KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline J; Guideline F
DIGEST: The applicant bears the burden of persuasion as to mitigation.  Absence of rebuttal
evidence by the Government does not compel a favorable decision.  A Judge must weigh the
evidence and provide a reasonable explanation for his decision.  Adverse decision affirmed. 
CASE NO: 09-06837.a1
DATE: 11/17/2011
DATE: November 17, 2011
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 09-06837
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Fahryn Hoffman, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Jim Darnell, Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On August 3, 2010, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption),
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.
On July 25, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Michael H. Leonard denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s application of the
mitigating conditions was erroneous and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm the Judge’s
decision.  
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is an employee of a
Government contractor.  Unmarried and with no children, he has a bachelor’s degree in information
technology.
Applicant has experienced periods of unemployment.  He was laid off from a job in February
2008, finding another in August of that year.  This job lasted until September 2008, and Applicant
was subsequently unemployed until April 2009.  His current job pays less than his previous one.
Applicant has numerous delinquent debts.  The SOR alleges 15, totaling about $53,269.  Two of
these alleged debts are duplicates, three have been paid or settled, four are in the initial stages of
resolution, and six are unresolved.  
Applicant attributes his financial problems to his unemployment as well as to past decisions
underlying the Guidelines G and J security concerns alleged in the SOR.  These security concerns
arose from Applicant’s history of criminal conduct, much of it involving alcohol.  The Judge found
that Applicant had committed three incidents of driving while impaired by alcohol and that he had
been discharged from a court-imposed alcohol education program due to noncompliance.  
His record includes other offenses, such as obstructing or interfering with police (alcohol was
involved); two charges of failure to appear in court (these charges related to a DUI conviction);
violation of probation; and domestic violence (alcohol was not involved in this incident).  The
probation violation stemmed from a 2006 conviction of DUI.  Applicant had attempted to have his
probation transferred from one state to another.  The case was resolved by Applicant’s serving 21
days in jail in the state in which his conviction had occurred.  At the close of the record, Applicant
was undergoing probation resulting from his most recent DUI.  
Applicant has undergone counseling with an addiction therapist, who assesses him as stable,
with a need for regular attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).  The therapist opines that
Applicant is sufficiently motivated to abstain from alcohol.
Applicant has complied with all terms and conditions of his probation.  His probation officer
described him as “responsive and responsible.”  Decision at 4.  
In the analysis, the Judge acknowledged the positive aspects of Applicant’s conduct–his
sobriety, his AA attendance, etc.  However, the Judge concluded that, given the recency of
Applicant’s security significant conduct, it is too soon to conclude that he has demonstrated
mitigation.  The Judge noted that Applicant had been sober for only four months, and that he was
still on probation, as of the close of the record.  Regarding Guideline F, the Judge noted Applicant’s
unemployment, which was a circumstance beyond his control.  He also noted Applicant’s efforts at
debt repayment.  He went on to conclude, however, that “what is missing here is a long-term record
of repayment of delinquent debts coupled with general financial stability and responsibility.”
Decision at 10.  The Judge held that Applicant had not met his burden of persuasion.  
Applicant contends that the Judge did not properly weigh the mitigating conditions.  For
example, he notes the Judge’s statement that Applicant’s financial problems resulted in large
1Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 20(b): “the 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[.]”  
2See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-05277 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2011): “[I]nsofar as Applicant had only recently
begun to address her debts, she had not demonstrated a track record of debt resolution.”    
3The standard applicable in security clearance decisions “is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly
consistent with the interests of the national security.’”   See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 09-07139 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2011):
“The Government produced substantial evidence to establish the applicable disqualifying conditions.  The burden then
shifted to Applicant to produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate or mitigate the security concerns[.]”
4Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 23(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.”  
measure from unemployment, arguing that the Judge should have concluded that this mitigated the
Guideline F security concerns.  However, the Directive requires not only that an applicant
demonstrate that his financial problems arose from circumstances beyond his control but also that
the applicant show he acted responsibly under the circumstances.1  The Judge’s statement that
Applicant had not demonstrated a track record of debt repayment is consistent with the record that
was before him and is sustainable.2 
Applicant also cites to the favorable evidence he presented through his therapist and
probation officer.  He argues that, insofar as the Government presented no matters in rebuttal, this
testimony mitigated the Guidelines G and J concerns.  
Once the Government presents substantial evidence of security concerns, the applicant bears
the burden of persuasion that he should have a clearance, under the standard set forth in Department
of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).3  Applicant’s admissions to the SOR and the
evidence presented by the Government established the concerns alleged in the SOR.  While the
Judge considered the evidence Applicant presented and discussed it in his analysis, he provided a
reasonable explanation for his conclusion that it was too soon to find that Applicant had met his
burden of persuasion.  The record does not support a conclusion that the Judge weighed the evidence
in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Applicant contends that the has satisfied every aspect of Guideline G Mitigating Condition
23(d).4  The Judge did not apply 23(d).  The Judge did not find that Applicant completed either
inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation along with any required aftercare.  Nor does the record support
such a finding.  Therefore, the Judge did not err by deciding not to apply 23(d).
The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated
a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.’”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962)).  The Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record.  See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶
2(b):  “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will
be resolved in favor of the national security.”  
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan            
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett                 
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                 
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board