1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
          DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 10-10406
)
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Stephanie C. Hess, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Kecia St. Clair, Personal Representative
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant experienced financial problems resulting in bankruptcy in 2000 and
2010, but his current finances and ability to manage his money are satisfactory.
Applicant also no longer uses marijuana or associates with drug users. He is not likely
to become involved in illegal drugs in the future. He also did not deliberately omit
relevant information from his 2002 and 2010 security clearance applications. After his
driver’s license was revoked five times in three years, he has taken sufficient action to
ensure his driving privileges will remain in good standing. Applicant mitigated the
security concerns raised by his financial problems, drug involvement and personal
conduct. His request for a security clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On July 13, 2010, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (eQIP) to obtain a security clearance required for his
employment with a defense contractor. After reviewing the results of Applicant’s
background investigation, adjudicators for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.1
 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).
 Tr. 19 - 32.3
2
(DOHA) were unable to make a preliminary affirmative finding  that it is clearly1
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s request for access to classified
information. On November 23, 2011, DOHA issued to Applicant a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns addressed in the
adjudicative guideline (AG)  for financial considerations (Guideline F), drug involvement2
(Guideline H), and personal conduct (Guideline E).
Applicant answered the SOR (Answer) on December 19, 2011, and requested a
hearing. On February 17, 2012, DOHA Department Counsel issued to Applicant an
Amendment to the Statement of Reasons (Amendment). The Amendment added three
factual allegations to the paragraph 2 Guideline E allegations. Applicant answered the
Amendment (Second Answer) on October 2, 2011, and the case was assigned to me on
February 29, 2012. 
The Amendment and Applicant’s Second Answer are included in the record as
Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 1. Attached to Applicant’s Second Answer is a copy of a security
clearance application (SF 86) he completed by hand and signed on May 12, 2010. It is
included in the record with Applicant’s response to the Amendment and will be referred
to, as necessary, as Applicant’s Exhibit (Ax.) A.
Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing issued on February 27, 2012, I convened a
hearing in this matter on March 15, 2012. The parties appeared as scheduled. The
Government presented ten exhibits, which were admitted as Government’s Exhibits
(Gx.) 1 - 10.  Applicant testified and presented two witnesses. DOHA received a3
transcript (Tr.) of the hearing on March 26, 2012.
Findings of Fact
The Government alleged under Guideline H, that in February 2007, Applicant
was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, to which he pleaded guilty in
May 2007, and was given 30 days in jail (suspended), was fined and placed on
unsupervised probation (SOR 1.a); and that in June 2001, he was charged with driving
on a suspended license and possession of marijuana, for which he was fined and
ordered to attend an “ASAP” class (SOR 1.b).
The Government alleged under Guideline E, that Applicant’s driver’s license has
been suspended five times since September 2009 for various traffic violations (SOR
2.a). The Amendment added the following allegations: that his 2007 drug arrest resulted
in the revocation of a security clearance issued to him by the U.S. Navy (SOR 2.b); that
Applicant deliberately made a false statement to the Government by failing to disclose,
as required by eQIP question 25.b, that the Navy revoked his security clearance (SOR
3
2.c); and that he deliberately made a false statement to the Government by failing to
disclose, as required by question 23.f of a security clearance application submitted in
May 2002, that he had been arrested in July 2001 and charged with assault and battery
of a family member (SOR 2.d).
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant filed Chapter 7
bankruptcy in January 2001 and was discharged of his debts in May 2001 (SOR 3.a);
and that in February 2010, Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition that
“remain[ed] in bankruptcy court” when the SOR was issued (SOR 3.b)
In his Answer to the original SOR, Applicant admitted, with explanations, SOR
1.a, 1.b, 2.a, 3.a, and 3.b. In response to the Amendment, he denied, with explanations,
SOR 2.b and 2.c. He admitted with explanation SOR 2.d. However, his explanation
regarding SOR 2.d makes clear that he denies intentionally making a false statement by
his answer to SF 86 question 23.f. 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 42 years old and employed by a defense contractor as a pipe fitter in
a private shipyard that constructs and maintains U.S. Navy ships and submarines.
Applicant has particular expertise in working with systems related to nuclear propulsion. 
Applicant was married from August 1997 until he and his wife separated in March
2003. There is no information in the record about when or if a divorce was finalized.
Applicant pays monthly child support for a son, now age 12, from his marriage.
Currently, he is living with a woman, with whom he has a child under two years old, and
her two children from a previous relationship, ages 12 and 14. (Tr. 40) Applicant and his
girlfriend have known each other for about ten years and have been in a relationship for
the last four years. They recently signed a two-year lease on a house, and she
describes Applicant as a great father. (Tr. 33 - 34)
In June 2001, Applicant was arrested for driving on a suspended license and for
possession of marijuana. He pleaded guilty and was assessed fines and court costs.
(Answer; Gx. 9; Gx. 10; Tr. 57) In July 2001, he and his wife got into an argument that
became physical when both parties grabbed and shoved each other. Applicant left the
house, and he was later called by police. Applicant’s wife had sworn out a warrant for
his arrest, charging him with assault and battery on a family member. Applicant went to
the police station, signed the warrant, was advised of a date to appear in court, and
allowed to leave. The charge was eventually dismissed because his wife did not appear
in court. (Second Answer; Gx. 8 Gx. 9)
In February 2007, he was again charged with marijuana possession. He was a
passenger in a car that was stopped for speeding. Police determined the driver had a
suspended license and asked all of the occupant’s to exit the car. During a search
incident to the driver’s arrest, a small amount of marijuana was found. All of the
occupants were issued citations charging them with misdemeanor possession of
marijuana. Applicant denied the marijuana was his, but, in May 2007, he pleaded guilty
because he could not afford the cost of an attorney to challenge the charge at a trial. He
4
was sentenced to 30 days in jail (suspended) and assessed fines and court costs.
(Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 9)
Since September 2009, Applicant’s driver’s license has been suspended five
times. In addition to numerous moving violations, Applicant has been slow to pay the
required fines imposed. His last violation occurred in early 2010, after which Applicant
took a driver improvement course. His driving privileges have been restored and
Applicant averred that his car insurance rates have dropped. (Answer; Gx. 3; Tr. 59 -
60, 71 - 72)
Applicant was discharged of his debts in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2001. He
averred that his financial problems arose from a combination of loss of income during a
four-month strike by the union to which he belongs, and from his wife’s undisciplined
use of credit cards. (Answer; Gx. 6; Gx. 8; Tr. 60) In 2010, Applicant filed for Chapter 13
bankruptcy protection. He chose to file bankruptcy because he was laid off in December
2009 and unemployed for six months before being hired by his current employer.
Applicant lost his house to foreclosure, and he was unable to pay the remainder of the
mortgage after the house was sold at auction. He is repaying about $20,000 in debts
through $360 monthly payments. He has been making those payments as required
since February 2010, and the balance on his trustee’s account is in good standing, his
creditors are being paid, and the total amount due is now about $15,480. (Answer; Gx.
2; Gx. 4; Tr. 36)
In September 1990, Applicant began working as a pipe fitter at the same
shipyard where he works now. He worked there until April 2000, when he was laid off
for lack of work. Applicant held a security clearance as part of this employment. (Gx. 10)
Thereafter, he worked as a pipe fitter for two different companies before he was hired
as a pipe fitter by the Department of the Navy in March 2002. He was granted a security
clearance in 2002 and worked at a Navy shipyard until March 2008, when his clearance
was revoked, in relevant part, because of his 2007 arrest for marijuana possession.
Applicant averred that he was allowed to resign rather than be fired, because of his
good work record. Applicant appealed the revocation, but the decision to revoke was
affirmed in February 2009. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 7; Tr. 54)
On May 2, 2002, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) to
renew his security clearance for his job with the Navy. He disclosed the June 2001
charges for marijuana possession and driving on a suspended license. He also
disclosed prior drug use, and his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Applicant admitted that he did
not list his July 2001 assault and battery charge on his SF 86, but denied doing so
intentionally. The charges were dismissed, and he either forgot about the event or
mistakenly thought he did not have to list the charge because he was not actually
detained after he turned himself in. He was not required to list the assault charge in his
2010 eQIP because it occurred more than seven years before. (Second Answer; Gx. 7;
Gx. 8; Gx. 10; Tr. 60 - 61, 62)
The eQIP signed and submitted on July 13, 2010, disclosed Applicant’s adverse
financial information, as well as his 2007 marijuana possession charge. He did not
disclose, however, the loss of his security clearance in 2008. (Gx. 1) Applicant did not
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
 Directive. 6.3.5
5
personally sit at a computer and complete the eQIP. Rather, he signed and submitted a
hand-written security clearance application in May 2010, that was then used by his
employer’s security office to complete the eQIP. He was then presented with the final
eQIP to sign. Applicant disclosed the 2008 clearance revocation in his hand-written
application. (Ax. A) He admitted at hearing that he did not review the eQIP closely when
he signed it in July 2010. (Second Answer; Tr. 62, 64 - 65, 73 - 74)
Applicant’s marriage appears to have been tumultuous. In addition to his 2001
assault charge, the record shows he also may have been charged with domestic assault
in 1998. He has not lived with his wife in nine years, and his current domestic situation
is stable and peaceful. (Answer; Gx. 8; Tr. 33 - 34, 61 - 62) Applicant admits to having
made bad choices and to associating with the wrong people. (Tr. 57) However, he has
not used illegal drugs since 2001, and his current finances are sound. Applicant and his
girlfriend jointly manage their finances, and they are meeting all of their current financial
obligations. (Gx. 2; Gx. 8; Tr.  35, 37 - 43)
Applicant has a good reputation in the workplace. A former co-worker, who
encouraged Applicant to seek employment with the Navy in 2002, is aware of the
circumstances which led to Applicant’s loss of clearance and departure from the Navy
shipyard. Nonetheless, he praised Applicant’s commitment to quality workmanship,
calling Applicant “one of my best nuclear pipe fitters.” He also testified that Applicant
has a record of properly handling and safeguarding classified “packages” as part of his
work with Navy nuclear propulsion systems. (Tr. 44 - 54)
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
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. 
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.6
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).7
6
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.
In addition to Applicant’s admissions, the Government presented information that
showed Applicant experienced significant financial problems that resulted in bankruptcy
petitions in 2001 and 2010. 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
7
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.
Applicant’s current finances are sound, he has no new delinquent or excessive
personal debt, and he has a positive cash flow. In 2001, he filed for liquidation of his
debts after a period of unemployment exacerbated his inability to pay his marital debts.
In 2010, he accrued past-due debts after he was laid off. Rather than seek liquidation a
second time, Applicant established a repayment plan through a Chapter 13 petition. He
has been paying according to that plan for about two years and has reduced his overall
debt significantly. While bankruptcy is not the most desirable option to resolve one’s
debts, in this case, Applicant’s current financial stability shows that he exhibited good
judgment in choosing Chapter 13 to address his debt problem. On balance, Applicant
has mitigated the security concerns about his finances.
Drug Involvement
In addition to Applicant’s admissions, the Government presented information that
showed Applicant used marijuana more than ten years ago; that he was charged and
convicted of marijuana possession in 2001 and 2007; and that he lost a security
clearance in 2008, in part, as a result of his 2008 drug charge. Although not directly
alleged, it appears that Applicant used marijuana in 2001 while holding a security
clearance he received before he was hired by the Navy in 2002. These facts raise a
security concern addressed at AG ¶ 24, as follows:
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions
about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may
impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person's ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and
include: 
      (1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and
listed in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g.,
marijuana or cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and
hallucinogens), and (2) inhalants and other similar substances; 
    (b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.
8
More specifically, available information supports application of the disqualifying
conditions at AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug abuse (see above definition)) and AG ¶ 25(g) (any
illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance).
By contrast, Applicant’s drug use is not recent, he no longer associates with
others who use drugs, and his personal and professional circumstances now support a
clean, sober and responsible lifestyle. I conclude the record supports application of the
following AG ¶ 26 mitigating conditions:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt
on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
and 
(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as:
(1) dissociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used;
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence.
      
Applicant has mitigated the security concerns about his past drug involvement.
Personal Conduct
The Government’s information also showed that in the past three years,
Applicant’s driver’s license was suspended at least five times, either for moving
violations, or for failure to timely pay the fines and costs imposed for those violations.
The Government also established that Applicant’s security clearance was revoked in
2008 after his 2007 drug-related arrest, and that he omitted his loss of clearance from
his eQIP. The Government also showed that Applicant omitted from a 2002 SF 86 his
2001 domestic assault charge. These facts potentially raise a security concern about his
personal conduct, which 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.
Applicant denied intentionally trying to mislead the Government by omitting his
2001 arrest from his 2002 SF 86. His denial kept the burden on the Government to
prove that allegation, a burden I conclude was not met. Available information
established that Applicant knew he had been charged with domestic assault in 2001 and
that he should have listed that charge on his 2002 SF 86. Intent to make a false
statement can be inferred from all of the pertinent circumstances; however, those
circumstances also include Applicant’s plausible explanation that he thought he did not
have to disclose the charge because he was not taken into custody. Also to be
considered here is Applicant’s disclosure in the SF 86 of other adverse and disqualifying
9
information, such as his Chapter 7 bankruptcy, a drug-related arrest for which he was
convicted, and his use of marijuana while holding a security clearance. It is unlikely that
the one event he would intentionally omit would be an assault and battery charge that
was never prosecuted. 
Applicant denied the allegation that he intentionally withheld from his eQIP the
Navy’s 2008 revocation of his security clearance. The eQIP presented at hearing listed
that he was granted a clearance in 2002, but contained a negative answer to question
25.b, which asked if his clearance had ever been revoked. The eQIP also listed his
more recent adverse financial information and his 2007 charge of marijuana
possession. In response to SOR 2.c, Applicant averred that he thought he had listed it
when he submitted his application. He credibly explained that his responses were
provided on a handwritten security clearance application and given to someone else to
put into the automated eQIP form. Ax. B, as well as the other information probative of
Applicant’s intent, corroborates his claim. The most that can be said about Applicant’s
eQIP is that he should have reviewed it more closely before signing and submitting it.
Applicant was responsible for the information presented in the eQIP, but his poor
attention to detail, under these circumstances, does not equate to an intent to deceive
or mislead the Government. SOR 2.c and 2.d are concluded for the Applicant. 
As to SOR 2.b, the Government established, and Applicant admitted, that his
security clearance was revoked in 2009, in part, because of his 2007 drug charge.
Certainly, the loss of his clearance was one effect of the drug-related conduct
addressed, above. However, while pertinent to other issues in this case, such as the
allegation that he did not disclose it on his 2010 eQIP, the Navy’s revocation does not
carry any independent adjudicative significance. SOR 2.b is concluded for the Applicant.
Finally, the Government established, and Applicant admitted, that his driver’s
license has been suspended at least five times in the past three years. This requires
application of the disqualifying condition at 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: ... (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations.
This security concern can be mitigated by establishing the mitigating condition at 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 untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.
10
Applicant has acknowledged that he is not a very good driver and that he was not
timely paying the fines and costs of his traffic violations. However, he has not had a
ticket in more than a year, and he “obtained counseling” by taking a driver improvement
class. His driving privileges have been restored and his car insurance premiums have
gone down. On balance, and in consideration of the positive changes in his
circumstances, SOR 2.a is concluded for Applicant. He has mitigated the security
concerns about his personal conduct.
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts presented and have applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guidelines H, F, and E. 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 42 years old and presumed to be a mature responsible adult. Such a
presumption seemed incorrect in light of Applicant’s conduct until recently. Information
about his 2001 drug arrest showed that he was using marijuana at the time of his arrest.
However, it was not conclusively shown that the marijuana found when he was arrested
in 2007 was his or that he was using drugs then. Certainly, his choice of friends was not
good. After he lost his clearance and his Navy job, Applicant started to change his
circumstances for the better. He and his girlfriend have a stable relationship in which
they care for their children and have made financial progress. Although he is still in
Chapter 13 bankruptcy, he has established a track record of reliability, and all
indications are that he is unlikely to repeat his drug-related conduct or that he will
experience similar financial problems in the future. A fair and commonsense
assessment of all information bearing on Applicant’s suitability for access to classified
information shows that he has mitigated the security concerns presented by the
Government.
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 H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.b: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.d: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a - 3.b: For Applicant
11
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to
grant Applicant’s request for access to classified information. Request for security
clearance is granted.
                                         
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge