (Tr.
45)
In September 2003, Applicant was arrested after police responded to a call that
he was wielding a knife in an apartment parking lot and rambling incoherently. (AE 8 at
14) When the police arrived, they charged him with disorderly conduct and criminal
damage.  Applicant testified that he had not been drinking before this incident. (Tr. 46)1
Also, he denied the police officers’ account of what happened. Instead, he contended
he was walking down the street when two men threatened him. After they jumped in a
car, he then threw a rock at it. (GE 16 at 7) I find the police officers’ account of what
happened is more credible.
In November 2005, Applicant lost control of his car and crashed it into a small
yellow delineator. (GE 7) When the police arrived, Applicant was asleep at the wheel of
the car, and its driver’s seat door was open. After smelling the odor of alcohol, the
officer woke Applicant and attempted to perform a field sobriety test. The officer stopped
the test after concluding Applicant was too intoxicated to safely administer it. (GE 7)
Subsequently, Applicant was arrested and charged with “extreme DUI.” (GE 9 at 1) He
pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 12 months of probation, ordered to serve 90 days
in jail with 80 days suspended, and ordered to pay a $1,725 fine. Also, the court ordered
Applicant to undergo alcohol treatment and attend an alcohol education class. The 80-
day suspension of his jail sentence was contingent upon him complying with probation.
(Id. at 3)
Applicant complied with the court order. (GE 10 at 9) Applicant successfully
completed the treatment in September 2006. (Id. at 22) Applicant continues to attend
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings consistent with his counselor’s recommendations.
(GE 10 at 22; Tr. 49) Initially he attended several times per week. Now, he attends twice
per month. Applicant has not drunk any alcohol since the episode in November 2005
that triggered the DUI arrest. (Tr. 56) According to Applicant’s therapist, he has a
supportive network of friends, recognizes the importance of AA, and lives in an
environment supportive of recovery. (GE 10 at 5)
In the late 1990s, Applicant was a successful sales representative. (Tr. 43) He
lost this job after his first DUI conviction. Between 2000 and 2003, he was an
“unemployed drunk.” (Tr. 43) Consequently, by 2005, he had accrued 20 delinquent
debts, as listed in the SOR, in the approximate amount of $20,000. (Answer at 2)
Currently, Applicant earns approximately $36,000 per year, and has between
four and five hundred dollars of monthly after-expense income. (Tr. 58) On March 9,
2009, Applicant negotiated a settlement for the delinquency listed in SOR subparagraph
Section 23.f (In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense(s)2
not listed in response to a, b, c, d, or e above? (Leave out traffic fines of less than $150 unless the
violation was alcohol or drug related)).
4
3.n, a cell phone bill totalling $508. (AE N) He satisfied it two weeks later, consistent
with the agreement. (Id.)
Applicant began satisfying a child support delinquency, as listed in SOR
subparagraph 3.d, in February 2009. At the time, he was nearly $4,000 behind. Since
then, he has made steady, monthly payments, and has reduced the arrearage to
approximately $1,600. (AE M)
The remaining SOR delinquencies continue to be outstanding. Applicant has
neither called nor written any of these creditors. (Tr. 57) He has not enrolled in financial
counseling. (Tr. 58) 
Applicant completed a security clearance application in October 2007. In
response to Section 23.d (Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any
offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?), he answered, “Yes,” and listed his 2005 arrest.
He did not list the earlier alcohol-related arrests. 
In his security clearance application, Applicant was also required to disclose any
arrests he had been charged with in the preceding seven years that were not alcohol
related.  Applicant, in his Answer stated that he forgot about the 2003 arrest. Also, he2
concluded he did not need to list the others, including the alcohol-related arrests
because he mistakenly thought they occurred more than seven years before he
completed the security clearance application. (Tr. 53) 
Applicant indicated on his security clearance application that he was employed
continuously between 2002 and 2003, which is contrary to his testimony. (GE 11 at 14)
Also, he listed his 2006 alcohol treatment, but failed to disclose his 2003 alcohol
treatment, as required, on the security clearance application. 
In 2004, Applicant returned to school to earn a master’s degree in educational
technology. He graduated with honors in 2007. (GE 11 at 11) Applicant is highly active
in the community, tutoring students, building housing for the homeless, and raising
money for cancer research. (AE E)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). 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. 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
5
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.” 
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 to obtain a security clearance.
Analysis
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
Under this guideline, “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 ¶ 21). Applicant has a history of
excessive alcohol consumption and DUIs. In 2005, a therapist evaluated him as alcohol
dependent. AG ¶¶ 22(a), “alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving
while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other
incidents of concern regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol
abuser or alcohol dependent,” 22(c), “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the
point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an
alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent,” and 22(d), “evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol
dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized
alcohol treatment program,” apply.
Applicant has not consumed alcohol since November 2005. He has a network of
friends who support his efforts at maintaining sobriety, and received a favorable
prognosis from his therapist. The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 23 apply:
(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), 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
See Personal Conduct section, infra.3
6
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, such as
participation in meetings of AA 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.
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct
Under this guideline, “criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness.” (AG ¶ 30) Also, “by its very nature, it calls into question
a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” (Id.)
Applicant’s series of criminal offenses between 2000 and 2005 trigger the application of
AG ¶ 31(a), “a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.”
The majority of Applicant’s criminal activity stemmed from his drinking problem.
He has gotten this problem under control through therapy and AA attendance. Since his
last DUI in 2005, he obtained his current job where he has excelled, earned a master’s
degree, and immersed himself in community service, volunteering for multiple charities.
AG ¶ 32(d), “there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to,
the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution, job
training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community
involvement.”
Applicant’s falsification of his security clearance application in 2007,  however,3
constitutes a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Consequently, it is too soon to conclude
that AG ¶ 32(a), “so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened . . .
that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability
trustworthiness, or good judgment,” applies.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “failure or inability to live within one’s mean’s 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.”
(AG ¶ 18) Applicant’s history of financial delinquencies triggers the application of AG ¶¶
19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting
financial obligations.”
Applicant’s financial difficulties corresponded with his descent into alcoholism in
the late 1990s. At the low point of his struggle with alcoholism, Applicant, while
homeless, was apprehended stealing groceries and liquor from a convenience store.
AG ¶ 19(f), “financial problems that are linked to drug abuse, alcoholism, gambling
problems, and other issues of security concern,” applies.
7
Applicant satisfied one debt, and has been making payments toward the
satisfaction of another for the past nine months. However, he has neither satisfied any
other delinquencies, nor contacted the remaining 18 creditors listed in the SOR. Also,
although he acknowledged that financial counseling could be helpful, he has yet to
enroll. AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts,” is partially applicable, but none of the remaining mitigating
conditions are applicable.
Personal Conduct
This security concern is set forth in AG ¶ 15 as follows:
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’s omissions from his 2007 security clearance application raise the
question of whether AG ¶ 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.” Applicant contends his 2003 arrest occurred after he threw a
rock at the car of two men who had threatened him. Conversely, the arresting officer
contends that he arrested Applicant after he observed him wielding a knife in a parking
lot and rambling incoherently. Regardless of whose recollection is more accurate, it is
clear that the events leading to Applicant’s arrest were neither mundane nor forgettable.
Consequently, Applicant’s contention that he did not list this arrest on his security
clearance application because he forgot it about it is not credible.
Applicant’s lack of credibility demonstrated in explaining the omission of the 2003
arrest undermines the credibility of his explanations for omitting the other arrests from
his security clearance application. I conclude that Applicant falsified his security
clearance application, as alleged in the SOR, and that AG ¶ 16(a) applies without
mitigation.
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
8
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.
Applicant deserves credit for overcoming his alcohol dependence. He is a good
employee who is dedicated to community service. The completion of a graduate degree
also reflects favorably upon his character. However, Applicant has yet to make a
concerted effort to rehabilitate his finances. Also, he was not candid about the extent of
his arrest history and the extent of his alcohol-related problems on his security
clearance application. Consequently, upon considering his case in the context of the
whole-person concept, I conclude Applicant is an unacceptable candidate for a security
clearance.
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 J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.g: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a -2.g: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a-3.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.d: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 3.e - 3.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.n: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 3.o - 3.t: Against Applicant
Paragraph 4:  Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 4.a - 4.b: Against Applicant
9
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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge