1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 [Name Redacted] )  ISCR Case No. 10-09232 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOGAN, Erin C., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted an electronic security clearance questionnaire for 
investigations processing (e-QIP) on April 23, 2010. On January 6, 2012, the Defense 
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations; 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct; and Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption. 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 within the 
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
  
 Applicant answered the SOR and requested that his case be decided on the 
written record. Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on 
February 29, 2012. The FORM was forwarded to Applicant on March 5, 2012. Applicant 
received the FORM on March 13, 2012. He had 30 days to submit a response to the 
FORM. Applicant timely submitted a Response to the FORM. (27 pages). It is admitted 
as Item 14. Department Counsel had no objection to Applicant’s response to the FORM. 
 
2 
 
 
Department Counsel’s response is marked as Item 15. On May 7, 2012, the FORM was 
forwarded to the hearing office and was assigned to me on May 8, 2012.   
 
 Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access 
to classified information is denied.   
 
Amendment to SOR  
 
 Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR, as follows: 
 
 Modify SOR ¶ 2.d : Change the number and letter, “3.c” to “3.e” in the last 
sentence: 
 
2.d. You falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP), executed by you under date April 23, 
2010, in response to “Section 24: Use of Alcohol In the last 7 years, has 
your use of alcohol had a negative impact on your work performance, your 
professional or personal relationships, your finances, or resulted in 
intervention by law enforcement/public safety personnel?” You answered, 
“No” to this question, whereas in truth, you deliberately failed to disclose 
that you received nonjudicial punishment while on active duty in the U.S. 
Air Force as set forth in paragraph 3.e, below. 
 
Add SOR ¶ 2.e: 
 
2.e. During an interview with the Department of Defense investigator in 
about June 2010, you deliberately provided false or misleading information 
to the investigators by stating you, “experienced a relapse for the first and 
only time” when you used alcohol in February 2010. In fact, as you then 
knew and sought to conceal, you had resumed consuming alcohol only 
about six to seven months after completing an inpatient alcohol treatment 
program in about July 2006, as set forth in subparagraph 3.f, below, and 
continued to consume alcohol on weekends, often to intoxication, until 
about February 2010.   
 
Pursuant to paragraph E3.1.17 of the Directive, I find the amendments conform 
with the evidence in the record. In his response to the FORM, Applicant apologizes for 
falsifying material facts in response to Section 24. I find he admits the amendment of 
SOR ¶ 2.d. He apologizes for his alcohol relapse. He does not mention whether he 
admits or denies providing false or misleading information regarding when he relapsed 
to investigators as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.e. I find Applicant denies SOR ¶ 2.e based on his 
ambiguous answer. (Item 14) 
 
Upon my own motion, SOR ¶ 3.g is hereby amended in order to conform with the 
evidence in the record in accordance with paragraph E3.1.17 of the Directive to read as 
follows: 
 
3 
 
 
3.g. You experienced a relapse six months after receiving a diagnosis of 
alcohol dependence and completion of an inpatient alcohol treatment 
program in July 2006 by consuming between ½ to one gallon of whiskey 
on the weekends until February 2010.   
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admits the allegations alleged in SOR ¶¶ 
1.a, 2.d, and 3.a – 3.h. He denies the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.b – 1.f, and 2.a – 2.c, and 
2.e. (Item 4) 
 
 Applicant is a 46-year-old male employed by a Department of Defense contractor 
since October 2008 seeking to obtain a security clearance. He enlisted in the United 
States Air Force in February 1986. He retired at the grade of Technical Sergeant in 
February 2007. His DD Form 214 states the reason for his separation as “VOL 
RETIREMENT SUFFICIENT SERVICE FOR RETIREMENT.” He is a high school 
graduate and earned a certificate from a vocational school in September 2007. He is 
single and has no children. (Item 5; Item 12)   
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
After Applicant completed his security clearance questionnaire, a background 
investigation was initiated. His background investigation revealed six delinquent 
accounts, an approximate total balance of $55,830. The delinquent accounts include: a 
$40,676 delinquent credit card account placed for collection in September 2009 (SOR ¶ 
1.a: Item 13 at 3); an $8,316 delinquent account placed for collection in July 2009 (SOR 
¶ 1.b: Item 13 at 6); a $6,388 delinquent credit card account that was charged off in July 
2009 (SOR ¶ 1.c: Item 13 at 3); a $200 traffic ticket placed for collection in June 2009  
(SOR ¶ 1.d: Item 13 at 5); a $150 traffic ticket placed for collection in July 2009 (SOR ¶ 
1.e: Item 13 at 5), and a $100 traffic ticket placed for collection in June 2009. (Item 13 at 
5)  
 
In response to section 26 of his e-QIP application, Applicant indicated that the 
debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c were included in a debt repayment plan which 
he established with a debt repayment company on April 20, 2010. Applicant agreed to 
pay $658.18 per month over a 50-month period to resolve the three debts. (Item 5, 
section 27; Item 10 at 7-22) During an interview with an investigator conducting his 
background investigation on June 14, 2010, Applicant stated the three debts alleged in 
SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c are signature loans that he opened while he was on active 
duty. He subsequently was given non-judicial punishment and was directed to retire 
from active duty earlier than he expected. Upon his retirement from active duty, he was 
unemployed from March 2007 until May 2008. Between May 2008 and August 2008, he 
obtained employment working temporary positions. He was also unemployed between 
August 2008 and October 2008.  Applicant was unable to pay his debts because of his 
periods of unemployment and underemployment. Now that he is employed full-time, his 
financial situation has improved. The debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.e, and 1.f are traffic 
 
4 
 
 
tickets. Applicant forgot to pay the tickets and told the investigator he intended to pay 
them. (Item 5, section 13; Item 7 at 5-6, 11)  
 
In response to interrogatories on November 9, 2011, Applicant indicated that he 
cancelled his agreement with the debt repayment company on May 31, 2011, because 
he believed he could manage his bills himself and avoid the extra fees paid to the 
company. The creditor alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a obtained a judgment against Applicant on 
April 4, 2011. The creditor attempted to garnish Applicant’s wages, but was only able to 
recoup $5.09. (Item 10, attachment 3, at 23-38)  
 
On January 31, 2011, Applicant agreed to pay $240 a month towards the debt 
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. He provided proof of payments between March 2011 to October 
2011. (Item 10, attachment 4, at 39-48) Applicant provided proof that the traffic tickets 
alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d – 1.f were paid in full. (Item 10, attachment 5, at 49-53) Finally, 
Applicant provided proof that he entered into a settlement agreement with the debt 
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c for $3,000. He agreed to pay $250 every two weeks between 
February 2011 and July 2011. His last payment would be $400. He provided proof that 
the payments were made. He was waiting for confirmation that that debt was resolved. 
(Item 10, attachment 6, at 54-67). 
 
In his response to the FORM, Applicant provided information on the status of all 
of the debts alleged in the SOR. Their current status is as follows: 
 
SOR ¶ 1.a, $40,676 charged off account, now a judgment: Applicant intended to 
take care of his smaller debts before taking care of this debt. He is in contact with the 
law office collecting on this judgment to establish a payment plan. This debt was a 
personal loan to take care of his monthly bills until he could find employment. (Item 14) 
Status of the debt is unresolved. 
 
SOR ¶ 1.b, $8,316, debt: Payment plan began in March 2010. Applicant pays 
$240 a month. He did not make a payment in April and May 2011 because he did not 
have the money. He has been consistently making payments since that time. (Item 14, 
Response to FORM, Tab 1.a)   
  
SOR ¶ 1.c, $6,388 charged off credit card account: As mentioned previously, 
Applicant settled this account for $3,000. The debt is paid. (Item 14, Response to 
FORM, Tab 1.b) 
 
SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.e, 1.f: All tickets are paid in full. (Item 14, Response to FORM, Tab 
1.c)  
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
 Applicant’s three traffic tickets alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d – 1.f are cross-alleged 
under Guideline E. In addition, the Government alleges Applicant deliberately falsified 
 
5 
 
 
his response to Section 24 on his e-QIP application when he answered, “no.” Section 24 
asks:  
 
Use of Alcohol In the last 7 years, has your use of alcohol had a negative 
impact on your work performance, your professional or personal 
relationships, your finances, or resulted in intervention by law 
enforcement/public safety personnel?   
 
It is alleged Applicant deliberately failed to disclose that he received nonjudicial 
punishment in June 2006 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty in violation of 
Article 86, UCMJ, and overindulgence in intoxicating liquor resulting in incapacitation for 
proper performance of duties in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, in response to this 
question in Section 24. However, Applicant listed an Article 15 for violation of UCMJ 
Articles 86 and 134 in response to Section 15: Military History and Section 22: Police 
Record in the same e-QIP application. I find for Applicant with respect to SOR ¶ 2.d 
because he listed the Article 15 on his e-QIP application. He also listed that he 
volunteered for a 28-day alcohol treatment program as a result of his nonjudicial 
punishment in response to Section 21: Mental and Emotional Health. The Government 
was on notice that he received an alcohol-related Article 15 in June 2006 and that he 
attended alcohol counseling as a result of the incident. I find that while Applicant’s 
response to this question in Section 24 was incorrect, he did not have a deliberate intent 
to mislead the Government. In fact, Applicant told an investigator during an interview on 
July 9, 2010, that he misread section 24. Regardless, he provided the information in 
other locations on the same e-QIP application, so he put the Government on notice 
about his alcohol issues. (Item 5, sections 14, 22, 24; Item 7 at 9)  
 
 The Government also motioned to amend the SOR by adding subparagraph 2.e 
which reads: 
 
2.e During an interview with a Department of Defense Investigator in 
about June 2010, you deliberately provided false or misleading information 
to the investigator by stating you, “experienced a relapse for the first and 
only time” when you used alcohol in February 2010. In fact, as you then 
knew and sought to conceal, you had resumed consuming alcohol only 
about six to seven months after completing an in-patient alcohol treatment 
program in about July 2006, as set forth in subparagraph 3.f, below, and 
continued to consume alcohol on weekends, often to intoxication, until 
about February 2010.     
   
 On June 14, 2010, Applicant was interviewed as part of his background 
investigation. If the unsworn statement is given weight, Applicant told the investigator 
that he experienced a relapse in February 2010 for the first and only time. He later 
disclosed during his substance abuse evaluation on October 31, 2011, that he started 
drinking about six or seven months after his completion of inpatient alcohol treatment in 
2006. He would drink ½ to one gallon of whiskey on the weekends. He stopped drinking 
in February 2010 because he decided that he had “had enough.” (Item 11, at 3-5) 
 
6 
 
 
These two statements are inconsistent. Applicant was misleading when he told the 
investigator in June 2010 that his first and only relapse was in February 2010.  
 
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 
 
 Applicant admits to being an alcoholic. He had his first alcoholic beverage at age 
12. He began to drink regularly at age 21, having one or two beers on weekends. He 
first became intoxicated at age 22. He began to get in trouble while drinking in 1991, the 
same year his mother died. By age 26, his drinking accelerated to many drinks on the 
weekends. He did not drink during the week unless he was on leave. (Item 11 at 3) 
 
Applicant’s alcohol use resulted in several nonjudicial punishments under Article 
15, UCMJ, when he served on active duty in the Air Force. In June 1991, he was 
apprehended for operating a motor vehicle while drunk at a base in Japan. He 
apparently received nonjudicial punishment in violation of Article 111, UCMJ. In his 
response to the SOR, he admits that his punishment consisted of a reduction of one pay 
grade and forfeiture of $230 from his military pay. He lost his license and went to 
alcohol classes for a year. He also attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) on a weekly 
basis. (Item 11 at 3)  
 
 In October 1991, Applicant was stationed at a base in England. He was drinking 
at the NCO Club. He drank alcohol from 5 pm until 2 am. He admits he was intoxicated, 
but chose to drive home. When he got in his car, the security police followed him and 
pulled him over because he was swerving. He subsequently failed a field sobriety test. 
A breathalyzer test revealed that his blood alcohol was above the legal limit. Applicant 
received a second nonjudicial punishment for operating a motor vehicle while drunk in 
violation of Article 111, UCMJ.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay and 
forfeitures of $400 pay per month for two months. (Item 7 at 7-9) 
 
 In his response to the SOR, Applicant admits to being diagnosed as alcohol 
dependent after attending alcohol treatment in 1992, 1993, and 1994. There is no 
additional evidence in the record such as treatment records verifying this assertion. 
After his second nonjudicial punishment, Applicant refrained from drinking for a while, 
but resumed drinking alcohol in January 1993. He continued to drink on the weekends. 
(Item 11 at 4)   
 
 Applicant’s third Article 15 nonjudicial punishment happened in the summer of 
2006. In June 2006, Applicant consumed a gallon of whiskey over the weekend. He 
drank to the point where he passed out on Sunday. He slept all day Monday because of 
his alcohol intoxication. He reported to work on Tuesday thinking it was Monday. He 
was hung over and slightly intoxicated. His supervisor confronted him when he reported 
to work. He received Article 15 nonjudicial punishment for violating Article 86, UCMJ, 
failure to go to his appointed place of duty, and Article 134, UCMJ, overindulgence of 
intoxicating liquor resulting in incapacitation for proper performance of duties. His 
punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in one pay grade, forfeitures of $500 
month pay per month for two months, and a reprimand. (Item 7 at 3; Item 11 at 4)  
 
7 
 
 
 
 In June/July 2006, Applicant attended a 28-day inpatient alcohol treatment 
program. He was diagnosed as alcohol dependent by his treatment provider. He was 
required to attend a daily mandatory group AA meeting until August 1, 2006. His 
prognosis was that he would succeed if he abstained from alcohol and all mood-altering 
substances; attended AA meetings on a regular basis; maintained close contact with his 
sponsor; avoided former drinking colleagues; and became involved in productive off-
duty activities. (Item 7 at 1-3)  
 
Applicant remained sober for six months after he completed the program. He 
started to drink approximately ½ to one gallon of whiskey on the weekends. This 
happened around the time he retired from the U.S. Air Force. He admits to blacking out 
on numerous occasions between the time he started drinking again in January 2007 
and February 2010. In February 2010, he decided that he had had enough and stopped 
drinking. (Item 11 at 4) 
 
 Applicant currently attends AA meetings on Saturdays. He prays and meditates 
daily. He has worked with the same AA sponsor for several years. On October 31, 
2011, Applicant was assessed by a Licensed Clinical Social Worker for substance 
abuse issues. He received a diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence in Sustained Full 
Remission. Applicant was advised of this diagnosis and warned that it is not safe for him 
to consume any alcohol. (Item 11)  
 
Whole-Person Factors 
 
 In his response to the FORM, Applicant provided extensive materials pertaining 
to his Air Force career including training certificates, enlisted performance reports, 
awards and decorations, and certificates of appreciation. The documents provided 
indicate that Applicant had a successful career in the Air Force despite his alcohol 
issues and Article 15 nonjudicial punishments. He requests that his 21 years of active 
duty service be considered. (Item 14, tabs 2-7, 10) 
        
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 when 
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, 
 
8 
 
 
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.  
 
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 safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation as to 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information).   
 
Analysis 
  
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set 
out in AG & 18:       
 
Failure or inability to live within one=s means, satisfy debts, and meet 
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or 
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise 
questions about an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to 
protect classified information. An individual who is financially over-
extended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.  
 
 
9 
 
 
The guideline notes several disqualifying conditions that could raise security 
concerns. I find Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition AG &19(a) (an inability 
or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and AG &19(c), (a history of not meeting financial 
obligations) apply to Applicant’s case. Applicant incurred numerous delinquent debts 
that he has been unable to pay over the past several years. The SOR alleged six 
delinquent accounts with a total approximate balance of $55,830. 
  
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Several mitigating conditions potentially apply 
to Applicant’s case.  
 
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. While 
Applicant resolved the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c – 1.f and is making payments 
towards the debt alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, his largest debt, the $40,676 debt alleged in 
SOR ¶ 1.a, is unresolved. Applicant has a history of being irresponsible when it comes 
to his finances. His past behavior casts doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and 
good judgment. As such, it raises questions about his ability to handle and protect 
classified information.  
 
AG & 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) partially applies. After his retirement from 
the military, Applicant had several periods of unemployment which adversely affected 
his finances. However, he has been employed full-time since October 2008. I cannot 
conclude he acted responsibly under the circumstances because all of the debts alleged 
in the SOR became delinquent in 2009 and Applicant did not begin to resolve the debts 
until April 2010.  
 
     AG ¶ 20(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) 
does not apply. Applicant did not attend financial counseling. He did not provide specific 
information as to the current status of his financial situation such as a household 
budget. I am unable to determine whether he is capable of resolving his debts.  
 
AG & 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors 
or otherwise resolve debts) applies with respect to SOR ¶¶ 1.b – 1.f, Applicant provided 
proof that the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c – 1.f are resolved. He provided proof that he 
is making payments towards the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. However, Applicant has a 
long way to go to resolve his financial situation. He states that he is taking steps to 
resolve his largest debt which is the $40,676 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a, but had not 
entered into a repayment agreement at the close of the record. Considering the size of 
the debt and the fact that it has remained delinquent for years, I cannot conclude that 
Applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his debts. 
 
10 
 
 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in AG &15: 
 
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or 
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions 
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect 
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful 
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other 
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.  
 
 Under personal conduct, the following disqualifying conditions potentially apply to 
Applicant’s case: 
 
AG ¶ 16(a) (deliberate omission, concealment, of falsification of relevant 
facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history 
statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine 
employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security 
clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities); 
 
AG ¶ 16(b) (deliberately providing false or misleading information 
concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, 
competent medical authority, or other official government representative); 
and  
 
AG ¶ 16(d) (credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered 
under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an 
adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available 
information 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. This 
includes but is not limited to consideration of: (1) untrustworthy or 
unreliable behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of 
proprietary information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or 
other government protected information; (2) disruptive, violent or other 
inappropriate behavior in the workplace; (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule 
violations; and (4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other 
employer’s time or resources).  
 
 AG ¶ 16(a) potentially applies to the allegation in SOR 2(d) because Applicant’s 
failure to answer “yes” to the question in Section 24 of his April 23, 2010 e-QIP 
application which reads: “Use of Alcohol. In the last 7 years, has your use of alcohol 
had a negative impact on your work performance, your professional or personal 
relationships, your finances, or resulted in intervention by law enforcement/public safety 
 
11 
 
 
personnel?” The Government alleges Applicant should have disclosed the June 2006 
incident which resulted in him receiving Article 15 nonjudicial punishment in response to 
this question. In his response to the FORM, Applicant apologized for deliberately 
falsifying his answer to Section 24. However, Applicant listed the June 2006 Article 15 in 
response to Section 22(e) – Police Record on the same e-QIP application. He also 
listed that he attended inpatient alcohol treatment from June 2006 to August 2006 after 
receiving nonjudicial punishment. Applicant provided information about his alcohol 
issues in response to other questions on the e-QIP application. For this reason, I 
conclude that the falsification is not material. He had already provided information to put 
the Government on notice about his 2006 alcohol incident. I find for Applicant with 
respect to SOR ¶ 2.d. 
 
 AG ¶ 16(b) applies with respect to SOR ¶ 3.e (the amendment to the SOR) which 
alleged Applicant deliberately provided false and misleading information during a June 
2010 interview with a Department of Defense investigator by stating that he experienced 
a relapse the first and only time in February 2010. On October 31, 2011, Applicant 
voluntarily attended a substance abuse evaluation. He disclosed during the intake 
interview that he returned to drinking alcohol about six or seven months after he 
completed the inpatient alcohol treatment program in August 2006. He was drinking 
between ½ gallon to one gallon of whiskey on the weekends until he quit drinking in 
February 2010.  The Government has presented a prima facie case to establish that AG 
¶ 16(b) applies. Applicant provided no explanation for the discrepancy in his response 
to the FORM. He apologizes for relapsing and states in AA they are taught to be honest. 
He states that his action is inexcusable for someone requesting a security clearance. 
He will do whatever it takes to gain everyone’s respect and confidence.  
 
 AG ¶ 16(d) applies because Applicant’s traffic violations alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.a, 
2.b and 2.c and his deliberate falsification alleged in SOR ¶ 2.e shows “a pattern of 
dishonesty or rule violations, which raises questions about his reliability, trustworthiness 
and judgment.   
   
 The following personal conduct mitigating conditions potentially apply: 
 
AG ¶ 17(a) (the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the 
omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the 
facts);  
 
AG ¶ 17(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 
 
AG ¶ 17(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 
 
12 
 
 
untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such 
behavior is unlikely to recur). 
 
 AG ¶ 17(a) potentially applies to the allegation in SOR ¶ 2.e pertaining to 
Applicant’s deliberate falsification about the extent of his alcohol use after his inpatient 
alcohol treatment in 2006. The Government would not have discovered this discrepancy 
if Applicant had not disclosed the full extent of his alcohol use in his October 31, 2011, 
substance abuse evaluation. In an indirect way, Applicant made a good-faith effort to 
correct his falsification when he fully disclosed the extent of his alcohol use after his 
2006 inpatient treatment. However, the evaluation occurred approximately 16 months    
after his June 14, 2010, interview with a Department of Defense investigator. His full 
disclosure of his alcohol use cannot be considered “prompt.” For this reason, AG ¶ 
17(a) does not apply.    
  
 AG ¶ 17(c) applies with respect to Applicant’s traffic tickets which were alleged in 
SOR ¶¶ 2.a, 2.b and 2.c. While Applicant neglected to pay several traffic tickets, he 
provided proof that he paid all of his traffic tickets. There is no indication that he has 
received additional tickets. SOR ¶¶ 2.a, 2.b, and 2.c are mitigated.   
 
 AG ¶ 17(d) applies with respect to Applicant’s deliberate minimization of the 
extent of his alcohol use alleged in SOR ¶ 2.e. While providing false or misleading 
information to an investigator conducting your background investigation is serious, 
Applicant fully disclosed his alcohol use in his October 31, 2011, substance abuse 
evaluation. While the disclosure was not prompt, the purpose of the substance abuse 
evaluation was to assess Applicant’s current prognosis regarding his alcohol use. 
Applicant was aware that the evaluation was to be provided to the Government, yet fully 
disclosed his alcohol use which indicates that Applicant is finally accepting his alcohol 
issues and no longer denies the extent of his alcohol use.  
 
 I find Applicant mitigated the concerns raised under personal conduct.  
  
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Alcohol Consumption is set out 
in AG & 21:       
 
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.  
 
The guideline notes several disqualifying conditions that could raise security 
concerns. The following disqualifying conditions are relevant to Applicant’s case: 
 
AG ¶ 22(a) (alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving 
while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the 
 
13 
 
 
peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual 
is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent);  
 
AG ¶ 22(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)    
 
AG ¶ 22(c) (habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of 
impaired judgment, regardless of whether the person is diagnosed as an 
alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent)  
 
AG ¶ 22(d) (diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g.; 
physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol 
dependence); 
 
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 or dependence and 
completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program). 
 
AG 22(a) applies because of Applicant’s two apprehensions for DUI in 1991 and 
1992. AG ¶ 22(b) applies because of the June 2006 incident when Applicant showed up 
for work still impaired, if not intoxicated, from his alcohol binge during the previous 
weekend. AG ¶ 22(c) applies because when Applicant was drinking alcohol, he binged 
on the weekends, drinking between ½ gallon to a gallon of alcohol each weekend. 
Applicant admits to having black outs on numerous occasions while he was drinking 
between January 2007 and February 2010.  
 
AG ¶ 22(d) applies because Applicant admits that he was diagnosed as alcohol 
dependent by a duly qualified medical professional in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 2006. No 
treatment records are in the file to verify this, but the Government is not required to 
produce evidence relative to any allegations that Applicant admits. See Directive ¶ 
E3.1.14. 
 
AG ¶ 22(e) applies because Applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent in 
full sustained remission by a licensed clinical social worker during his substance abuse 
evaluation on October 31, 2011.  
 
AG ¶ 22(f) applies because Applicant relapsed after completing his inpatient 
alcohol rehabilitation program in June 2006. He remained sober for six to seven months 
after completing treatment, but began to drink again around the time he retired from the 
U.S. Air Force in February 2007. He also admits to relapsing after he completed 
outpatient alcohol treatment in 1993 and received a diagnosis of alcohol dependence.   
 
14 
 
 
 
The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns 
arising from alcohol consumption: 
 
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 and does not cast doubt on the individual=s current reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgment);  
 
AG & 23(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)); and 
 
AG ¶ 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).   
 
The above mitigating conditions all partially apply to Applicant’s case. Applicant 
has apparently been sober since February 2010. However, when weighed with his 
history of alcohol dependence since 1992 as well as his multiple relapses, it is too soon 
to conclude that Applicant will remain abstinent from alcohol, absent some additional 
corroborating information. Applicant’s recent substance abuse evaluation on October 
31, 2011, resulted in a diagnosis of alcohol dependence in sustained full remission. 
However, the evaluation is based on information Applicant provided. While Applicant 
states that he attends AA regularly on Saturday mornings and has a sponsor, he did not 
provide additional evidence to support his assertions such as testimony from his 
sponsor or fellow AA members. Considering his extensive history of alcohol 
dependence and multiple relapses, Applicant has a substantial burden to mitigate the 
concerns raised under alcohol consumption. While it appears Applicant has made 
progress, he did not present sufficient evidence to meet his substantial burden to 
mitigate the concerns raised under alcohol consumption. Guideline G is found against 
Applicant.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s 
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine 
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
15 
 
 
 (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 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 Applicant’s career in 
the U.S. Air Force. I considered his attempts to resolve his delinquent finances, and the 
steps he has taken to deal with his alcohol dependence. Applicant did not meet his 
burden to mitigate the financial considerations concern because he has a $40,000 debt 
that remains unresolved and he did not demonstrate that he is actively attempting to 
resolve the debt. While Applicant received a diagnosis of alcohol dependence in 
sustained full remission from a licensed clinical social worker, he provided no evidence 
to corroborate his assertions that he attends AA on a weekly basis and has a sponsor. 
Overall, Applicant failed to mitigate the concerns raised under Financial Considerations 
and Alcohol Consumption.  
 
Formal Findings 
  
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b:   Against Applicant 
   
  Subparagraphs 1.c - 1.f:   For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:    FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a – 2.e:   For Applicant 
   
 Paragraph 3, Guideline G:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
  
  Subparagraphs 3.a – 3.g:   Against Applicant 
 
 
 
 
16 
 
 
      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 eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
                                         
     _________________ 
ERIN C. HOGAN 
Administrative Judge