1 
 
  
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
  
  
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 11-11627 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ray Blank, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DoD) intent to deny his eligibility 
for a security clearance to work in the defense industry. He was twice arrested and once 
convicted of felony cocaine possession and twice arrested and twice convicted of 
driving while intoxicated (DWI). He remains on community supervision until June 2014. 
He used cocaine over a number of years and provided falsified information about his 
use and arrests on his security questionnaires, during an interview with a DoD 
investigator, in his response to an interrogatory, and at his hearing. He has unresolved 
delinquent accounts totaling approximately $14,000. His drug involvement, criminal 
conduct, personal conduct, and financial considerations remain security concerns. 
Clearance is denied.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 Acting under the relevant Executive Order and DoD Directive,1 on January 10, 
2013, the DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under 
                                                          
1 Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as 
amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
2 
 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement, Guideline J, Criminal Conduct, Guideline E, Personal 
Conduct, and Guideline F, Financial Considerations. DoD adjudicators could not find 
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s 
security clearance. On April 1, 2013, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a 
hearing. On August 14, 2013, I was assigned the case.  
 
On September 9, 2013, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
issued a Notice of Hearing for the hearing convened on September 25, 2013. At the 
hearing, Government’s Exhibits (Ex) 1 through 10 were admitted. Applicant testified at 
the hearing, but provided no documents. The record was held open to allow Applicant to 
submit additional information. No additional material was received. On October 3, 2013, 
DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.). 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
In Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, he admitted and also denied he used or 
purchased cocaine, but admits he was twice arrested and charged with the possession 
of cocaine. He admits he was arrested, charged with, and convicted of driving while 
intoxicated (DWI) 2nd. He denies falsifying his February 2011 Electronic Questionnaires 
for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) and indicated he was sending payments on his 
past-due, charged-off, and other delinquent accounts. I incorporate Applicant’s 
admissions as facts. After a thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I 
make the following additional findings of fact: 
 
 Applicant is a 40-year-old senior production associate who has worked for a 
defense contractor since February 2006, and seeks to maintain a secret security 
clearance, which he obtained in 2006. (Tr. 67) Applicant called no witnesses other than 
himself, and produced no work or character references. He has a 19-year-old daughter 
and a 21 year-old son, both of whom are attending college. (Tr. 59) His son is living with 
him and has done so for the past seven years. (Tr. 59)  
 
At the hearing, Applicant asserted his last use of illegal drugs was a “long time 
ago,” before starting with his current employer. (Tr. 25) He thought his last use might 
have been in 2002. (Tr. 27) In November 1999, Applicant was drinking with a co-worker 
at a bar and decided to go to the co-worker’s home. (Ex.4) Applicant was stopped for 
speeding on the trip to the co-worker’s home. Applicant asserts the co-worker had 
cocaine and put it in the door pocket of Applicant’s truck when they were stopped. 
Applicant was arrested for DWI and possession of cocaine. His co-worker was not 
arrested. Following his arrest, Applicant never discussed the matter with his co-worker.  
 
In a plea bargain, Applicant agreed to three months of probation, to attend 16 
hours of DWI classes, and perform community service. (Ex. 4) He was convicted of 
DWI, and the cocaine possession charge was not prosecuted. In January 2007, during 
an interview with a DoD investigator, he was asked about the November 1999 arrest 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD 
on September 1, 2006. 
3 
 
and subsequent conviction. He stated he had never used or experimented with illegal 
drugs. (Ex. 4)  
  
In January 2006, Applicant was laid off from his job, which he asserts resulted in 
financial problems. (Ex. 4) His unemployment lasted four weeks before he started his 
current job. (Ex. 4) In September 2006, he was asked during a personal subject 
interview about his delinquent accounts and he admitted having several delinquent 
accounts including several unpaid medical debts. (Ex. 4) He stated he would work with 
the creditors to pay the accounts. (Ex. 4) He has provided no documentation showing 
he has paid any of his delinquent accounts. He is current on his $800 monthly mortgage 
payments, his $410 monthly truck payments, and department store and credit card 
accounts. (Tr. 82, 83) He is receiving no calls or letter from creditors demanding 
payment on delinquent accounts. (Tr. 83) In October 2012, his monthly net disposable 
income (monthly income less monthly expenses and debt payment) was $550. 
 
Applicant’s July 2006 credit report (CR) lists two accounts ($79 and $2,690) 
assigned to a collection agency or attorney for collection. (Ex. 9) The CR also lists a 
$579 collection owed a bank and four collection accounts in the amounts of: $50, $79, 
$2,434, and $2,690. (Ex. 9) His September 2012 CR lists five collection accounts: a 
credit card account of $3,425 (SOR 4.a), medical bills of $50 (SOR 4.b), $1,219 (SOR 
4.c), $225 (SOR 4.d), $138 (SOR 4.e), and a credit card account of $8,874 (SOR 4.f). 
(Ex. 8, Tr. 61 – 63) The CR also lists a $281 charged-off loan account. (Tr. 63) He 
asserted that some of the debt was joint debt incurred during his marriage.  
 
In October 2012, in response to financial interrogatories, Applicant indicated he 
had hired a law firm to assist him with his delinquent accounts. They were to attempt to 
improve his credit score and have the creditors lower the amount his owed on the 
delinquent accounts. (Tr. 64) He provided no documentation supporting his assertion, 
that he paid the firm $150 per month for four or five months. (Tr. 64) Nor did he provide 
any documentation as to what results the law firm was able to obtain. 
 
At the hearing, Applicant asserted he was “working on his bills,” and had kept up 
with them on a monthly basis. (Tr. 20) He said he could send documentation showing 
he had been making payments on his debts and information from his creditors showing 
payment. (Tr. 23, 58) No documentation was received. 
 
Applicant had given divergent accounts as to his past-drug history and what 
occurred on the night of his January 2011 arrest for public intoxication and felony 
cocaine possession. At the hearing he stated he had used cocaine only once following 
his 1997 divorce, but acknowledged being arrested for possession of cocaine twice. (Tr. 
31, 74) 
 
During an April 2012 interview, Applicant provided very detailed information 
about his illegal drug use, about his frequency of use, why he refrained from using 
during periods in his life, how he obtained the cocaine, and the physical effects he 
experienced after using it. This was reported in an April 2011 Report of Investigation 
4 
 
(ROI). In October 2012, he reviewed the ROI and highlighted portions of the ROI with 
which he did not agree. (Ex. 5) At the hearing, Applicant stated he did not agree with 
everything written in the ROI. (Tr. 29) He did not say the investigator made up the facts 
in the ROI, nor did he say the information was incorrect, but simply that he disagreed 
with what was stated. (Tr. 32) At the hearing, he denied he had previously stated he had 
stopped using cocaine during his marriage from July 2008 through February 2010. He 
also denied that in approximately February 2010 “he fell back into his old habits of using 
cocaine recreationally about 2 to 3 times per year.” (Ex. 5)  
 
In the ROI, Applicant stated he began using cocaine in approximately 1997 and 
used cocaine through November 1999, and he did not recant this admission during his 
October 2012 ROI review. However, he denied he was using cocaine monthly during 
this period. (Ex. 5) In the ROI, he admitted purchasing cocaine in bars, which he denied 
during the hearing. (Ex. 5, Tr. 38) In the ROI, Applicant stated he did not know the drug 
dealers, but would simply go to bars, ask around, and would be put in contact with 
someone willing to sell him cocaine. (Ex. 5) He stated, “he has been clean and sober 
since his arrest in 1/2011” because he is afraid of losing his job. (Ex. 5) Applicant stated 
that he does not believe the use of cocaine affects his behavior, and he simply feels 
more alert when using it.  
 
Applicant stated he did not believe he was drug dependent because he was able 
to stop using cocaine in the past. (Ex. 5) He stated that no one knows he used cocaine 
because he was ashamed to admit his use of cocaine. (Ex. 5) He stated he was 
attempting to stop his cocaine drug habit completely and would seek counseling if 
offered by his employer. He stated it was his intent not to use illegal drugs in the future. 
(Ex. 5) 
 
As to Applicant’s January 2011 arrest, the police report indicates Applicant was 
arrested for public intoxication and possession of a controlled substance, cocaine. (Ex. 
3) During an inventory of the vehicle, a small baggy of cocaine was found on the center 
console. At the hearing, he stated he was drinking at a bar2 with an old, high-school 
friend. At the hearing, he was unable to recall his “old friend’s” last name. (Tr. 67) 
Applicant stated his friend asked for his car keys so his friend could put his jacket in 
Applicant’s car. (Tr. 68) Applicant did not intend to give his friend a ride home and it was 
never explained why his friend asked to leave his jacket in Applicant’s car. (Tr. 77) 
Applicant claimed his friend used cocaine in his car and left additional cocaine on the 
center counsel of his car, all this occurring while he remained in the bar. (Tr. 70) 
Applicant states he has never seen his friend again and has never questioned his friend 
as to why his friend left the cocaine in his car. (Tr. 71)  
 
Applicant failed to challenge the ROI that stated on the evening of his arrest he 
had six beers at home before going to a bar, that after being in the bar, he left the bar, 
                                                          
2 Applicant told the police his son had dropped him off at a bar. He told the police he was not the same 
person they had sent home with a responsible party because the person was intoxicated. (Tr. 69) He 
never explained why his car was at the bar if his son dropped him off. 
5 
 
and went to his vehicle, and left cocaine on the center console of his vehicle. (Ex. 5, Tr. 
78)  
 
 In the same ROI, Applicant admits being arrested for DWI in November 1999 and 
April 2003. He was depressed following his 1997 divorce. He said he would become 
intoxicated after drinking five to six beers “at least once a week.” (Ex. 5)  
 
The Monday following his arrest, Applicant received a letter of reprimand or 
suspension when he provided the company’s security officer a copy of the police report. 
(Ex. 5, 7) The security officer instructed him to immediately report any change in the 
status of the charges. Even though Applicant was convicted of cocaine possession in 
June 2011, he did not report that felony conviction until late August 2011. (Ex. 7)  
 
On June 8, 2011, Applicant was found guilty of cocaine possession and 
sentenced to three years community supervision3 with a $60 per month supervision fee, 
required to pay a $140 laboratory analysis fee, a $1,500 fine, $265 in court costs, and 
required to perform 200 hours of community service.4 (Ex. 3) His community supervision 
is scheduled to end in June 2014. (Tr. 42, 84) He was also ordered to attend drug 
treatment classes, which he completed. (Tr. 26) 
 
 In Applicant’s February 2011 e-QIP (Ex. 1), in response to Question 22, Police 
Record, he listed the DWI arrests in November 1999 and April 2003, and indicated he 
had an action pending related to a January 2011 incident. He failed to indicate he had 
been charged with a felony offense related to his January 2011 arrest. Applicant failed 
to indicate he was charged with cocaine possession in either the 1999 or 2011 arrests. 
(Ex. 1, Tr. 43) In response to Question 23, Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity, he 
indicated he had not used any illegal drug in the prior seven years. The seven-year time 
periods pertinent to the e-QIPs were 1992 through 2011, because the e-QIPs were 
completed in 2006 and 2011. On his June 2006 e-QIP, he indicated he had not used or 
purchased any illegal drug. (Ex. 2) Applicant stated he answered “no” on his e-QIP to 
questions about the having ever used cocaine because he “wasn’t addicted to it no 
more.” (Tr. 53)  
 
Policies 
 
 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 must be considered in 
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
                                                          
3 In many jurisdictions community supervision is referred to as probation. 
 
4 Applicant has completed his community service, which was cleaning a cemetery. (Tr. 81) 
6 
 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as 
the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, 
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in 
making a decision. 
 
The protection of the interests of 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
  
Section 7 of Executive Order (EO) 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 
 
Drug Involvement 
 
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to drug involvement in that 
the 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. 
 
AG ¶ 25 describes two conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying in this case: 
7 
 
(a) any drug abuse; and  
 
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, 
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia. 
 
Applicant has provided two widely divergent accounts as to his past use of 
cocaine. At the hearing, he said he used it only once following his 1997 divorce. During 
an April 2011 interview, which was incorporated into an ROI, he stated he began using 
cocaine in 1997 and used it until November 1999. He did not agree with portions of the 
ROI, but failed to recant this admission by highlighting it when he reviewed it in October 
2012.  
 
At the hearing, Applicant denied using cocaine more than one time and denied 
purchasing cocaine. Applicant’s demeanor, appearance, and truthfulness were 
evaluated. I find Applicant’s testimony at the hearing was not sincere, open, or honest. I 
find the detailed information he gave during his April 2011 interview as to his frequency 
of use, how he would purchase cocaine, and its physical effect on him after using to be 
reliable. Although he later contradicted these admissions, he never said the information 
was wrong or incorrect, only that he disagreed with it when he was given an opportunity 
to clarify his statement in response to DOHA interrogatories. 
 
In 1999, he was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine. In January 
2011, he was again arrested and charged with possession of cocaine. In June 2011, he 
was convicted of possession of cocaine. AG ¶ 25(a) drug abuse and AG ¶ 25(c) 
possession of illegal drugs, apply.  
 
AG ¶ 26 sets forth conditions that could mitigate security concerns.  
 
(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; 
 
(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 were used;  
 
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and 
 
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of 
clearance for any violation. 
 
(c) abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness 
during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended; 
and, 
8 
 
(d) satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, 
including but not limited to rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, 
without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified 
medical professional. 
 
None of the conditions that could mitigate security concerns apply. AG ¶ 26(a) 
does not apply because his illegal drug use was not infrequent and his last arrest 
occurred in 2011. He used cocaine over a period of years. I do not believe his claim at 
his hearing that he used cocaine only once. He stated his reasoning for failing to reveal 
his cocaine use on his e-QIPs was because he was not addicted to it “no more.” Such a 
response is inconsistent with a claim of a single use. His use did not occur under 
unusual circumstances and his use does cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, 
and good judgment.  
 
AG ¶ 26(b) does not apply because the period of abstinence has been less than 
three years. There is no showing he has executed a signed statement of intent with 
automatic revocation of clearance for any violation. There is nothing in the record as to 
disassociation from drug-using associates or avoiding the environment where drugs 
were used. AG ¶ 26(c) does not apply because prescription drugs were not abused. AG 
¶ 26(d) does not apply because Applicant was never in aftercare.  
 
Criminal Conduct 
 
AG ¶ 30 expresses the security concern pertaining to criminal conduct: “Criminal 
activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its 
very nature, it calls into question a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, 
rules and regulations.” 
 
AG ¶ 31 describes three conditions that could raise a security concern and may 
be disqualifying, ¶ 31(a), “a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses,” ¶ 31(c), 
“allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was 
formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted,” ¶ 31(d), “individual is currently on 
parole or probation.” 
 
Applicant was arrested in 1999 for DWI and cocaine possession and convicted of 
DWI. In 2003, he was again arrested and convicted of DWI. In 2011, he was arrested 
and convicted of cocaine possession, a felony. These arrests resulted in attorney fees, 
fines, court costs, probation, 200 hours of community service, and community 
supervision which continues until June 2014. AG 31(a), 31(c), and 31(d) apply.  
 
AG ¶ 32 provides four conditions that could potentially mitigate security concerns: 
 
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur 
and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or 
good judgment; 
9 
 
(b) the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those 
pressures are no longer present in the person's life; 
 
(c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense; and 
 
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited 
to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or 
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or 
constructive community involvement. 
 
None of the mitigating conditions apply to his criminal conduct. As indicated 
previously, Applicant was arrested twice and convicted twice for DWI. He was arrested 
twice and convicted once for cocaine possession. AG ¶ 32(a) does not apply because 
his last conviction occurred in June 2011, less than two and a half years ago. There is 
nothing unusual concerning his DWI arrests. AG ¶ 32(b) does not apply because 
Applicant was never pressured or coerced into committing the crimes.  
 
Applicant asserted he never possessed cocaine. His testimony is “some” 
evidence, but is insufficient evidence to overcome that he was convicted of felony 
cocaine possession. His conviction required him to pay court cost, other costs, to 
perform 200 hours of community service, and he was placed on community supervision. 
AG ¶ 32(c) does not apply.  
 
Applicant remains on community supervision, i.e. probation, until June 2014. 
Nothing in the Directive indicates that an applicant’s current probationary status is a per 
se bar to a favorable security decision. However, his probation cannot be simply 
disregarded. See DISCR Case No. 90-1115 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 1992) at p.3. Since he is 
still on probation for the last arrest and conviction, it is premature to confidently 
conclude that continuation or recurrence of his criminal conduct is unlikely. His lack of 
remorse indicates he has insufficient insight into his responsibility for his misconduct 
and recognizes the necessity for behavioral changes.  
 
Applicant did not provide any information or documentation as to job training or 
higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement, he 
exhibited no remorse, and his last conviction is recent. AG ¶ 32(d) does not apply.  
 
Personal Conduct 
 
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern for personal conduct: 
 
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 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying in this case. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially 
applicable: 
 
(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; and 
 
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning 
relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent 
medical authority, or other official government representative. 
 
Applicant used cocaine over a number of years and repeatedly lied about his 
use. During an April 2011 interview, he provided a detailed accounting of his cocaine 
use, which he recanted in part, but not fully. Much of his admitted cocaine use was not 
challenged during his October 2012 review of the ROI. In February 2011, Applicant 
completed his e-QIP and listed his 1999 and 2003 DWI arrests. He listed his arrest 
occurring a month earlier, but did not indicate he had been charged with felony cocaine 
possession. He chose to list the arrest of the previous month as simply “pending,” and 
not list the felony offense for which he was arrested.  
 
Applicant was instructed to keep his security officer informed about the court 
action following his arrest. He failed to report his early June 2011 felony conviction until 
late August 2011. On the e-QIP, he also stated he had never used or possessed any 
illegal drugs. In a 2007 interview with a DoD investigator, he said he had never used or 
experimented with illegal drugs. He responded to a DOHA interrogatory asking about 
his illegal drug use by listing “N/A.” He had used cocaine from 1997 through 1999 and 
possessed it in 2011. AG ¶¶ 8(a) and 8(b) apply. 
 
Applicant’s concealment of relevant and material information demonstrates a lack 
of candor required of cleared personnel. Intentional failure to provide truthful and 
complete information on a security clearance application and to background 
investigators is never a minor offense. Untruthful answers cast doubt on his reliability, 
trustworthiness, and good judgment. The Government has an interest in examining all 
relevant and material adverse information about an applicant before making a clearance 
decision. The Government relies on applicants to truthfully disclose that adverse 
information in a timely fashion, not when it is perceived to be prudent or convenient. 
Further, an applicant’s willingness to report adverse information about himself provides 
some indication of his willingness to report inadvertent security violations or other 
security concerns in the future, something the Government relies on to perform damage 
assessments and limit the compromise of classified information. Applicant’s conduct 
suggests he is willing to put his personal needs ahead of legitimate Government 
interests. 
 
11 
 
None of the mitigating conditions apply to Applicant’s falsification. He made no 
prompt, good-faith effort to correct the falsification before being confronted with the facts 
(AG ¶ 17a)), his concealment was not due to improper advice (AG ¶ 17b)), the 
falsification were not minor and are recent (AG ¶ 17c)), he has not acknowledge the 
behavior or obtained counseling (AG ¶ 17d)), vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, 
or duress was not at issue (AG ¶ 17e)), the information was substantiated (AG ¶ 17f)), 
and there is no evidence Applicant has disassociated himself from persons involved in 
criminal conduct (AG ¶ 17g)). 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18 articulates the security concerns relating to 
financial problems: 
 
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. 
 
Additionally, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and 
safeguarding classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect 
of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts as agreed. Absent 
substantial evidence of extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant with a 
history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a position of risk that is 
inconsistent with holding a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be debt 
free, but is required to manage his finances to meet his financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant has a history of financial problems. He owes approximately $14,000 on 
seven past-due obligations. Four of the debts are under $300 each. None of the 
delinquent accounts have been paid. Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or 
unwillingness to satisfy debts” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial 
obligations,” apply.  
 
 Five Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially 
applicable: 
 
(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 
12 
 
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; 
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
(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. 
 
 None of the mitigating factors for financial considerations apply. His financial 
difficulties are both recent and multiple. He was out of work for four weeks in 2006, just 
before obtaining his current job. He asserted, but provided no documentation, that some 
of his delinquent debt were marital debts. He was questioned about his delinquent debt 
during a 2006 interview and in written-financial interrogatories. He asserted that he is 
paying his delinquent accounts, but provided no documentation supporting his 
assertion. Even the four accounts under $300 each have yet to be paid.  
 
The four weeks of unemployment in 2006 and his 2011 divorce occurred 
sufficiently long enough ago as to have little negative impact on his current finances. 
Additionally, he failed to show how the divorce impacted on his finances. These two 
events do not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. He has not acted 
responsibly in addressing his debts. He has received no credit or financial counseling. 
He has not demonstrated his financial problems are under control or that he has a plan 
to bring them under control. He has not made a good-faith effort to satisfy his debts.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
13 
 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration 
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant used cocaine over a 
number of years and lied about it on his e-QIPS, during an interview with a DoD 
investigator, on a DOHA interrogatory, and at the hearing. He has been twice arrested 
and once convicted of cocaine possession and twice arrested and twice convicted of 
DWI. He has been aware of the Government’s concern over his delinquent debts since 
his 2006 interview with a DoD investigator and his delinquent debts remain unresolved.  
 
Rehabilitation or behavioral changes are difficult to measure under these 
circumstances, given the instance that cocaine was used only once. He clearly sought 
to mislead the government about his illegal drug usage. Applicant’s willingness to put 
his personal needs ahead of legitimate government interests increases his potential 
vulnerability and he has not demonstrated that the misconduct is unlikely to recur. 
Applicant has not mitigated the drug involvement, criminal conduct, personal conduct, or 
financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied.  
 
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, Drug Involvement:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.d:  Against Applicant 
  
 Paragraph 2, Criminal Conduct:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a and 2.b: Against Applicant 
   
 Paragraph 3, Personal Conduct:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 3.a – 3.f:  Against Applicant 
  
Paragraph 4, Financial Considerations: AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 4.a – 4.g:  Against Applicant 
14 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.  
 
 
_______________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge