1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 10-02142
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s good-faith effort to resolve his delinquent bills justifies a finding in his
favor under the financial guideline. However, his excessive alcohol consumption and illegal
drug use since 1980 has not been mitigated. The intentional falsification of his security
application in September 2009 and his interrogatory response in August 2011 is
compounded by the poor judgment he demonstrated in threatening his wife and children
between 2009 and 2012, and leading to several domestic violence protective orders being
filed against him. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP), Government’s Exhibit (GE 1), on September 18, 2009. He was
 In state X, the case is placed on the inactive docket with no finding of guilt or absence of guilt. Generally,1
state X will agree not to re-institute criminal proceedings on condition the defendant satisfy certain conditions
like community service, restitution, or complying with the law for a period of time. 
2
interviewed by an investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on
December 16, 2009. The interview summary appears in GE 2, Applicant’s interrogatory
responses, signed on August 9, 2011, and October 12, 2011. Under question #4 of the
exhibit, Applicant added that he was arrested in April 2009 for possession of marijuana in
December 2008. He also noted that the charge was placed on the “stet” docket.  Under1
question #5, Applicant agreed the summary could be admitted into evidence at a hearing
to determine his security suitability. (GE 2 at I18)
On November 2, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under alcohol consumption (Guideline G), drug
involvement (Guideline H), personal conduct (Guideline E), and financial considerations
(Guideline F). The action was taken pursuant to 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)
implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant’s answer to the SOR was signed and notarized on December 3, 2012. The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on March 20,
2013, for a hearing on April 10, 2013. The hearing was held as scheduled. Thirty-three
Governments exhibits (GE) were admitted in evidence (GE 1 through GE 33) without an
objection. Applicant’s one exhibit (AE A) was admitted into evidence without objection. In
the time period allowed to submit post hearing exhibits, Applicant submitted two additional
exhibits (AE B and C), which were admitted into evidence without objection. The transcript
was received on April 17, 2013. The record closed on April 25, 2013. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR alleges alcohol consumption (Guideline G), drug involvement (Guideline
H), personal conduct (Guideline E), and financial considerations (Guideline F). Applicant
admitted all allegations. 
Applicant is 45 years old. He has been divorced since October 2010. He has two
daughters, six and three years of age, from this marriage. He provides child support for
these two children and his wife’s three children from another relationship. He received an
honorable discharge from the U.S. Marine Corps in September 1989, after three years of
service. Though he received an honorable discharge, his alcohol-related driving history
while in the service was an unofficial reason for his discharge from the Marines. Also, he
 Applicant remembered receiving some level of alcohol treatment after he was sentenced to a juvenile2
detention center at age 17 for a hit-and-run accident and fleeing the police. He had been drinking before the
police stopped him. (Tr. 52-53)
3
received no Veterans benefits. Applicant received a certificate from an electronics school
in January 1996. He has been employed as an engineering technician 1 for a defense
contractor since January 2008. He seeks a security clearance.
Alcohol History
Applicant’s alcohol-related offenses began in February 1987, when he received non-
judicial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for drinking in the
barracks. He was found guilty in October 1987 of driving while impaired, not intoxicated as
alleged in SOR 1.b. 
Later in October 1987, Applicant was evaluated by a medical officer for alcohol
treatment. He was diagnosed as alcohol dependent based on an escalating drinking pattern
and drinking in the barracks incident identified at SOR 1.b. His alcohol use made him feel
he was losing control and was impacting his professional and social relationships. A
licensed alcohol counselor and a substance abuse counselor reviewed and signed this
evaluation. 
Additional medical records, signed by a substance abuse specialist on April 2, 1988,
reflect Applicant was hospitalized in December 1987.  The records add to the account2
provided in the evaluative records of October 1987. He began drinking at age 14 and
reached a heavy level at age 15. When admitted to the hospital in December 1987at age
20, he was drinking 15 to 20 beers at a time, and experiencing blackouts. He was in denial
and had anger issues. He made good progress during treatment in understanding his
alcoholism, and committed himself to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). His final diagnosis was
alcohol dependence with a fair to good prognosis. (GE 3, GE 5, GE 7)
In November 1988, Applicant had been drinking and lost control of his car when the
headlights turned off without notice. His car struck a pole and he was in a coma for five
weeks. After his discharge, he continued to drink alcohol and drive. There were periods of
abstinence of six months to one year. (Tr. 51, 55) 
In February 1997, Applicant was arrested for driving while under the influence of
alcohol (DWI). At the time, he was employed as a tester of cellular telephones. The DWI
was dismissed when Applicant informed court officials he was leaving the jurisdiction. (Tr.
56) 
4
In September 1998, Applicant was at a bar with his brother. He was charged with
second degree assault for slapping a female after she hit his brother. He had been drinking
before the assault. He pleaded guilty and received six months probation. Applicant has not
committed any alcohol-related offenses since September 1998. (GE 10; Tr. 56-57) 
Applicant has continued to drink. In January 2009, Applicant informed his facility
security officer (FSO) that he had a drug and alcohol problem. Treatment records for other
medical problems reflect that in April 2010 and May 2011, and February 2012, Applicant
was consuming about 80 ounces of alcohol, seven times a week. He currently drinks
alcohol about three to four times a week. He last consumed alcohol on April 9, 2013. He
has been in and out of AA, but is not currently going to meetings. He acknowledges he is
an alcoholic. (GE 4 at 299-311, GE 14; Tr. 58-60) 
Drug History
Applicant used marijuana from 1980 to at least February 2012. He admitted using
the drug hundreds of times between January 2000 and January 2007, but did not believe
he was addicted to the drug. He stopped using the drug in February 2012, but admitted he
stopped in the past and restarted after varying periods off abstinence. Applicant recalled
treatment at a drug rehabilitation center in 2006. He left the center after five or six weeks
because he grew weary of the treatment regimen. He used no marijuana from May 2007
to December 2008, when he had an argument with his former wife. He claimed that
immediately after argument, he drank beer and used marijuana twice in a nearby wooded
area. Records show that police officers responded to Applicant’s location in the woods on
January 13, 2009, not December 2008. He told them that he had been drinking and that
he smoked marijuana. A search revealed marijuana in his right jacket pocket. The police
record reflects that the police issued Applicant a summons for possession of marijuana and
possession of paraphernalia. An arrest warrant, which was issued on July 14, 2009,
indicated that Applicant could not be found. The record does not reflect why the charges
were dismissed on September 11, 2009. (GE 2 at I19, GE 4, GE 15, GE 17; Tr. 60-66)
At the urging of his wife and her parents, Applicant checked into a drug treatment
program in January 2009 for four months. The treatment included classes, group
discussions, and church attendance three times a day. Aftercare attendance included
attending AA two times a week. Though the records indicate he left treatment to care for
his wife, he modified his explanation when he testified that he and his wife decided he had
been there long enough. In more recent treatment records, he admitted using marijuana
in April 2010, April 2011, and February 2012. He did not intend to use marijuana in the
future because it is in his past. (GE 4, GE 15, GE 17; Tr. 60-66)
5
Personal Conduct 
In December 2008, a neighbor was helping Applicant and his brother move some
material that belonged to Applicant. The neighbor did not want to pay Applicant the fair
market value of the material. Applicant called the police who surprisingly arrested Applicant.
When he did not appear for his court appearance July 2009, he was charged with failure
to appear. The (SOR 3.b) offense was dropped on September 11, 2009, for unknown
reasons. (GE 2 at I37) 
On September 28, 2009, Applicant deliberately under reported his marijuana use in
response to question 23 (drug use in the last seven years) of his security clearance
questionnaire (SCA). He falsely claimed that after using marijuana hundreds of times
between 2000 and May 2007, he stopped. The record shows he used the drug more
recently in December 2008. (Tr. 73)
Between 2009 and 2011, several domestic violence protective orders were issued
to Applicant by his wife for threats against her or their children. Some of the protective
orders were dismissed or placed on a “stet” docket. Applicant currently has a protective
order against him because of his improper conduct with his former wife as he returned the
children to her after visitation. (Tr. 65-69)
In 2007 and 2008, Applicant was treated for anger management issues. In April
2010, he was evaluated for anger management therapy. He attended 47 anger
management sessions. The marriage therapist noted in a letter that Applicant was making
progress with anger issues and strategies like conduct regulation and a willingness to
improve healthy attitudes. It was recommended in a follow-up letter from the marriage
therapist in dated April 2012, that Applicant had completed 76 anger therapy sessions
altogether, but recommended continued therapy. Applicant stopped attending because the
therapy was not mandatory. He believes he is in control of his anger even though he
continues to drink alcohol. (GE 2 at I41, GE 29, GE 30; Tr. 71-72)
In August 2011, Applicant was presented with a set of interrogatories to answer
about his drug use. In response to question #1 (have you ever used any drugs), Applicant
responded “yes,” indicating that he had used marijuana on two occasions, with the last use
on December 2008 instead of May 2011. He was not sure whether he intentionally falsified
the answer or that his answer was based on confusion over the dates he used marijuana.
Applicant’s explanation is not credible. (Tr. 74) 
6
Financial Indebtedness History
Paragraph 4 of the SOR lists four accounts that became past due between
December 2008 and March 2009. Before his marriage, Applicant paid all his bills on time.
During the marriage, Applicant overused the credit cards because of recurring marital
problems. Applicant enrolled in a debt consolidation plan in February 2011. The accounts
in the SOR are included in the plan. Applicant has made 26 monthly payments of $400 a
month. He has paid a total of $10,400, over 60% of the total amount of delinquent debt
($18, 000). He is also current with his child support. (GE 2 at I30, AE B, AE C; Tr. 76-77)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to
classified information.
The disqualifying and mitigating conditions should also be evaluated in the context
of nine general factors known as the whole-person concept to bring together all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision for security clearance eligibility. Such decisions entail a certain degree
of legally permissible extrapolation as to the potential, rather than actual, risk of
compromise of classified information.
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 of establishing that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him a security clearance. 
Analysis
Alcohol Consumption 
AG ¶ 21 sets forth the security concern for alcohol consumption: 
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.
7
AG ¶ 22 has five conditions that may be disqualifying:
(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work regardless of whether the
individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.
(c) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol
abuser or alcohol dependent;
(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
(f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion
of an alcohol rehabilitation program. 
The SOR identifies seven alcohol-related incidents that occurred between February
1987 and March 2012. Applicant was punished three times under the UCMJ for alcohol-
related conduct while he was in the Marines. He received an alcohol dependence diagnosis
from a substance abuse counselor in October 1987. He received an alcohol dependence
diagnosis in April 1988 for a substances abuse counselor. Though he received an
honorable discharge in 1989, he was officially pressured to leave the service because of
his alcohol-related offenses. He received no Veterans benefits. 
In February 1997, Applicant had been drinking alcohol before his arrest for DUI.
After his single car accident in November 2008, he continued to drink and drive. The only
reason he was not prosecuted was his departure from the jurisdiction with a month of his
arrest. In September 1998, Applicant was drinking at a bar when he slapped a female after
she hit his brother. While there were periods treatment as well periods of abstinence for up
to a year, Applicant eventually resumed drinking. He currently drinks about three or four
times a week. AG ¶¶ 22(a), 22(c), and 22(f) apply. 
There are three conditions under AG ¶ 23 that potentially mitigate Appellant’s
alcohol consumption:
(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or
does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment; 
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol
abuse, provides evidence actions taken to overcome this problem, and has
8
established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or responsible use
(if an alcohol abuser); and
(d) the individual has successfully completed an inpatient or outpatient
treatment counseling or rehabilitation along with any required after care, has
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, such as
participation in meetings of AA or a similar organization and has received a
favorable diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional or a licensed
clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized treatment
program.
Applicant continues to consume alcohol three or four times a week. His past history
of excessive alcohol consumption, alcohol-related incidents, and continued alcohol use
raises lingering questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. Even though
Applicant acknowledges he is an alcoholic, he has not established an independently
corroborated pattern of abstinence and a network supportive of sobriety. He is not presently
in AA or a similar organization. AG ¶¶ 23 (a), 23(b), and 23(d) do not apply. 
Drug involvement
Paragraph 24 of the AG sets forth the security concern for drug involvement:
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 tor
willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.
The pertinent conditions under AG ¶ 25 that may be disqualifying are:
(a) any drug use; 
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; and
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional off drug abuse or drug
dependence.
The record shows that Applicant used marijuana from 1980 to February 2012. He
used the drug hundreds of times between 2000 and May 2007. He was arrested for
possession of marijuana and paraphernalia in 2009. Although the marijuana possession
and paraphernalia charges (SOR 2.c) were dismissed in September 2011, the dismissal
9
does not eliminate the fact he used the drug in January 2009. He intentionally under
reported his marijuana use in his September 2009 SCA and in August 2011 interrogatory
responses. His claim of stopping marijuana use in February 2012 is hard to believe
because he has made the same claim on several earlier occasions. AE ¶¶ 25(a) and 25(c)
apply. AG ¶ 25(d) does not apply due to the absence of a diagnosis.
The two potentially mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 26 of the drug involvement
guideline are: 
(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)
disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts, (2) changing or
avoiding the environment where drugs are used, (3) an appropriate period of
abstinence, and a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation. 
The mitigating condition AG ¶ 26(a) is similar to AG ¶ 23(a). The condition is not
applicable because I do not believe Applicant is completely committed to abstain from
marijuana use in the future. Even if I were to accept Applicant’s claim that he stopped in
February 2012, a little over a year of abstinence does not dispel the security concerns
associated with Applicant’s long history of marijuana use since 1980. 
Though Applicant has produced some evidence that he no longer associates with
drug-using associates and is trying to cultivate an environment free of drug influence, he
has not established an appreciable period of abstinence. There is no signed statement of
intent to refrain in the future. AG ¶ 26(b) does not apply. 
Personal Conduct
The security concern for personal conduct is set forth 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. 
10
AG ¶ 16 contains two disqualifying conditions that are potentially pertinent: 
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personnel security statement, or similar
form to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award
benefits and status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness,
or award fiduciary responsibilities; and
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative 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 he may not properly safeguard classified information.  
Deliberately providing false information during the security investigation raises
security concerns about an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. On
September 28, 2009, Applicant certified and signed an SCA. He provided false information
in response to question 23 (drug use in the last 7 years) when he claimed he stopped using
marijuana in May 2007. He did not admit he falsified the information on the form until he
supplied his answer to the SOR in December 2012. In his response to interrogatories
submitted on August 9, 2011, Applicant under reported the full extent of his marijuana use.
Though he indicated that confusion over the dates of use caused him to answer the
interrogatory incorrectly, I conclude his explanation is not credible because Applicant used
the drug in January 2009, about eight months before he filled out the SCA. AG ¶ 16(a)
applies to SOR 3.c and 3.h.
The admitted allegations listed in SOR 3.a, 3.d, 3.e, 3.f, and 3.g fall within the scope
of AG ¶ 16(c). Several protective orders were taken out against Applicant between 2009
and 2011. The fact that Applicant is currently under a protective order suggests that he has
lingering anger management issues. Since the July 2009 failure to appear charge was
dismissed in September 2011 for unknown reasons, SOR 3.b is found in Applicant’s favor.
There are three mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 that are potentially pertinent to
the circumstances in this case. Those conditions are: 
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment or falsification before being confronted with the facts; 
11
(c) the offense was so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior
is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment; and 
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate stressors,
circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable or other
inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.
None of the mitigating conditions apply. Applicant did not disclose his deliberate
falsifications until he was confronted with the SOR in November 2012. He acknowledged
his falsifications in his December 2012 answer. AG ¶ 17(c) does not apply for the same
reasons AG ¶¶ 26(a) and 23(a) do not apply. AG ¶ 17(d) does not apply as Applicant is still
drinking and not attending AA meetings or anger management sessions. 
Financial Considerations 
Paragraph 18 of the AG sets forth the security concern for to financial
considerations:
Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts and meet financial
obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness
to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified
information. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having
to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Compulsive gambling is a concern
as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage. Affluence that cannot
be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern. It may
indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.
The two relevant disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 are: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of failing to meet financial obligations.
The credit reports and Applicant’s admissions confirm that between December 2008
and March 2009, Applicant became delinquent on four debts totaling approximately
$18,000. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and (c) apply. 
12
Four conditions under AG ¶ 20 could potentially mitigate Appellant’s delinquent
indebtedness: 
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under
such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond
the person’s control, and the person 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; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
In February 2011, Applicant initiated responsible action by enrolling in a debt
consolidation plan. The records reflect that Applicant has made 26 regular payments to the
debt plan organization and has reduced the total delinquent debt by almost 60%. The
record also reflects Applicant’s consistent child support payments since his divorce in
October 2010. AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), and 20(d) apply to mitigate the listed
indebtedness. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
alcohol consumption, drug involvement, personal conduct, and financial considerations. I
have also weighed the circumstances within the context of nine variables known as the
whole-person concept. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the
administrative judge should consider the following factors:
AG ¶ 2(a) (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which the participation was 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.
13
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be a commonsense judgment based on careful consideration of
the guidelines and the whole-person concept.
Applicant is 45 years old and divorced. He has worked as an engineering technician
for his employer since January 2008. The record of regular child support payments since
October 2010 and regular debt plan payments since February 2011, demonstrates
Applicant’s trustworthiness and good judgment. 
However, Applicant has not exercised good judgment over the years asa shown by
his abuse of alcohol and illegal use of marijuana. At age 20, he was diagnosed alcohol
dependent. Yet, he continued to drink alcohol excessively. Applicant was drinking seven
days a week in 2010 and 2011. Presently, he continues to drink and is not involved in AA
or any other support therapy. 
Applicant has a long history of marijuana use. Between 2000 and 2007, he used the
drug hundreds of times. He continued to smoke the drug until February 2012. Without
independent evidence in support, the short period of abstinence is insufficient to firmly
establish his case in mitigation under drug involvement. 
Applicant’s intentional falsification of his SCA in September 2009, and his
interrogatory response in August 2011, together with his pattern of misconduct resulting in
domestic violence protective orders over a three-year period, has not been mitigated either.
Having weighed the disqualifying evidence with the mitigating evidence, and in the context
of the whole-person concept, Applicant has successfully met his burden of persuasion
under the financial guideline. Conversely, the lack of ongoing therapy and the passage of
sufficient time foils Applicant’s mitigation efforts under alcohol consumption, drug
involvement and personal conduct. 
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 G): AGAINST APPLICANT
      Subparagraphs 1.a-1.j: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Guideline H): AGAINST APPLICANT
     Subparagraphs 2.a-2.e: Against Applicant
14
Paragraph 3 (Guideline E): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a, 3.c-3.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b: For Applicant
Paragraph 4 (Guideline F): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 4.a-4.d For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge