1 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 11-03231 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr. Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
In May 2012, Applicant satisfied or settled delinquent debt around $14,000, including 
two medical debts he did not recognize. He paid off a current car loan and addressed his 
spouse’s debts before his own debts, but his financial problems are resolved. He is able to 
meet all his expenses on his current income and is not relying on credit for new purchases. 
The financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. Applicant did not disclose on 
his security clearance application that he had used Ecstasy in 2001, for which he received 
non-judicial punishment. Personal conduct concerns do not warrant revocation of his 
security clearance because the omission was due to mistake rather than intent to deceive. 
Clearance granted. 
 
 Statement of the Case  
 
On April 2, 2012, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security concerns under Guideline 
F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and explaining why it 
was unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue 
 
 
 2 
his security clearance. DOHA took action 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 on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR allegations on May 24, 2012, and he requested a 
decision without a hearing. On July 16, 2012, the Government submitted a File of Relevant 
Material (FORM) consisting of nine exhibits (Items 1-9). DOHA forwarded a copy of the 
FORM to Applicant and instructed him to respond within 30 days of receipt. Applicant 
received the FORM on July 24, 2012. He filed a timely response dated July 29, 2012, to 
which the Government had no objection. On August 24, 2012, the case was assigned to 
me to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue 
a security clearance for Applicant. Applicant’s rebuttal to the FORM was accepted into the 
record as Applicant exhibit (AE) A. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
The SOR alleged under Guideline F (SOR 1.a) that as of April 2, 2012, Applicant 
owed $16,623 in delinquent debt (SOR 1.a-1.i). The debts were also alleged under 
Guideline E (SOR 2.a). Also under Guideline E, Applicant was alleged to have deliberately 
falsified an October 27, 2010 Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) by not disclosing that he had tested positive for the illegal hallucinogen Ecstasy while 
he held a security clearance (SOR 2.c) and that he had received non-judicial punishment in 
July 2001 for wrongful use of hallucinogens (SOR 2.b). (Item 1.) Applicant responded that 
he had paid in full or settled several of the debts (SOR 1.a-1.c, 1.e, 1.f); had paid $2,000 
toward the corrected $3,132.81 balance of SOR 1.g; and had paid the medical debts in 
SOR 1.h and 1.i to retain his clearance even though he knew nothing about them. 
Applicant provided evidence that he was disputing the debt in SOR 1.d because the 
creditor had no record of him having had an account. Concerning the Guideline E 
allegations, Applicant admitted that he failed a urinalysis in 2001, but he responded “No” 
on the e-QIP because he thought he only had to report information that occurred within the 
previous seven years. (Item 2.) 
 
After considering the Government’s FORM, including Applicant’s Answer (GE 2) and 
his rebuttal to the FORM (AE A), I make the following findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is 31 years old. As of his receipt of the FORM, he was working in 
Afghanistan for a defense contractor in support of the U.S. military.
1
 Applicant served on 
active duty in the military from July 1999 to May 2010. While on active duty, he was 
deployed three times to Iraq, from January 2004 to January 2005, November 2005 to 
October 2006, and August 2008 to August 2009. Applicant received several decorations for 
his dedicated service, including his branch’s Achievement Medal (2
nd
 Award), 
Commendation Medal (2
nd
 Award), Good Conduct Medal (3
rd
 Award), National Defense 
                                                 
1
Applicant applied for periodic renewal of his security clearance with a previous employer. (Items 4, 5.)   
 
 3 
Service Medal, and Expeditionary Medal. (Item 5.) He has held a secret clearance since 
December 1999. (Item 4.) 
 
While stationed abroad in April 2001, Applicant tested positive for the illegal 
hallucinogen Ecstasy during a unit urinalysis inspection. Applicant admitted to a military 
investigator on June 28, 2001, that he had purchased and used Ecstasy at a local 
nightclub on three separate occasions. On July 27, 2001, he received non-judicial 
punishment for wrongful use of a controlled substance between April 15, 2001 and April 
30, 2001. He was given 45 days of extra duty and 45 days restriction, reduced in rank from 
E-3 to E-1, and ordered to forfeit $521 pay for two months. (Item 7.) 
 
In September 2001, Applicant married his first wife (hereafter ex-wife). Their first 
child was born overseas in September 2002. In January 2003, Applicant and his ex-wife 
returned to the United States. In March 2004, a few months into Applicant’s first 
deployment to Iraq, they had a daughter. Their third child, another daughter, was born in 
May 2005, shortly after his return. By then, Applicant and his ex-wife were estranged. Their 
divorce was final in January 2007. (Items 4, 5.) Applicant’s wages were garnished to satisfy 
around $7,000 in past due child support from July 2005. (Items 4, 5, 8.) He asserts that his 
ex-wife falsely claimed that he had not been making his child support payments during his 
deployment. As of December 2011, he was paying $359.50 in child support every two 
weeks. (Item 5.) 
 
While home on leave in December 2008, Applicant married his current spouse, with 
whom he had a daughter 13 days prior. In August 2009, he returned from his last 
deployment. He completed his enlistment term and was honorably discharged from the 
U.S. military in May 2010. (Items 4, 5.) Applicant began working as a personnel processing 
specialist for a defense contractor on the military base. In September 2010, he took a job 
off the base as a technical specialist for another defense contractor. (Item 4.) 
 
On October 27, 2010, Applicant applied to renew the secret clearance he had held 
since 1999. On his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), 
Applicant responded “No” to questions 22.e, “Have you EVER been charged with any 
offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?” and 23.b, “Have you EVER illegally used a 
controlled substance while possessing a security clearance; while employed as a law 
enforcement officer, prosecutor, or courtroom official; or while in a position directly and 
immediately affecting the public safety?.” Applicant answered “Yes” to 22.b, concerning 
any arrests within the last seven years, and he disclosed a May 2005 incident (“Ex Wife 
attacked me. I had a few beers so I had to be taken in so my commander could pick me 
up. Found not at fault but still had to make an appointment with family advocacy.”). 
Applicant also responded “Yes” to several of the financial record inquiries with a seven-
year scope: 26.b, any possessions or property voluntarily or involuntarily repossessed or 
foreclosed; 26.f, any loan defaults; 26.h, any accounts or credit cards suspended, charged 
off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed; 26.j, any delinquency in alimony or child 
support; 26.k, any wage garnishments; and 26.m, any debt delinquent over 180 days. 
Applicant answered “No” to 26.n about whether he was currently over 90 days delinquent 
on any debts. He disclosed that an automobile loan balance of $9,000 had been placed for 
 
 4 
collection around October 2007 because his ex-wife had not insured the vehicle even 
though he had been making payments on the loan (SOR 1.e). Applicant indicated that he 
had been $7,000 past due in his child support around March 2006, but the debt had been 
paid in full. He listed two credit card debts:  $300 to the creditor in SOR 1.g, which he 
indicated had been paid through garnishment, and an outstanding $250 credit card debt 
(not in SOR). (Item 4.) 
 
As of November 9, 2010, the credit reporting agencies were reporting several 
collection balances on Applicant’s credit record, which he had not included on his e-QIP: 
$450 on a credit account past due since February 2006 (SOR 1.f); $1,197 for wireless 
services from March 2010 (SOR 1.a); $900 on a credit card account on which he was an 
authorized user (SOR 1.d); $383 for energy services from August 2008 (SOR 1.b); and 
medical debt of $554 from August 2006 (SOR 1.c) and of $401 (SOR 1.h) and $59 from 
August 2010 (SOR 1.1.i). Concerning the three consumer credit debts that Applicant had 
disclosed on his e-QIP, he reportedly owed $9,455 for the repossessed vehicle (SOR 1.e), 
was behind $245 on a balance of $1,966 with the lender in SOR 1.g, and owed a collection 
balance of $577 on the other credit card (not in SOR). Applicant was making timely 
payments on an $18,031 car loan opened in June 2007 and had reduced the balance to 
$10,927 as of October 2010. (Item 8.) 
 
On November 26, 2010, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for 
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for renewal of his security clearance. 
Concerning the delinquent car loan, Applicant admitted that he had taken out a car loan of 
$18,000 for a 2003 model-year minivan in March 2005. The vehicle was given to his ex-
wife in their divorce in January 2007, but he was required to continue to make the monthly 
$365 loan payments. He cancelled his insurance coverage, assuming that his ex-wife 
would insure the car, but he continued to make the car payments. The lender took the 
vehicle around October 2007 for lack of insurance. Applicant’s attorney informed him that 
because insurance coverage was not stipulated in the divorce, he was responsible for the 
repossession and approximate $9,000 deficiency balance on the loan (SOR 1.e). 
 
Applicant also acknowledged to the OPM investigator that he had fallen behind ten 
payments and seven payments on a couple of credit card accounts (SOR 1.f and the $577 
debt not in the SOR) because of his divorce. He indicated that he was seeking a debt 
consolidation plan under which to repay these debts in full. He had fallen 90 days behind in 
his payments on the debt in SOR 1.g as a result of his discharge from the military. 
Applicant disputed the debt in SOR 1.b, which he believed to be a payday loan taken out 
by his ex-wife. He indicated that the $401 and $59 medical debts (SOR 1.h and 1.i) were 
his current spouse’s responsibility, but he planned to add her debts to his intended debt 
consolidation. Concerning the wireless phone debt in SOR 1.a, he explained that after his 
account was switched to a family plan in March 2007, he complained to the provider about 
rising service fees. He closed the account in September 2007 with a disputed balance 
owed of $380. He expressed his intent to pay that debt under the consolidation plan. 
Applicant denied any knowledge of the $554 medical debt (SOR 1.c) or the debt in SOR 
1.d, which appeared on his credit record. Applicant acknowledged to the investigator that 
his automatic allotments for child support had been temporarily interrupted due to his 
 
 5 
discharge from the military and subsequent change in civilian employments. Consequently, 
he fell six weeks in arrears on his monthly child support obligation of $719. He was ordered 
to pay an additional $245 per month toward the arrearage. He planned to satisfy the 
arrearage in December 2010 after he was reimbursed for travel expenses by his current 
employer. (Item 5.) 
  
Record checks revealed that Applicant had been issued non-judicial punishment in 
2001 for wrongful use of an illegal drug (hallucinogens). (Items 6, 7.) The investigator’s 
summation of his November 2010 interview does not reflect whether Applicant was asked 
about his drug use and positive drug test in 2001. Applicant was asked about and detailed 
an incident involving his ex-wife in May 2005 not related to illegal drugs. (Item 5.) 
 
Sometime in early 2011, Applicant began working in very remote locations in 
Afghanistan in support of the U.S. military. (AE A.) He put his plan to consolidate his 
delinquent debts on hold. As of January 2012, Equifax was reporting outstanding 
delinquent balances totaling $13,747 ($1,212 on SOR 1.a, $355 on SOR 1.b, $554 on 
SOR 1.c, $900 on SOR 1.d, and $10,726 on SOR 1.e).
2
 The credit card debt of $577 had 
been paid after collection as of May 2011. (Item 9.) 
 
In January 2012, Applicant was asked to respond to DOHA interrogatories about his 
non-judicial punishment in 2001 and the adverse credit information on his record. Directed 
to provide his complete history of any illegal drug use, Applicant disclosed that he used 
Ecstasy once in June 2001. In response to whether he had purchased, sold, transported, 
or manufactured the drug, Applicant answered “no.” As to why he failed to list the charge 
and drug use while he held a clearance on his October 2010 e-QIP, Applicant responded, 
“Because the questionaire [sic] I filled out asked about within the last seven years. If it 
asked for longer then I would have answered yes. I have no intentions of hiding anything 
for this investigation.” Asked about the status of delinquent accounts, Applicant admitted 
that he had not made any payments or payment arrangements on the debts in the SOR, 
despite net monthly income of $11,466.14. In addition to overtime earnings in excess of 
$3,000 every two weeks, his compensation included danger pay and a hardship allowance. 
He chose to pay off his auto loan because of its 19% interest rate and to repay his 
spouse’s debts before he addressed his own delinquencies. He anticipated paying off all 
his debts by April 1, 2012. (Item 5.) 
 
On April 2, 2012, DOHA issued the SOR because of unpaid delinquencies and his 
failure to disclose on his e-QIP his use of Ecstasy in 2001 while he held a clearance and 
his related non-judicial punishment. (Item 1.) Applicant received the SOR on April 11, 2012. 
(Item 3.) As of May 7, 2012, Applicant had settled the reported $6,839.02 deficiency 
balance for his repossessed car (SOR 1.e). He filed an online dispute with Equifax about 
the $900 charge-off debt in SOR 1.d because he did not recognize the debt, and the 
creditor could not verify any account under his name. (Item 2.) As of May 29, 2012, Equifax 
                                                 
2
As of April 2012, the original lender was reporting a balance of $6,905. On May 7, 2012, a collection agency 
was reporting the balance at $6,839.02 and payment by Applicant of the amount (unspecified) agreed on to 
settle the account. (Item 2.) 
   
 
 6 
had deleted the item from his credit record. (AE A.) On May 10, 2012, Applicant made 
payments of $1,227.39 and $794.06 in full satisfaction of the debts in SOR 1.a and 1.f, and 
of $2,000 toward a reported balance of $3,132.81 on SOR 1.g. He paid the remaining 
balance of the debt in SOR 1.g on May 22, 2012. On May 17, 2012, he paid $437.79 to 
satisfy SOR 1.b. As of May 24, 2012, Applicant had apparently satisfied the medical debts 
in SOR 1.c, 1.h, and 1.i as well.
3
 He paid the medical debts in SOR 1.h and 1.i, even 
though he did not personally receive the care.
4
 In response to the SOR, Applicant 
attributed his debt to insufficient income and poor choices in the past. (Item 2.) In rebuttal 
to the FORM, Applicant explained that he had not addressed his collection debt earlier 
because he had been told that after seven years, it would be deleted from his credit record. 
Applicant does not intend to commit similar financial mistakes in the future. He pays his 
current financial obligations on time. Applicant has not received any financial counseling. It 
has not been available to him in the conflict zone. (AE A.) 
 
In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted that he had received non-judicial 
punishment for wrongful use of illegal drugs in 2001. He denied that he had deliberately 
falsified his e-QIP when he omitted this punishment and his use of an illegal drug while 
holding a security clearance. Applicant maintained that due to “oversight,” lack of care in 
reading the questions closely, and “trying to speed through the process,” he thought the 
questions had a seven-year time limit. Applicant added that it would be “foolish” of him to 
try to hide any information from the U.S. government because it was in his file. (Item 2.)  
 
In rebuttal to the FORM, Applicant reiterated that he thought the e-QIP had a seven-
year scope, and that he did not take the time to read the questions fully. He again denied 
any intent to mislead the U.S. government. As for the discrepancy between the military 
investigative report from 2001, where he admitted to using Ecstasy three times, and his 
interrogatory response, where he told DOHA he used the drug once in June 2001, 
Applicant stated: 
 
If the CID report stated three separate times then that is the correct answer. I 
honestly do not remember what was stated during the investigation. I was a 
young Solider in Europe and was drinking a lot back then. I have trouble 
recalling the CID interview that took place. I know I was scared out of my 
mind and tried as best as I could to be helpful in the investigation. I was 
punished under Article 15 and was also sent to Drug and Alcohol counseling. 
. . I was a 19 year old with a drinking problem that got caught up in some 
stupid mistakes. I am now 31 years old and wouldn’t dream of doing 
something that stupid again. This was an isolated incident that has not and 
will never be repeated. (AE A.) 
                                                 
3
Applicant presented documentation of a $690.79 payment on May 25, 2012, to the agency reportedly 
collecting the $554 medical debt in SOR 1.c. 
  
4
Applicant told the OPM investigator that the debts were incurred by his current spouse, who was making 
payments on them. (Item 5.) He now understands that the debts were incurred in the state where his ex-wife 
resides with three of his children. (Items 2, 4.) The debts could well have been incurred by a family member 
without Applicant’s knowledge. According to his DD 214, Applicant continued to claim that state as his home of 
record, but there is no evidence he was living there when the services were rendered.  
 
 7 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, 
the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to 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 overall 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. 
 
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 to obtain 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 
that 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 for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18: 
 
 8 
 
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. 
 
 The Government alleged that as of April 2, 2012, Applicant owed $16,653 in 
delinquent debt, including $10,726 in auto loan debt for a vehicle involuntarily repossessed 
and a $900 credit card debt. The documentary evidence supports past-due debt totaling 
around $14,000 as of May 2012. The assignee holding the auto loan reported only a 
$6,839.02 balance, and Applicant’s liability for the $900 debt in SOR 1.d was not 
established. Applicant’s credit report of November 2010 (Item 8) shows that he was only an 
authorized user on the account. Applicant claims to not recognize two medical debts on his 
credit record totaling $460 (SOR 1.h and 1.i) because he did not receive the medical care. 
Yet, he did not disprove his financial responsibility for the debts, which appear on his credit 
and could be for a family member, since his three children reside in the state where the 
care was provided. Potentially disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or 
unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial 
obligations,” apply because of his $14,000 in past-due debt. 
 
  Concerning potentially 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,” cannot reasonably apply. While several of the debts became delinquent during 
his first marriage or shortly after his divorce (SOR 1.a, 1.c, 1.e, and 1.f), Applicant made no 
demonstrated progress toward resolving the debt balances until May 2012. 
 
 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,” is partially implicated in that his divorce, court-mandated child 
support, insufficient income, and non-discretionary medical expenses caused the 
delinquencies or contributed to his inability to repay them. Applicant apparently made the 
car loan payments from February 2005 until October 2007, when the vehicle was 
repossessed. However, Applicant did not act responsibly when he assumed that his ex-wife 
was going to insure the auto that she was given in their divorce. Applicant’s year-long 
deployment from August 2008 to August 2009 could mitigate his failure to address his 
debts during that time, although Applicant has not shown that he was prevented because 
of duty obligations or location from contacting his creditors. As of his November 2010 
interview with the OPM investigator, Applicant knew, if he did not know before, about the 
extent of the adverse credit information on his record. He expressed his intent to repay the 
debts in SOR 1.a, 1.e, 1.f. 1.h, and 1.i through a debt consolidation. Within two months, he 
was apparently detailed to Afghanistan. 
 
 9 
 in support of the U.S. military, where he has since been stationed. He was able to pay off 
his auto loan and spouse’s debts despite his present hazardous duty assignment, so he 
could conceivably have made his debts his priority and chose not to do so. 
 
 Applicant told DOHA in January 2012 that he was in position to begin repaying his 
debts, and that he expected to have all his debts paid in full by April 1, 2012. With the 
exception of his child support arrearage and the $577 credit card debt paid after collection, 
Applicant made no payments until after he received the SOR. His resolution of the 
delinquencies after he received the SOR is too belated to give full mitigating weight to AG ¶ 
20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise 
resolve debts.” However, 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,” applies. There is no evidence of any new delinquencies, and Applicant’s net 
monthly income after expenses, reportedly $11,466.14 due to his duty in Afghanistan, is 
more than sufficient to cover his household expenses. Applicant’s expenses do not reflect 
an extravagant lifestyle. He has not applied for a credit card in several years, and he does 
not intend to make the same or similar financial mistakes in the future. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(e), “the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the 
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to 
substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue,” 
applies with respect to the alleged debt in SOR 1.d, which Applicant disputed. He was only 
an authorized user on the account, which credibly explains why the creditor could not find a 
record of him having an account. The credit item was recently deleted from his credit 
record by Equifax. Applicant’s financial situation no longer poses an unacceptable security 
risk. 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
The security concerns about Personal Conduct are 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. 
 
 Applicant did not disclose on his October 2010 e-QIP that he had used Ecstasy in 
2001 while he held a security clearance, and that he had been given non-judicial 
punishment as a result of testing positive for hallucinogens. While Applicant now 
recognizes that he should have answered questions 22.e and 23.b affirmatively because 
he had been charged with a drug offense (22.e) and used a hallucinogen while holding a 
security clearance (23.b) in 2001, he has consistently denied any intent to conceal his drug 
involvement from the government. He failed to read the questionnaire closely and 
mistakenly assumed the questions had a seven-year scope. He also asserts it would have 
 
 10 
been “foolish” of him to conceal the information given it was a matter of record. The 
Government submits that Applicant’s denial of intentional falsification is implausible, given 
the unambiguity of the questions, which inquire into whether Applicant had “EVER” been 
charged with a drug offense or illegally used a controlled substance while possessing a 
security clearance. The Government submits that two disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 
16 apply: 
 
(a) deliberate omission, concealment or 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. 
 
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not 
sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but 
which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of 
questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, 
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics 
indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information. 
 
 If Applicant intentionally falsified his e-QIP, it would be sufficient to deny him 
continued eligibility for a security clearance in light of the lack of reform reflected by 
repeated denials of deliberate omission. Revocation of Applicant’s security clearance 
eligibility under AG ¶ 16(a) would remove AG ¶ 16(c) from consideration. Alternatively, if 
Applicant omitted the information due to inadvertent mistake or other cause negating willful 
intent, it would not qualify as adverse information triggering AG ¶ 16(c) apart from negative 
inferences raised by a failure to read the form carefully. The Guideline E evaluation largely 
turns on whether Applicant’s denial of intentional falsification is credible in light of the 
evidentiary record as a whole. 
 
 The Government has the burden of proving Applicant intentionally falsified his 
responses to questions 22.e and 23.b on the e-QIP. Applicant’s denials of any intent to 
falsify his October 2010 security clearance application are relevant evidence that I must 
consider, although his statements about his state of mind are not binding or conclusive. 
The DOHA Appeal Board has held that, as a practical matter, “proof of the applicant’s 
intent or state of mind is rarely based on direct evidence, but often must rely on 
circumstantial evidence.” See ISCR 05-03472 (App. Bd. Mar. 12, 2007.) It is difficult to 
accept that Applicant would have overlooked, even in haste, the word “EVER” which is 
emphasized by its capitalization in both 22.e and 23.b on the e-QIP. On the other hand, 
other related inquiries on the e-QIP have a seven-year scope, most notably 15.d 
concerning any court marital or other disciplinary proceedings under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice, and 23.a concerning any illegal drug use. Applicant did not disclose his 
drug use or non-judicial punishment during his November 2010 interview with the 
investigator, but there is also no evidence that he was asked about any illegal drug use 
during that interview. In January 2012, Applicant was informed by DOHA that record 
checks had revealed his positive urinalysis and drug charge in June 2001. In his 
 
 11 
interrogatory response, Applicant listed one time use of Ecstasy in June 2001. Disclosure 
when confronted with the adverse information is not viewed as completely voluntary. 
Applicant also reported that he used Ecstasy only once and had not purchased the drug, 
when he had previously admitted in 2001 that he purchased and ingested Ecstasy three 
times. A material variance in the extent of admitted illegal drug involvement has a tendency 
to undermine an applicant’s credibility. Yet, whether Applicant used marijuana once or 
three times, it was all during the same time frame, more than ten years before he 
responded to the interrogatory. Applicant credibly explained that he does not remember 
what he stated during the CID investigation, when he was 19 years old and “scared out of 
[his] mind.” (AE A.) He is not disputing what is reported in the CID investigation. 
Furthermore, there is the issue of motivation to consider. His drug involvement did not lead 
to a revocation of his security clearance in 2001, when it would have been more likely than 
now to raise issues for his security suitability. Based on all the evidence, Applicant’s 
denials of intentional falsification are accepted. AG ¶ 16(a) is not established. 
 
 To the extent that Applicant exercised poor judgment under AG ¶ 16(c) by not 
completing the e-QIP accurately and allowing several accounts to become delinquent, the 
personal conduct concerns are mitigated by his acknowledgement of his past mistakes and 
resolve not to repeat them. 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,” applies. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality 
of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(a).
5
 
 
Applicant exercised very poor judgment when he used Ecstasy at age 19, and it led 
to non-judicial punishment. Yet, he rehabilitated himself from his drug use and did not allow 
personal financial and marital difficulties to adversely affect his military duty performance. 
After completing three separate tours of military duty in Iraq, he went to Afghanistan as a 
civilian contractor in early 2011. Although he has been unable to obtain financial 
counseling, his income from his hazardous duty assignment has enabled him to rectify his 
financial problems. Applicant now understands it was financially irresponsible of him to 
ignore his legitimate debts in the hope that they would be deleted from his credit record. 
Applicant is well aware of the seriousness with which the Government views any 
                                                 
5 
The factors under AG ¶ 2(a) are as follows: 
 
(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. 
 
 12 
incomplete or inaccurate answers on an e-QIP. He is not likely to repeat his mistakes. 
Based on the record before me, I conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national 
interest to continue Applicant’s security clearance eligibility. 
 
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 
 
Subparagraph 1.a-1.i: For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 2.a-2.c: For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
________________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge