1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 10-09557 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is granted. I conclude that Applicant provided sufficient 
information to rebut or mitigate the Government’s security concerns under the financial 
considerations, criminal conduct, and alcohol consumption adjudicative guidelines. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On June 10, 2010, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for his position 
with a defense contractor. After reviewing the results of an ensuing background 
investigation, adjudicators for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
issued to Applicant two interrogatories to clarify or augment potentially disqualifying 
information. After reviewing the results of the background investigations and Applicant's 
responses to the Interrogatories, DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative 
findings required to issue a security clearance. On September 1, 2011, DOHA issued to 
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns for financial 
 
2 
 
 
considerations under Guideline F, alcohol consumption under Guideline G, and criminal 
conduct under Guideline J. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; 
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security 
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the 
adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective in the Department of Defense on September 1, 
2006.   
 
Applicant answered the SOR on September 21, 2011. He denied two of the 
financial considerations allegations claiming one was a duplicate of another allegation, 
and the other had been settled and paid. He admitted the other three financial 
considerations allegations. He admitted all alcohol consumption allegations. He 
inadvertently did not address the criminal conduct allegation. However, since the 
criminal conduct arose directly from the alcohol consumption allegations which 
Applicant admitted, Applicant admitted this allegation at the hearing. Applicant did not 
request a hearing, but Department Counsel requested a hearing on October 11, 2011. 
Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on December 9, 2011. The case was 
assigned to me on February 2, 2012. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on February 6, 
2012, for a hearing on February 28, 2012. I convened the hearing as scheduled. The 
Government offered eight exhibits, which I marked and admitted into the record without 
objections as Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 8. Applicant and one witness 
testified on his behalf. Applicant offered three exhibits which I marked and admitted into 
the record without objection as Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through C. I left the 
record open for Applicant to submit additional documents. Applicant timely submitted an 
additional document which I marked and admitted into the record as App. Ex. D. 
Department Counsel had no objection to consideration of the document (Gov, Ex. 9, e-
mail, dated March 2, 2012) DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on March, 
15, 2012. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact. Applicant admitted the allegations under criminal 
conduct, alcohol consumption, and most of the allegations of financial consideration. His 
admissions are included in my findings of fact.  
 
Applicant is 30 years old and has been an aircraft mechanic for a defense 
contractor for approximately two year. He is a high school graduate who served over 
seven years on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from January 2001 until 
August 2008. He was a corporal (E-4) when he left active duty with a general discharge 
under honorable conditions. He is married with one child. He has never held a security 
clearance. (Tr. 22-23; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated June 10, 2010) 
 
Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 5, dated February 24, 2012; Gov. Ex. 6, dated August 
24, 2011; and Gov. Ex. 7, dated June 24, 2010), and a response to Interrogatories 
(Gov. Ex. 8, dated May 31, 2011) list the following delinquent debts for Applicant: a 
 
3 
 
 
charged-off store account for $2,580 (SOR 1.a); a credit account in collection for $2,479 
(SOR 1.b); a collection account for $122 (SOR 1.c); a charged-off credit union account 
for $4,798 (SOR 1.d); and another charged-off account with the same credit union for 
$5,370 (SOR 1.e).  
 
When Applicant left active duty in August 2008, he was unemployed for 
approximately two months until he moved without his family to his original state of 
residence and was employed as a deckhand on a river barge for approximately one 
year from October 2008 until December 2009. He moved back to the area of his last 
active duty station to reside with his wife and child in December 2009. He was 
unemployed from December 2009 until May 2010 when he found employment with the 
defense contractor. During the period of unemployment, he was unable to pay his bills 
and they were either charged off or went to collections. Since gaining employment in 
May 2010, he has been paying his delinquent debts.  
 
The debts listed at SOR 1.a and SOR 1.b are the same debt. Applicant settled 
and paid this debt. (Tr. 16-18; App. Ex. A, Letter, dated February 21, 2012) Applicant 
stated he paid the debt at SOR 1.c on June 9, 2010. He called the collection agency to 
obtain an account statement but the collection agency has not provided a statement of 
account balance. (Tr. 20-11; App. Ex. D, e-Mail, dated February 29, 2012). Applicant 
settled and paid the debt at SOR 1.d. (Tr. 18-19; App. Ex. B, Letter, dated September 6, 
2011). Applicant is making $110 monthly payments on the debt at SOR 1.e. (Tr. 19-20; 
App. Ex. C, Account Statement, dated December 27, 2011; App. Ex. D, Account 
Statement, dated February 29, 2012)  
 
Applicant damaged a military barracks in July 2005. He admits to drinking alcohol 
prior to the incident and being intoxicated. He received nonjudicial punishment of 30 
days restriction and extra duty. He was required to attend alcohol counseling, and the 
diagnosis was alcohol abuse. However, this did not affect his consumption of alcohol. 
He did not believe he had an alcohol problem since he was 20 years old at the time, 
and was frustrated because of an argument he had on the telephone with his wife. He 
did not consider his consumption of alcohol as an issue, so he did not stop consuming 
alcohol. (Tr. 23-27) 
 
Applicant was charged with driving while intoxicated in November 2007 with a 
blood alcohol content of .20. He was drinking alcohol on base with some friends before 
driving home. He was apprehended for failing to fully stop at a stop sign and determined 
to be under the influence of alcohol. The civilian authority did not process the case but 
reduced the charge to reckless driving and suspended his driver’s license. His 
commander imposed nonjudicial punishment for the offense. He was ordered to attend 
alcohol counseling and treatment. He was diagnosed this time as alcohol dependent. 
He was not aware of the alcohol dependent diagnosis and did not change his 
consumption of alcohol. (Tr. 27-29)  
 
Seven months later, Applicant was charged with driving while intoxicated in May 
2008. Applicant and his wife had separated and he went out drinking with a Marine 
 
4 
 
 
Corps friend. He was found guilty in a civilian court, fined $997, his license was 
suspended, and he was ordered to complete alcohol counseling and treatment. He also 
received nonjudicial punishment from his commander. He was reduced in grade and 
was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions based on the 
series of alcohol-related offenses. He was again diagnosed as alcohol dependent in 
May 2008. However, he continued to drink alcohol in moderation until December 2009. 
(Tr. 29-30) 
 
Applicant admits he is alcohol dependent. He has not driven a car after drinking 
since May 2008. His license was suspended from May 2008 until June 2010. In 
December 2009, Applicant and his wife reconciled and he made a pledge to his wife 
and young daughter that he would no longer consume alcohol. He has not consumed 
alcohol since that time and he does not intend to again consume alcohol. He does not 
attend any counseling or after care programs since he found that such programs do not 
work for him. He finds that his pledge to his wife and the realization what his 
consumption of alcohol and a diagnosis of alcohol dependent does cost him in life and 
work are sufficient motivation for him not to consume alcohol. His life now centers on his 
family and family activities. He no longer goes to bars to drink. In the last two years, he 
has encountered stressful situations and has not turned to alcohol to manage the 
stress. He does not view alcohol as an out or a means of managing stress. He wants to 
strive to be successful and knows he cannot do so if he drinks alcohol. (Tr. 30-39).  
 
Applicant’s supervisor, a retired Marine Corps officer, testified that he hired 
Applicant in May 2010. He found Applicant to be highly qualified as an aircraft 
mechanic. Since he was hired, Applicant has received other qualifications for his 
position and has been promoted to a higher level mechanic. His performance of duty 
has been tremendous. He is hardworking and dependable. He is trustworthy and 
reliable and there are no indications of any financial or alcohol-related problems. (Tr. 
39-42)   
 
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(c), 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. 
 
5 
 
 
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. 
 
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 for obtaining 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 protect or protect 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations: 
 
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. 
(AG ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his or her obligations to protect classified 
information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an 
indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations. Applicant's delinquent debts established by credit reports and Applicant’s 
admissions raise Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability 
or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial 
 
6 
 
 
obligations). The evidence indicates an inability and not an unwillingness to satisfy debt. 
Applicant incurred financial problems from unemployment and a move to be with his 
family.  
 
I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 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) and AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions 
that resulted in the financial problems 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). 
These mitigating conditions apply. Applicant left active duty and was unemployed for 
two months. He moved back to the area where he was raised and found some work. He 
stayed at the location for approximately a year until returning to where his family was 
located. After that, he was unemployed for approximately six months and unable to pay 
his debts. He subsequently found employment and started to pay and resolve his 
delinquent debts. One of his five debts was a duplicate of another and he paid the debt. 
He established that he settled and paid two other debts. He is making steady monthly 
payments on his one remaining debt and it will be resolved soon. He is current with his 
present bills, and has filed and paid all required taxes. Applicant acted reasonably and 
responsibly towards his finances under the circumstances. 
 
I considered AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay 
the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For AG ¶ 20(d) to apply, there must 
be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” of a good-faith 
effort to repay. Good faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, 
honesty, and adherence to duty and obligation. A systematic method of handling debts 
is needed. Applicant must establish a "meaningful track record" of debt payment. A 
"meaningful track record" of debt payment can be established by evidence of actual 
debt payments or reduction of debt through payment of debts. An applicant is not 
required to establish that he paid each and every debt listed. All that is required is that 
Applicant must demonstrate an established plan to resolve his financial problems and 
show he has taken significant actions to implement that plan. 
 
Applicant is resolving his delinquent debts. He contacted his creditors, settled 
and paid three debts, and is paying his one remaining debt. The payment of his debts is 
significant and credible information to show a desire to resolve debt. His settlement and 
payment of debts establish a meaningful track record of debt payment. His effort to 
resolve his delinquent debts shows a reasonable and prudent adherence to financial 
obligations and establishes a good-faith effort to resolve and pay debts. His past 
delinquent debts do not reflect adversely on his trustworthiness, honesty, and good 
judgment.   
 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
 
Alcohol Consumption, Guideline G 
 
 The alcohol consumption and criminal conduct security concerns against 
Applicant are from the same incidents. The gravamen of Applicant's conduct was the 
excessive consumption of alcohol, which led to criminal charges and punishment. 
Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or 
the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual's reliability 
and trustworthiness. (AG ¶ 21)  
 
 Applicant admits that he damaged a barracks after consuming alcohol and 
received nonjudicial punishment from his commander. He admits to two driving while 
intoxicated offenses and being charged with a criminal offense based on excessive 
alcohol consumption on both occasions by civil authorities and by his military 
commander. He also admits to initially being diagnosed with alcohol abuse and then as 
alcohol dependent. This evidence raises Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions 
AG ¶ 22(a) (alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the 
influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of 
concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol abuse or alcohol 
dependent) and AG ¶ 22(c) (habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of 
impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol 
abuser or alcohol dependent). Applicant’s diagnosis of alcohol abuse and alcohol 
dependence and his relapse to drinking alcohol raises AG ¶ 22(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), and AG ¶ 22 (f) (relapse after diagnosis of 
alcohol abuse and dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program).. 
 
 The Government produced substantial evidence to establish the disqualifying 
conditions in AG ¶¶ 22(a), (c), (e) and (f). The burden shifted to Applicant to produce 
evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns under alcohol 
consumption. An applicant has the burden to refute an established allegation or prove a 
mitigating condition, and the burden to prove or disprove it never shifts to the 
Government. 
 
 As noted above, the gravamen of Applicant's conduct causing the security 
concerns is the excessive consumption of alcohol. In this regard, Applicant raised 
Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 23(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); and AG ¶ 23(b) (the individual acknowledges his or 
her alcoholism or issue of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to over 
come this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) 
or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser). These mitigating conditions apply. The first 
alcohol-related incident happened over seven years ago and the last alcohol-related 
and criminal conduct incident was over four years ago. The unusual circumstance 
leading to excessive alcohol consumption for two of the incidents was personal marital 
issues with his wife. On the first incident, Applicant had an argument with his wife while 
 
8 
 
 
he was serving overseas and she was home in the United States. On the second 
offense, Applicant drove after drinking alcohol with friends and was stopped for a traffic 
offense. On the third incident, Applicant and his wife had separated and he was living 
with a friend. These issues are not likely to recur since Applicant and his wife have 
reconciled and are living together and he no longer consumes alcohol. He understands 
the impact his alcohol consumption had on his wife, his family, and his work. Applicant 
acknowledges that he was diagnosed with alcohol dependence. He established that he 
has not consumed alcohol since December 2009 and has taken steps to overcome his 
alcohol-related problems. He does not participate in counseling or after care programs 
because he does not believe those type programs will help him overcome his alcohol-
related problems. His abstinence from alcohol is based on his need to maintain a good 
life style for his wife and family. He has not consumed alcohol in over two years and he 
has no desire to do so. He understands his alcohol-related problems and knows how he 
must continue alcohol abstinence. He established that he has been successful in his 
rehabilitation efforts. In addition to the passage of time and the reconciliation with his 
wife, he has been gainfully employed and has a reputation at work for trustworthiness, 
reliability, and good judgment. Applicant has mitigated security concerns of alcohol 
consumption. 
 
Criminal Conduct, Guideline J 
 
 The security concerns for alcohol consumption and criminal conduct are the 
same. The concerns involve questions of Applicant's reliability, judgment, and 
trustworthiness. 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 regulation. (AG ¶ 30)  
 
 Applicant admits that he damaged a barracks after consuming alcohol and 
received nonjudicial punishment from his commander. He admits to two driving while 
intoxicated offenses and being charged with a criminal offense based on excessive 
alcohol consumption on both occasions by civil authorities and by his military 
commander. This conduct raises Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 31(a) 
(a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses). The criminal conduct mitigating 
conditions involve issues similar to those discussed under alcohol consumption. The 
issues involve the passage of time, the unusual nature of the action causing security 
concerns, the likelihood of recurrence, and whether the actions cast doubt on the 
individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. The Criminal Conduct mitigating 
conditions that apply are 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 and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability. Trustworthiness, or good 
judgment); and AG ¶ 32(d) (there is evidence of successful rehabilitation including but 
not limited to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or 
restitution, job training, higher education good employment record, or constructive 
community involvement). For the same reasons stated above under alcohol 
consumption, Applicant has mitigated the security concern for criminal conduct. 
 
 
9 
 
 
Whole-Person Analysis 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
the circumstances. An 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 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. I considered the testimony of his 
supervisor and his reputation for honest, reliability, and trustworthiness. I considered his 
reputation as an excellent employee and his record of accomplishments. Applicant 
drank to excess while young and on active duty. He understands the diagnosis of 
alcohol dependence and that he cannot consume alcohol. He has refrained from alcohol 
consumption for over two years. He established he had changed life circumstances and 
successful rehabilitation. His actions to overcome his alcohol dependence were careful, 
responsible, and showed the exercise of good judgment, and an ability to control 
impulses. His ability to overcome alcohol dependence, and establish impulse control 
shows his reliability and indicates he will properly safeguard classified information. The 
record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility 
and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has 
mitigated the financial considerations, alcohol consumption, and criminal conduct 
security concerns.  
 
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:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs1.a – 1.e:   For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline G:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
10 
 
 
 
 Subparagraphs 2.a – 2 h:   For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline J:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraph 3.a:    For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge