Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.1
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
          DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 11-02320
)
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his financial problems. He did
not mitigate the concerns raised by his criminal conduct, alcohol consumption, and
personal conduct. His request for a security clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
After reviewing the results of Applicant’s background investigation, adjudicators
for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) were unable to make a
preliminary affirmative finding  that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to1
continue Applicant’s access to classified information. On July 5, 2011, DOHA issued to
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These2
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
Pending official revision of the Directive, they take precedence over the guidelines listed in Enclosure 2 to the
Directive.
 Department Counsel provided an index of its documents. It is contained in “Government’s Proposed Exhibits”3
and included in the record as Hx. I.
2
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns
addressed in the adjudicative guideline (AG)  for financial considerations (Guideline F).2
Applicant answered the SOR (Answer) on August 2, 2011, and requested a
hearing. On September 9, 2011, DOHA Department Counsel issued to Applicant an
Amendment to the Statement of Reasons (Amendment). The Amendment added factual
allegations under the guidelines for personal conduct (Guideline E), alcohol
consumption (Guideline G), and criminal conduct (Guideline J). Applicant answered the
Amendment (Second Answer) on October 2, 2011, and the case was assigned to me on
October 24, 2011.
Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing issued on November 3, 2011, I convened a
hearing in this matter on December 1, 2011. The parties appeared as scheduled. The
Government presented 12 exhibits, which were admitted as Government’s Exhibits
(Gx.) 1 - 12.  Applicant testified and presented two witnesses. He also presented two3
exhibits, which were admitted as Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A and B. DOHA received a
transcript (Tr.) of the hearing on December 9, 2011. I also left the record open to
receive additional relevant information from the Applicant. The record closed on
December 16, 2011, when I received Applicant’s timely post-hearing submission. It is
included in the record, without objection, as Ax. C.
Findings of Fact
In the SOR, as amended, the Government alleged, under Guideline F, that
Applicant owed approximately $15,047 for seven past-due debts (SOR 1.a - 1.g).
Applicant admitted, with explanation, all of the SOR 1 allegations.
Under Guideline E, it was alleged that on January 1, 2010, Applicant was
arrested and charged with assault and battery of a family member; that he had been
drinking before his arrest; that he was convicted and sentenced to 12 months in jail,
which was suspended conditioned on good behavior for three years (SOR 2.a). The
Government further alleged that on May 3, 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged
with assault and battery of a family member; that he had been drinking before his arrest;
that he was convicted and sentenced to 12 months in jail, of which 11 months were
suspended, and that he was placed on three years probation as of November 2010
(SOR 2.b). Under this guideline, the Government also alleged that on November 1,
2004, Applicant was arrested and charged with assault and battery of a family member,
which was later dismissed as nolle prosequi (SOR 2.c); that on April 22, 2002, police
questioned Applicant about a physical altercation with his son (SOR 2.d); and that on
January 26, 2002, police were called to Applicant’s house in response to a domestic
3
argument (SOR 2.d). Applicant denied the general Guideline E security concern at SOR
2, but admitted with explanation the allegations at SOR 2.a - 2.d.
Under Guideline G, the Government cross-alleged as alcohol-related the conduct
listed at SOR 2.a and 2.b (SOR 3.a). Applicant denied the general Guideline G security
concern at SOR 3, but admitted with explanation the allegation at SOR 3.a.
Under Guideline J, the Government cross-alleged as criminal the conduct listed
at SOR 2.a, 2.b, and 2.c (SOR 4.a). Applicant denied the general Guideline J security
concern at SOR 4, but admitted with explanation the allegation at SOR 4.a. 
Applicant’s admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Having reviewed
the response to the SOR, the transcript, and exhibits, I make the following additional
findings of fact.
Applicant is 48 years old and employed by a defense contractor in a position that
requires a security clearance. His work site is a private shipyard engaged in the
construction, maintenance and overhaul of nuclear-powered U.S. Navy aircraft carriers
and submarines. Applicant has worked for his current employer since November 2008.
He also worked there as a temp agency employee from April 2008 until his current
employer hired him. (Gx. 1)
Applicant served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force as an airframe mechanic.
He enlisted in January 1982 and retired as a Master Sergeant (E-7) in February 2008.
His performance during his military career was exemplary. He has been taking college
courses since June 2004. (Gx. 1; Ax. B; Ax. C)
Applicant is married, but he and his wife have been separated since January
2010. They married in July 1985 and have two children together, a 21-year-old daughter
and a 25-year-old son. (Gx. 1; Gx. 3) Since at least 2002, Applicant’s marriage can best
be characterized as tumultuous, and has been punctuated by calls to police in response
to arguments and physical altercations. Applicant and his wife also experienced
financial difficulties starting in about 2000. She had been in charge of their finances,
which were generally sound. However, around 2000 Applicant’s wife decided to quit her
job and return to school. She also stopped paying attention to their finances. Applicant,
who was often deployed away from home for long periods, was unaware that they were
accruing delinquencies or that his wife had opened new credit accounts. He eventually
took over management of their finances and was able to repay their delinquencies.
(Answer; Gx. 6)
More recently, after Applicant and his wife separated, their financial problems
recurred. His wife agreed to pay the accounts she had opened in both their names, but
let the accounts become delinquent anyway. Additionally, Applicant accrued debts for
unpaid taxes because his wife, who had resumed working, changed the withholdings
from her paychecks but did not inform Applicant. This resulted in taxes owed that
Applicant had not expected based on previous joint filings. Applicant is making monthly
payments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) directly from his bank account.
(Answer; Ax. B)
4
Of the debts listed in the SOR, the debt at SOR 1.a has been resolved. This was
a billing error by a medical provider who did not make a claim for services rendered to
Applicant’s TriCare medical insurer. (Answer; Ax. A) Also resolved are the debts alleged
at SOR 1.c, 1.e, and 1.f. Applicant’s remaining debts are being repaid through a reliable
credit counseling and debt repayment service with whom Applicant enrolled in August
2011. His monthly payment for eight past-due accounts is $980. (Gx. 2; Ax. B)
Applicant has been living with his mother rent-free since January 2011. He
continued paying about $1,700 each month in rent for the house he and his wife lived in
when they separated. The lease expired in December 2011 and Applicant no longer has
to pay the rent, but he may have to pay as much as $1,300 in spousal support
depending on the results of a court hearing that was pending at the time of this hearing.
(Tr. 62 - 63, 115 - 116) Applicant’s most recent personal finance statement shows he
has about $1,900 remaining each month even after making his monthly debt payments.
(Gx. 2)
In January 2002, Applicant’s daughter called the police because her parents
were arguing. Applicant’s wife acknowledged to the police that there had been domestic
problems before, but no physical contact had occurred on this occasion. No arrests
were made or charges filed. (Gx. 11) In April 2002, Applicant’s son, then age 16, did not
return home from school as expected. Applicant went to look for him and found him at a
friend’s apartment where he had been drinking. Applicant’s son did not want to come
home with his father and an argument ensued. Applicant tried to physically remove his
son from the apartment and take him home. Police were called, but it was determined
that Applicant was asserting proper parental control and took no further action. (Gx. 10)
On November 1, 2004, police were again called to Applicant’s residence in
response to a call by one of their children. Applicant and his son had been in argument
that became physical. Applicant punched his son in the eye, and was arrested and
charged with assault and battery on a family member. On November 18, 2004,
Applicant appeared in court and the charge was dismissed on motion of the
prosecution. (Gx. 9)
On May 3, 2009, Applicant was again arrested and charged with assault and
battery of a family member. An argument with his wife had escalated such that he threw
clothes and a suitcase around their bedroom when she tried to pack up and leave. He
bruised her arms when trying to hold her down. He also threatened to kill his wife and
he poured beer on her so he could tell the police she was drunk. Applicant had
consumed alcohol prior to this incident, but the record does not indicate how much.
Applicant appeared in district court, pleaded not guilty, and was convicted. He was
sentenced to 12 months in jail, which was suspended conditioned on his good behavior
for three years. He was also ordered to perform 50 hours of community service and to
complete an anger and violence assessment. Finally, Applicant was ordered to be
evaluated for possible substance abuse counseling or treatment, and to abstain from
drugs and alcohol. (Gx. 10)
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
5
Applicant appealed his conviction to the circuit court. On November 30, 2010, he
was again found guilty of assaulting his son. His sentence was modified so that 11 of
the 12 months in jail was suspended. Thereafter, Applicant completed his jail sentence
after credit for time served by spending weekends in jail. (Gx. 8)
On the evening of December 31, 2009, Applicant and his family were celebrating
New Years Eve. Sometime after midnight, police were called because Applicant and his
wife were arguing, and Applicant had assaulted his son when the latter tried to
intervene. Specifically, Applicant grabbed his son by the throat and began to choke him.
Applicant, as well as his wife and son, had consumed alcohol prior to this incident.
When police arrived, Applicant failed to cooperate and became aggressive with the
officers, who had to subdue him with a taser. Applicant was taken into custody and
charged with assault and battery of a family member. Applicant was convicted and
sentenced to 12 months in jail, all of which was suspended. He was also placed on
three years probation. (Gx. 7)
Applicant is scheduled to be on probation until at least 2013. He has to call his
probation officer every day to determine if he is required to submit to alcohol or drug
testing. He completed anger management counseling in February 2010. As of this
hearing, Applicant had completed 18 of 28 weekly domestic violence counseling
sessions. (Ax. A; Tr. 63 - 66)
Applicant and his wife have had very little personal contact since he moved in
with his mother. Part of his financial problems stemmed from the fact that mail from his
creditors was not being forwarded to him in a timely manner. He also has little contact
with his son, who now lives in a different region of the United States. Personal
references view Applicant as a good person who devotes much of his free time to
helping youth in his community and to supporting his church. 
In response to the Amendment, Applicant denied that he used alcohol to excess,
and he stated that he only drinks beer and not hard liquor. He also averred that his wife
and son were partly to blame for his behavior on the occasions when he was arrested
for domestic violence. Specifically, he stated that “[his] wife and son have done certain
things that have set me back and were the result of the situations that I find myself in at
the moment...The domestic assaults I was charged with were the results of me not
escaping an abusive situation to where I was the recipient, (sic) I stayed because I
cared so much and tried to make a bad relationship better.” (Second Answer) He further
claimed that his wife “falsely represented herself in court to make [Applicant] look like
the wrongdoer in the incidents.” (Id.) Applicant also testified that his wife and son
deliberately provoked him by “pushing [his] buttons.” (Tr. 106)
Policies
A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent  with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to4
 Directive. 6.3.5
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.6
 See Egan; Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 2(b).7
6
have access to classified information. Each decision must be a fair, impartial, and
commonsense determination based on examination of all available relevant and
material information,  and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policies5
in the adjudicative guidelines. Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors
listed in ¶ 2(a) of the new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person”
concept, those factors are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific applicable guidelines should be followed whenever a case
can be measured against them as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government’s case.
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  6
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government
has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her
own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of
any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the
Government.7
Analysis
Financial Considerations.
The Government presented information that showed Applicant experienced
significant financial problems in about 2000 and over the past few years when his
marriage was deteriorating. His most recent background investigation showed that he
7
owed about $15,000 in past-due debt for seven accounts. Applicant admitted all of the
allegations in the SOR under this guideline. This information raises a security concern
about Applicant’s finances addressed, in relevant part, at AG ¶ 18 as follows:
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.
More specifically, the Government’s information requires application of the
disqualifying conditions at AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and AG
¶ 19 (c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations).
Of the mitigating conditions listed at AG ¶ 20, I conclude that the following apply:
(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; 
(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;
(c) the 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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue. 
Appellant’s current finances are sound, he has no new delinquent or excessive
personal debt, and he has a positive cash flow. In 2000 and more recently, he acted in a
reasonable and responsible manner in dealing with his financial problems. The debt at
SOR 1.a was erroneously attributed to him rather than his medical insurance company,
and Applicant is repaying his remaining debts through a reliable debt management and
counseling service. Finally, his expenses are now reduced with the end of the lease on
the marital residence, and he has incurred no new debts. All of the foregoing supports a
conclusion that Applicant has mitigated the security concerns about his finances.
8
Criminal Conduct
The Government presented sufficient information to support the allegations of
criminal conduct in SOR 4. Information about Applicant’s multiple arrests for assault and
battery of a family member raises a security concern addressed at AG ¶ 30 as follows:
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. 
Available information further requires application of the disqualifying conditions at AG ¶
31(a)(a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses); AG ¶ 31(c) (allegation or
admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged,
formally prosecuted or convicted); and AG ¶ 31(d) (individual is currently on parole or
probation). 
The security concerns about Applicant’s criminal conduct can be mitigated by
establishing one or more of the following conditions listed at AG ¶ 32:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or
does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment; 
(b) the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those
pressures are no longer present in the person's life; 
(c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense; and
(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.
The mitigating condition at AG ¶ 32(a) does not apply because Applicant’s
conduct is frequent and recent. He was arrested in 2010 for the third time for the same
conduct. On that occasion, he had to be subdued through non-lethal force by the police
when he remained aggressive, uncooperative, and physically resistant to arrest.
Applicant claims that the circumstances that gave rise to his domestic violence, that is,
living with his wife and son, are no longer present. Thus, his position is that his conduct
is not likely to recur. His argument is not supported by any record of acceptable
behavior in any similarly close relationship. Further, Applicant still feels that he is not
wholly responsible for his conduct, because his wife and son allegedly were abusive of
him and were “pushing buttons.” His failure to acknowledge his responsibility in these
events precludes applicability of AG ¶ 32(b) and AG ¶ 32(d). AG ¶ 32(c) does not apply
because it is not controverted that Applicant assaulted his wife and son as alleged.
Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns about his criminal conduct.
9
Alcohol Consumption
The Government’s information also raised a security concern about Applicant’s
use of alcohol. That security concern is addressed at AG ¶ 21 as follows:
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.
More specifically, Applicant’s arrests in 2009 and 2010 involved alcohol. The
police reports introduced at the hearing indicated he had been drinking when he
assaulted members of his family, but did not specify how much. Nonetheless, available
information supports application of the disqualifying condition at AG ¶ 21(a), which
considers as a security concern the following:
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.
In response to the SOR and at his hearing, Applicant asserted that he does not
have a drinking problem and does not currently drink. However, Applicant’s sobriety is
not necessarily self-imposed. He has been ordered to abstain from alcohol and drugs as
part of his probation, and he is tested randomly for those substances. On balance, the
record does not support application of any of the AG ¶ 22 mitigating conditions.
Personal Conduct
The Government’s information also supports a broader security concern about
Applicant’s judgment, which is made questionable by his unacceptable conduct toward
his family. The security concern about his personal conduct is addressed at 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.
10
More specifically, information about Applicant’s adverse personal conduct supports
application of the disqualifying condition at AG ¶ 16(c):
credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not
sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline,
but which, when considered as a whole, 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.
In addition to his arrests for domestic violence, Applicant was abusive to his wife
and son on at least two other occasions in 2002. Further, Applicant’s claims that he was
somehow a victim in an abusive relationship with his family, and that he was not
responsible for his actions, indicate significant shortcomings in his maturity and
judgment. His claims are undermined by the repeated nature of his conduct and his
refusal to cooperate with police during his most recent altercation. 
Of the mitigating conditions listed under AG ¶ 17, only the following are
potentially applicable here:
(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; and
(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, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.
These mitigating conditions do not apply for the same reasons, discussed under
Guideline J, above, that mitigating conditions AG ¶ 32(a) and AG ¶ 32(d) do not apply.
Applicant’s conduct was frequent, recent, and anything but minor. Also, he has not
accepted responsibility for his actions and seems to have inadequate insight into the
poor judgment he demonstrated toward his family. Overall, the information presented in
response to the Government’s security concerns about Applicant’s personal conduct
does not support a conclusion that his conduct will not recur or that his judgment is
suitable for continued access to classified information. 
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts presented and have applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guidelines E, G and J. I have also reviewed the record before
me in the context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). I further note that
Applicant is a 48-year-old retired Air Force Master Sergeant with 26 years of exemplary
service to his credit. Applicant has a good reputation in his community and his church.
He also is credited with acting responsibly to correct financial problems that occurred
11
through a variety of circumstances around 2000 and while his marriage was
deteriorating. As to his arrests, volatile behavior sometimes results from tensions and
circumstances related to marital and familial discord. However,  Applicant went far
beyond yelling and threatening. His anger, sometimes exacerbated by alcohol, three
times resulted in injury to two people closest to him. He also became violent with law
enforcement during his most recent arrest. This is indicative of a more serious problem,
which the court recognized when it required him to be under state supervision for three
years and to abstain from alcohol during that time. Applicant completed anger
management counseling, but is still undergoing domestic violence counseling, as well
as random drug and alcohol testing. More important, he has not shown that he
understands that he must be accountable for his conduct. All of this information sustains
the doubts about his suitability for clearance that have been raised by the Government’s
information. Because protection of the national interest is of paramount importance in
these adjudications, those doubts must be resolved against the individual.
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.g: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.e: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: Against Applicant
Paragraph 4, Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 4.a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
to continue Applicant’s access to classified information. Request for security clearance
is denied.
                                         
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge