1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-04036
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On February 2, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct). DOHA acted 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) effective within the Department of Defense on September
1, 2006. 
 
On March 8, 2010, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing.
DOHA assigned the case to me on May 20, 2010. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on
June 23, 2010, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on July 20, 2010. Department
Counsel offered six exhibits, which were admitted as Government Exhibits (GE) 1-6,
without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of
one witness. He offered ten exhibits, which were admitted as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A-
2
J, without objection. At Applicant’s request, I held the record open until August 5, 2010
for additional documentation. Applicant timely submitted a document (AE K) admitted
into the record without objection. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on August 3, 2010.
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 admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a
through 1.g, ¶¶ 2.a through 2.c, and ¶¶ 3.a through 3c. 
Applicant is a 29-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He graduated from
high school in 1999, and attended a technical college from December 2006 until August
2008. He is divorced with no children. (GE 1) Applicant served in the United States Air
Force (active duty) from February 2000 until December 2006. Applicant has held a
security clearance since 2000. He has been with his current employer since February
2009. (Tr. 36)
Alcohol Consumption
When Applicant was serving in the military, he received a DUI in 2005. He was
drinking at a friend’s home on base and during the course of the evening he consumed
two eight-ounce alcoholic beverages. Applicant and his friend decided to leave the
residence and visit a club. (Tr. 38) While on his way to the club, he saw a motorcycle
rider fall from his bike. Applicant attempted to avert hitting the person and swerved to
the left, crashing into a tree. (Tr. 39) The Air Force ordered a court-martial due to a
violation of Article 111 (Drunk Driving). At the court-martial, Applicant was found guilty,
sentenced to three months confinement and a reduction from E-3 to paygrade E-1.
Applicant’s license was suspended for one year. (Tr. 41)
In November 2006, while still in the military, Applicant and his wife were out for
the evening socializing with friends. Applicant reports that he consumed approximately
four-ounces of liquor. He believed he was not intoxicated and under the legal limit.
However, on his way home, he did not stop for a stop sign. A police officer pulled
Applicant over and while talking with him, smelled alcohol on his breath. After failing a
Breathalyzer test and field sobriety tests, Applicant was charged with one count of DUI.
He pled guilty and was sentenced to a 30-day license suspension. Additionally, he was
fined $800 and ordered to attend a one-day DUI class. (GE 2) After the incident,
Applicant asked the military for additional alcohol counseling. (Tr. 44) Instead of more
counseling, the military discharged him for misconduct. He received a general discharge
under honorable conditions. (GE 2) 
Applicant admitted that while in the military from approximately January 2002
until at least November 2006, he consumed alcohol at times to excess and to the point
of intoxication. (Tr. 68) Applicant understands that he made mistakes at a young age
with his use of alcohol. (Tr. 21) He believes he used alcohol to deal with stress. He has
3
changed his drinking habits. He still drinks occasionally. He reports that he might drink
two or three beers on weekends. However, he does not drink and drive. (Tr. 62) He
describes his alcohol use as responsible. His last alcohol incident was in 2006. He has
not had any additional alcohol counseling since 2006. He believes that some stress at
that time was due to his separation and divorce. He deals with stress in a more positive
way, such as exercise or sports. (Tr. 63) Applicant noted that the military’s evaluation
concerning his alcohol use was that he was “not at risk.”
Financial Considerations
At the hearing, Applicant explained that he started having financial difficulties in
December 2006 after his separation from the military. He attended a technical school
from 2006 until 2008, lived with his parents, and was unemployed during that time. He
used the GI bill to pay for his tuition. In 2005, he purchased a vehicle. Applicant made
monthly payments of $500 until July 2007. He surrendered the vehicle, as he could not
afford the payments. Applicant also incurred some medical bills that he was unable to
pay. (GE 2) 
The SOR alleges six delinquent debts, and one judgment. The approximate total
for Applicant’s debts (excluding his judgment) is $17,000 (GE 6). The judgment is in the
amount of $21,405. The current status of Applicant’s delinquent debts is described
below.
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a is for a judgment filed in June 2008. The amount
of $21,405 is the result of Applicant’s 2007 vehicle repossession. Applicant
acknowledged that this debt is unpaid. (Tr. 47) Applicant claims he has been “working”
to settle the matter since 2009 but does not have the funds to do so. He claims that he
had an agreement for a $6,000 settlement but did not have the necessary lump sum.
(Tr. 54) He provided a post-hearing statement that noted “he made arrangements to
settle the account beginning at the end of the month.” Unfortunately, he did not have
documentation of the agreement with terms listing the specific repayment. (AE K)
Applicant’s debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b for $10,083 is the result of an enlistment
bonus that he had to return. Applicant’s federal tax refund ($2,920) was applied to this
account on February 5, 2010. (AE G) He has arranged for a 36-month payment plan
that will begin in September 2010 to repay the remainder.
Applicant admits the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c. for $28. The account is for a
medical bill. The account is now paid in full. (AE C)
Applicant resolved the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d for $690. This account was
paid on April 23, 2010. (AE A) 
Applicant resolved the medical debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e for $593. The account
is now paid. (AE B)
4
Applicant claims the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f for $886 is the same account as
above. He claims this medical account is paid. (AE K) 
Applicant settled and paid the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g for $2,568 in July 2010.
(AE K) the original amount of the debt was $5,136.
Applicant’s current net monthly income is approximately $3,300. (GE Tr. 56) He
is current with his monthly expenses. His net monthly remainder is approximately
$1,380. He has a savings account. Applicant has no credit cards. (Tr. 59) He has not
obtained financial counseling. 
Applicant obtained full time-employment in 2008 with a contractor and worked
outside of the United States from August 2008 until January 2009. He did not begin
repayment of any debts until after his 2009 employment. He explained that he had not
obtained a credit report before that time. He also stated that each company wanted a
lump sum and he did not have enough income. After his interview with OPM, he
obtained his credit report. Applicant tried to set up a repayment plan to pay all his debts.
He was not successful in that effort until 2010. (AE K)
Personal Conduct
When Applicant completed his March 6, 2009 security clearance application, he
read Section 22(e) (Police Record). In that application, he answered “Yes” to question
22(e): Have you ever been charged with any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs? He
listed the 2006 DUI but did not list the 2005 DUI. However, Applicant provided the
information in Section 15: Military History. Applicant answered “yes” to any military
charges. He provided complete information about his November 2005 DUI and listed
the court’s finding of guilty. In that same section, military history, Applicant identified his
discharge as “other” and listed “Under honorable conditions.” (GE 1 and AE J)
Applicant also read Section 26: Your Financial Record in his 2009 security
clearance application. In response to 26(e): Have you had a judgment entered against
you?, he answered, “no.” He explained that he did not have specific information about a
2008 judgment at the time. The judgment is the result of the voluntary vehicle
repossession in 2007.   
At the hearing, Applicant was forthright and candid about his answers on the
2009 security clearance application. (Tr. 46) At the time he completed the application,
he did not have any specific information with him concerning the judgment. He was
credible in his explanation that he decided to answer “no” because he did not have the
information to input the amount of the judgment or the company. (Tr. 48) He also
reported during his OPM interview that when he turned the vehicle in after several years
of payments that he believed he did not owe such a sum. (GE 2) He did not list any
outstanding balances or delinquencies because he had not checked a credit report. He
acknowledged during his OPM interview that he did not know if the account was
forwarded to a collection agency. (GE 2) 
5
Applicant’s former military buddy testified at the hearing that Applicant is a hard-
working individual. He has known Applicant since 2006. He was with him in 2006, when
Applicant received a DUI. He affirmed that Applicant does not drink and drive. He knows
that Applicant has changed his drinking habits. (Tr. 83)
Applicant’s current supervisor describes him as a professional who exhibits
integrity in the daily maintenance operations at the base. Applicant is described as one
of the top maintenance performers. He is highly motivated and instills in others a sense
of the importance of mission readiness. Applicant’s personal and professional life is
exemplary. He is a valuable asset to the organization, and he has held an interim
security clearance with no difficulties. (AE H) 
Applicant submitted certificates acquired during his current employment. (AE D
and E) He also included many letters of reference from his colleagues who work with
him closely. (AE H) Each person describes Applicant as an outstanding worker and a
trustworthy individual. 
Applicant presented a job performance commendation for his outstanding service
in the Air Force in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. (AE F) Applicant received many
letters of commendation and appreciation during his service in the military from 2000
until 2006. His dedication to his mission in 2001 is noted in several letters. In 2005,
Applicant was lauded for his exemplary conduct. Applicant was also praised for his
community involvement and his volunteer efforts. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 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,
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
6
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 to obtain 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 safeguard classified information.
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential,
rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order (EO) 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 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 Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant has a judgment in the amount of $21,405. Applicant
accumulated delinquent debts on various accounts by his own admission. His credit
reports confirm the debts. The evidence is sufficient to raise these disqualifying
conditions.
The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns
arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition may be
7
mitigated where Athe 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.@ Applicant still has
some unresolved delinquent debts. He has paid several small accounts. He intends to
pay his judgment but he has not provided documentation that a precise plan is in place.
He is in a stable financial situation and has promised to pay his debts when he can.
This mitigating condition applies in part.  
Under AG & 20(b), the disqualifying condition may be mitigated where Athe
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.@ Applicant was not employed while attending technical school
after his separation from the military in 2006. He was employed in 2008, but Applicant
did not address his delinquent debts at that time. When Applicant obtained his
permanent position in 2009, he did not contact the creditor about the judgment. He has
not been aggressive in his actions. His net remainder is $1,380 and he had the means
to make much greater progress sooner. This mitigating condition applies in part.
Evidence that Athe 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@
is potentially mitigating under AG & 20(c). Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the
evidence shows Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.@ Applicant has not received formal financial counseling. He has
resolved some of his debts. One debt was partially repaid due to a tax refund not a
voluntary payment on his part. He did not maintain contact with his creditors. He claims
he has arranged payment plans for two remaining debts. However, he has not started
the actual repayments. He did not present evidence that he and the creditors agreed on
a specific payment plan. His efforts are insufficient to carry his burden in this case. 
In sum, Appellant has not demonstrated sufficient consistency, diligence, and
effort in the resolution of his delinquent SOR debts. There is insufficient evidence that
his finances are under control. Although he has not incurred more delinquent debt, he
has not used the money that was available to him since he became employed to show
that delinquent debt will not recur. His track record of financial responsibility shows
insufficient good judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability to warrant mitigation of
financial considerations concerns at this time.
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.”
8
AG ¶ 22 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(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;
(b) alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in
an intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on the job, regardless of
whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol
dependent;
(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;
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol
dependence;
(e) evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence by a licensed
clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol
treatment program;
(f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion
of an alcohol rehabilitation program; and,
(g) failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education,
evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.
Applicant admitted that he consumed alcohol, at times to excess and to the point
of intoxication, from approximately January 2002 until at least November 2006. In
November 2005, Applicant was charged with violating Article 111 (Drunk Driving) while
in the military. He was found guilty at a court-martial and sentenced to three months
incarceration. In November 2006, Applicant was convicted of a DUI. He was sentenced
to a license suspension, fined $800, and ordered to attend a one day education class on
preventing DUIs. AG ¶¶ 22(a) and (c) apply.
AG ¶ 23 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(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;
9
(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 has changed his drinking habits. He does not drink and drive. He has
not had any other alcohol-related incidents since 2006. He received some alcohol
counseling. He also recognized a problem in 2006 and asked the military for more
counseling. He recalled that his evaluation at the time noted he was not at risk. He was
not diagnosed with an alcohol problem. He acknowledges that he handles stress in a
positive manner and does not use alcohol to alleviate stress. Moreover, the stress of
divorce was a part of the problem in 2006. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns
under alcohol consumption. AG ¶¶ 23(a) and (b) apply.
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The security concern 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 cooperate with
the security clearance process.
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG ¶ 16(a), “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel 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” is potentially disqualifying.
In this case, when Applicant completed his March 2009 security application, he
answered “Yes” to section 22(e) concerning charges or offenses relating to alcohol. He
10
listed complete information concerning his November 2006 DUI. He did not report his
2005 DUI in that section. However, Applicant did report the 2005 DUI in detail, along
with his court-martial information, under Section 15, military history.  
When Applicant completed section 26(e) concerning his financial record, he
answered “no” to the issue of a judgment. He admitted that he knew he had a judgment
or had some notice in 2007 but he did not have the specific information or amount of the
judgment when he completed the security clearance application. I found him credible in
his explanation that he tried to input “yes” but that since he did not have specific
information about the judgement, he answered “no”. He admitted the allegation in his
answer to the SOR but noted that he did not have the 2008 judgment information. He
was candid, forthright, and credible in his testimony that he explained and clarified his
financial record to the investigator when interviewed. I do not find that he deliberately
falsified his 2009 security clearance application. 
In that same application, Applicant entered under the military section that he was
separated from the USAF under honorable conditions. He checked “other” rather than
“general” for the type of discharge. He had already listed the court-martial as noted in
the above section. I do not find that he was trying to mislead the government about his
military discharge. 
The fact that he was discharged for misconduct from the Air Force is not an
independent basis for raising personal conduct concerns. His misconduct was his 2005
and 2006 DUIs, which are addressed under Guideline G.
When a falsification allegation is controverted or denied, the government has the
burden of proving it. Proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove
an applicant’s state of mind when the omission occurred. An administrative judge must
consider the record evidence as whole to determine whether there is direct or
circumstantial evidence concerning an applicant’s state of mind at the time the omission
occurred. ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004) (explaining holding in
ISCR Case No. 02-23133 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)). Thus, AG ¶ 16(a) does not
apply in this case. I find for Applicant on SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b.
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 must 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
11
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 and conclude they are insufficient to
overcome the government’s case. Applicant served on active duty in the USAF from
2000 until 2006. During his first five years of service Applicant was praised for his
dedication, service, ability and loyalty to the mission. His early evaluations describe him
as “absolutely superior” in all areas. He held a security clearance without incident. He
received letters of appreciation and certificates describing his good conduct and
accomplishments.
In November 2005 and again in 2006, Applicant had alcohol-related driving
incidents which resulted in DUI convictions. He was separated and going through a
divorce during the second DUI. He acknowledged his problem and completed a court-
ordered alcohol class. After his 2006 DUI, the Air Force presented Applicant with two
options. They offered him a hearing and a potential OTH discharge or if he waived his
hearing he could receive a general discharge. Applicant separated in 2006. He admitted
that he drank at times to excess or to intoxication during his military years.
Applicant has not had any alcohol-related incidents since 2006. He has changed
his drinking habits. He does not drink and drive. He recognizes his past mistake was to
use alcohol as a stress reliever. He is now divorced. He has no diagnosis of alcohol
abuse or dependence. He drinks in a responsible manner. He has learned from his last
DUI. He has mitigated the security concerns under the alcohol consumption guideline.
Applicant attended technical college from 2006 until 2008 to attain greater skills.
He used the GI bill and lived with his parents but did not have sufficient income to
maintain his expenses. He had to surrender his vehicle in 2007 due to late payments.
This resulted in a judgment of $21,000 despite his years of payments on the car. He
also had some medical bills that he did not pay and he had to repay his re-enlistment
bonus. He could not repay due to his unemployment from 2006 until 2008 when he was
a student.
However, Applicant has not acted as responsibly as he should have under the
circumstances. He was employed in 2008. He has been steadily employed with his
current employer since 2009. He did not maintain contact with his creditors. His
promises and good intention since 2009 are not evidence of clear action to resolve his
judgment and his debts. He still has not submitted evidence of the specifics of his
repayment plans. His track record of financial responsibility shows insufficient good
12
judgment and reliability to warrant mitigation of financial considerations concerns at this
time. 
As a result, Applicant acquired delinquent debts. He obtained a position in 2008
outside the United States. In 2009, Applicant obtained his current employment. Despite
steady employment since then, he still has unresolved debt. He has recently paid some
accounts but he has not yet started his repayment plans for the judgment and the
remainder of the bonus amount. He is on the right track but it is too soon to show a
responsible financial record. He has not mitigated the security concerns under the
financial considerations guideline.
.
Applicant did not falsify his March 2009 security clearance application. He
admitted that he did not list one DUI under Section 22. However, he had provided full
and complete information under Section 15. He did not respond “yes” to the question
concerning the judgment due to lack of information. I find that he did not intend to
mislead the government. I found his explanations credible. He did not falsify his March
2009 security clearance application. He has mitigated the concerns under the personal
conduct guideline.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising under financial
considerations. Applicant has mitigated the concerns under personal conduct and
alcohol consumption.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a through 2.c: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
13
Subparagraph 3.a through 3.c: For 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.
                                              
_________________
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge