The Government submitted eight items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-03523
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Nichole Noel, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A, Administrative Judge:
On October 30, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline
H (Drug Involvement), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol
Consumption), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The action was taken under
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February
20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in September
2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested an administrative
determination. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM),
dated January 19, 2011.  Applicant received the FORM on February 2, 2011, and1
submitted a response to the FORM which is admitted into the record without objection
2
as AE A. On February 28, 2011, the Director, DOHA, forwarded the case for
assignment to an administrative judge. I received the case assignment on March 2,
2011. Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant
failed to meet his burden regarding the security concerns raised. Security clearance is
denied.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline
H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
Applicant is a 39-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He graduated from
high school and received a degree from a technical college in December 2007.
Applicant is married and has three children. He has worked for his current employer
since February 2008. (Item 4)
Applicant states that he is proud of his current employment and believes that it is
a great personal accomplishment. He wants to continue his work, and does not intend
to do anything to jeopardize his position. 
Applicant submitted letters of recommendation from his manager and his mentor.
He is described as dependable and trustworthy. Applicant has gained the respect of his
peers. (AE A) Applicant received two awards recognizing his achievements. He is a
valued member of the team. He completed training courses in work ethics, information
security, and drugs in the workplace.
Drug Involvement
From 1990 until 2005, Applicant purchased and used cocaine. (Item 1 and 3) At
first, Applicant used cocaine approximately once per year (1991 until 2000). He
admitted that he used cocaine on a weekly basis with varying frequency from January
2000 until 2005. He stated that the only way he used cocaine was by snorting it. He
was never arrested, but his illegal drug use impacted his life. His use of cocaine, and
the money he spent on it, had an adverse effect on his marriage and his ability to
satisfy his debts. As a result, he fell behind in his mortgage payments. In 2004, his
mortgage lender foreclosed on his home. He also incurred delinquent debts from 2005
until 2009.
Applicant states that his drug use is in the past. He regrets his past decisions
and understands the consequences of his behavior. He states that he has not used
illegal drugs since 2005. He does not intend to use drugs again. Applicant
acknowledges that he has not obtained any counseling. He states that he has stopped
using drugs without the help of a drug program. (Response to FORM)
3
Alcohol Consumption 
Although never arrested for illegal drug use, Applicant was arrested twice for
alcohol incidents. In 2000, he was charged with public intoxication. (Item 6) In
September 2008, he was charged with Driving under the Influence. He admitted
consuming four-12 ounce margaritas and three beers before going to a party. He
consumed four more beers and four shots of whiskey at the party. He drove home after
the party and was involved in an accident. (Items 2, 5, and 6)
Applicant continues to drink and to the point of intoxication. (Item 5) In response
to his the DOHA 2009 interrogatories, he admits drinking a 12 pack of beer on the
weekends. He also acknowledges “winding down” the week with a few margaritas.  He
has not attended any alcohol counseling programs. He believes he has decreased his
alcohol use from daily to the weekend.
As to alcohol consumption, Applicant now claims that “he has gained complete
control of the situation with alcohol.” He is on probation for the 2008 DWI, but did not
disclose details about the length of the probation. At the time of the FORM, the case
was pending, and there was no other information concerning the final adjudication of
the 2008 incident. Applicant states “ he cannot get this (probation) behind him fast
enough,” and he noted that he is current on his payments to the probation office.
(Response to FORM) Applicant completed a DWI education program in December
2010. (AE A)
 
Financial
The SOR lists seven delinquent accounts totaling $14,458. Applicant admitted
the debts and the credit reports confirm them. (Items 2, 7 and 8) He accumulated the
debts after his home was foreclosed in 2005.
Applicant was unemployed from November 2005 until December 2006 because
he was taking college courses. He has been steadily employed since January 2007.
However, he admits that he mismanaged his money and did not care about the
delinquent debts due to the cocaine use.  
 When Applicant completed his security clearance application in November
2008, he did not disclose any delinquent debts in response to questions 28(a) and
28(b). He admitted that he deliberately falsified his application. However, he stated that
he was not aware of some of the medical accounts. (Item 5) In his latest response, he
stated that he was overwhelmed with the security clearance application and had not
looked at a credit report. He also noted that he was very worried about “it” and what it
would show and did not want to deal with it. (Response to FORM)
Applicant responded to DOHA interrogatories in May 2009. Regarding his
financial situation, he explained that he would consolidate his debts and take care of
them.  Applicant’s 2009 monthly net income was $2,600 including his wife’s income.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
4
After expenses, his net remainder was approximately $37. At the time, he did not list
any payments for debts. 
In his Response to the FORM, Applicant stated that he is slowly starting to pay
off his debts. He provided a form from a national credit care program (undated) to
provide proof for his assertion that he is currently addressing his delinquent debts.
Applicant submitted a letter, dated January 21, 2011, that noted his credit card was
charged $50 for payment on a Capital One account. There is no other information
concerning a structured payment plan. Finally, he submitted a form from Transunion
listing several accounts that were disputed.  
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An administrative judge must consider all
available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
The United States Government must present evidence to establish controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. This relationship
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
5
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 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 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to drug involvement:
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions
about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may
impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person's ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and include:
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds
identified and listed in the Controlled Substances Act of
1970, as amended (e.g., marijuana or cannabis,
depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens), and
(2) inhalants and other similar substances;
(b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.
6
AG ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition); 
(b) testing positive for illegal drug use;
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence;
(e) evaluation of drug abuse or drug dependence by a licensed clinical
social worker who, is a staff member of a recognized drug treatment
program;
(f) failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program prescribed
by a duly qualified medical professional;
(g) any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance; and,
(h) expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and
convincingly commit to discontinue drug use.
Applicant admitted his use of illegal drugs (cocaine) from 1991 until 2005. He
reported that he purchased cocaine. His use varied in frequency, but at one point he
was using it every week. AG¶ 25(a) and 25(c)apply. 
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt
on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; 
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and,
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation;
7
(c) abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness
during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended;
and,
(d) satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program,
including but not limited to rehabilitation and aftercare requirements,
without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified
medical professional.
Applicant’s last use of cocaine was in 2005. He states that he has not used any
illegal drugs in six years. However, he did not obtain a current evaluation from a
licensed professional which verifies his non-drug use. Given, his 14 year history, I have
doubts as to his rehabilitation in this case. 
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 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;
8
(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 has two alcohol incidents from 2000 until 2008. He was arrested in
2008 for DWI. Applicant states that he is on probation and provided no details about the
adjudication. He continues to drink and at times to the point of intoxication. He claims
that he has it under control. He has not participated in any alcohol treatment programs.
He did complete a Driver Alcohol Education class in December 2010. 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;
(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.
After considering the mitigating conditions, I do not find that given the information
in this record, that he has mitigated the alcohol concern.
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
9
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.” It also states that “an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
Applicant admitted that he had delinquent debts. He admitted that due to his
drug use, he neglected his financial affaris. Applicant currently has delinquent debts in
the amount of $14,000. Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition
(FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c)
(a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such conditions raised, it is
left to Applicant to overcome the case against him and mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant was unemployed while he attended school from November 2005 until
December 2006. This may have exacerbated Applicant’s ability to meet his obligations,
but he provided no information about his efforts to otherwise meet those obligations
during that period. Since January 2007, he has been steadily employed. He also
acknowledged that his focus on drugs prevented him from paying attention to his
financial affairs. Applicant did not address any delinquent debts even after his October
2009 SOR until January 2011. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FCMC) AG ¶ 20(a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent,
or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) does not
apply.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g.,
loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death,
divorce or separation) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances)
does not apply. As noted, Applicant had a thirteen month period of unemployment.
However, there is no evidence that he acted reasonably under the circumstances. He
allowed the delinquent debts to remain unpaid. There is no record of any attempts to
resolve his debt until after he received the SOR.  He receives partial credit under this
mitigating condition.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. Applicant has not provided
evidence of any consistent payment plans. He asserts that he is now working with a
national credit care company to help his credit. He submitted one letter from January
2011 that he has charged one $50 payment for one account. His failure to provide
information about financial counseling obviates the applicability of FC MC AG ¶ 20(c)
(the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control).
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
10
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.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Under AG ¶ 16(a), a disqualifying conditions exists when there is
“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 eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.”
Under AG ¶ 16(b) a disqualifying condition exists when “deliberately providing false or
misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security
official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative.”
Applicant’s admission is sufficient to raise the disqualifying conditions. He
deliberately mislead the government by not including any information about his
delinquent debts.  His behavior and personal conduct are disqualifying as they raise
questions about his judgment, reliability, truthfulness, and willingness to comply with the
law.
After considering the mitigating conditions outlined in AG ¶ 17, I conclude that
none of them apply. Applicant did not make prompt or good-faith efforts to correct his
falsification or concealment. He provided no information that indicates he was ill-
advised. The intentional omissions occurred in 2008, and are too recent and serious to
be mitigated by the passage of time. I have serious doubts about his good judgment
and reliability. He has not provided information in this record to show that he has met
his burden of proof to mitigate the personal conduct concern.
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 an 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
11
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is 39 years old. He has letters of recommendation from his employer. He has
done a good job in his position since 2008. He is married and has two children. He is
proud of his work accomplishments. He intends to resolve his debts. He claims he has
not used any drugs since 2005. His last alcohol incident was in 2008.
Applicant has been on notice since the SOR in 2009, yet he is just starting to
address his delinquent debts. He has a history of behavior that involves dishonesty. He
believes that he has insight into his behavior, but he has not obtained any drug or
alcohol treatment. Applicant currently has unresolved financial difficulties. His financial
difficulties stem from a time when he admittedly used cocaine and neglected his affairs.
Applicant shows a lack of candor and questionable judgment. Although Applicant’s last
alcohol offense was in 2008, I have doubts about his reliability. 
Applicant failed to submit sufficient information or evidence to mitigate the
security concerns raised in his case. He failed to offer evidence of financial counseling.
He failed to provide documentation regarding a consistent payment plan for all his
debts. He admitted that he intentionally falsified his 2008 security clearance application.
He may be on the right path concerning alcohol and drug use, but he has not provided
documentation to show alcohol and drugs are no longer a problem. I have doubts given
the record. Accordingly, Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns.  Clearance
is denied. 
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
Subparagraphs 1.a- 1b: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2., Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a through 2.c: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a through 3.g: Against Applicant
Paragraph 4, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 4.a: Against Applicant
12
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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge