1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 12-00322
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David Hayes, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Richard Morris, Esq
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Because of his convincing evidence in rehabilitation, the drug involvement guideline
is resolved in Applicant’s favor. Conversely, the absence of current evidence from a duly
qualified mental health professional to support Applicant’s testimony results in a finding
against him under the psychological conditions guideline. Eligibility for access to classified
information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on August 10, 2011. He was interviewed by an investigator from the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on September 21, 2011, and November 14, 2011.
He agreed that the investigator’s summaries could be used at a hearing to determine his
security suitability. (GE 2 at 11)
2
On June 10, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the guidelines for drug involvement
(Guideline H) and psychological conditions (Guideline I). The action was taken under
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20,
1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) 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 notarized undated answer to the SOR was received by
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) on July 11, 2013. 
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on August 19, 2013, for a hearing on September
5, 2013. The hearing was held as scheduled. At the hearing, two Government exhibits (GE
1-GE 2)were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant and three witnesses
testified. Applicant’s 15 exhibits (AE A-AE O), and his post-hearing exhibit (AE P) were
admitted into the record without objection. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on
September 12, 2013. The record closed on September 19, 2013. 
Rulings on Procedure
A request by the Government was made for me to take official notice of a 26-page
publication entitled “Bipolar Disorder,” issued by the United States Department of Health
and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. The publication was revised in 2008 and
reprinted in 2009. Administratively noticed matters are limited to those that are obvious to
the average person, easily verifiable, and relevant to this case. I will take administrative
notice of this publication, which has been marked and admitted into evidence as Hearing
Exhibit (HE) 1. (Tr. 13-14)
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the first paragraph of the SOR (drug involvement), Applicant denied
¶ 1.a and admitted ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c. He admitted ¶ 2.a of the second paragraph
(psychological conditions). Attached to his answer is a two-page explanation in the form
of a closing statement. Applicant’s answers to the SOR will be incorporated into the
following factual findings. 
Applicant is 26 years old and single. He received his high school diploma in June
2005. While attending college between September 2005 and May 2007, he decided to seek
a career in the trades. He began doing trade work in 2007 as a welder’s assistant. He has
been employed by a defense contractor on the night shift as a maintenance mechanic
helper since June 2008. He seeks his first security clearance. (Tr. 106-107)
3
Drug Abuse - Background
The divorce of his parents created emotional problems for Applicant. Peer pressure,
which added to those problems, triggered Applicant’s alcohol consumption at age nine. He
started using marijuana at age 12 (1999), and sold the drug to high school friends. He used
benzodiazepine (benzos), oxycontin, heroin, and other opiates from age 12 to February
2011. His use of primarily marijuana and heroin at addictive levels necessitated treatment
on several occasions between 2009 and 2011. He also experimented with phencyclidine
(PCP), mushrooms, and ecstasy. In October 2009, Applicant stopped drinking alcohol
because he did not like the taste. (SOR ¶1.a) (GE 2 at 1, 17, 31-32, 64-65, 163; Tr. 106-
112)
On August 13, 2006, Applicant was 19 years old and drinking at a party with friends.
He got into a car with a driver who was under the influence. The driver had a serious
accident leaving Applicant with multiple broken bones requiring four surgeries. During nine
months of rehabilitation, he became addicted to prescribed painkillers, e.g., oxycontin, until
some time in 2007. When the prescriptions ended, Applicant began using opiates and
continued his marijuana abuse. (Tr. 145-148)
As a result of Applicant’s opiate problem, his father drove him to a treatment
program in September 2009. On September 23, 2009, Applicant was admitted to treatment
(2009 treatment) because of alcohol and opiate abuse. He also tested positive for benzo
use. He testified there was a reference to his bipolar condition during group therapy. The
records reflect a bipolar disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS). (SOR 2.a) After
completing group therapy, individual therapy, and working the Narcotics Anonymous (NA)
steps, Applicant remained in the treatment facility an additional three weeks because he
liked the warm weather. He was discharged from the treatment program on November 23,
2009, with treatment officials deciding that critical objectives of the program were achieved
at a satisfactory level. Recommendations at discharge included continued NA step work,
finding a sponsor, and additional supportive therapy. On reflection, Applicant did not really
commit himself to the program and participated minimally. He spent most of his time
playing ping pong and socializing. Though he claimed that he never used drugs while in the
program, he tested positive for methadone and benzos on October 5, 2009, and November
14, 2009. (GE 2 at 163-164, 169, 202, 205-207, 314, 316; Tr. 112-113, 148-151)
After his discharge from treatment during the Thanksgiving holiday in 2009,
Applicant attended enough NA meetings to deceive his parents into believing that he was
committed to recovery. Though his discharge recommendation was for extensive
supportive therapy, he recalled consulting a therapist on one occasion. While he stated in
the records that 60 days passed before he resumed drug use, he testified that he was
using marijuana and heroin within a month after his discharge from the 2009 treatment
4
facility. His frequency of use escalated from occasional to three to five times a week. He
switched to heroin because the opiods were too expensive. (GE 2 at 65; Tr. 153-157)
Applicant’s regular heroin use was making him feel miserable. He was losing control.
Based on a family member’s recommendation, he entered an outpatient methadone
treatment facility (2010 treatment) on January 26, 2010. His admitting diagnosis was opioid
dependence, cannabis abuse, and depression. (SOR 1.b) Applicant received methadone
daily from January 30, 2010, to October 28, 2010. He was required to consult a drug
counselor once a week and had to undergo a urinalysis at a regular frequency. He was
supposed to attend NA meetings, but did not attend many. He was still not committed to
treatment. He left the methadone center on October 28, 2010, and experienced
withdrawals for about a month. He could not afford methadone so he resumed heroin and
marijuana use. (GE 2 at 38, 40-50; Tr. 114, 158-162)
In early January 2011, Applicant was using heroin at addictive levels. After trying to
commit suicide on January 15, 2011, he was arrested for narcotics possession and
transferred to a hospital for treatment. The charge was ultimately dismissed under the
state’s deferred adjudication statute. Applicant was diagnosed with a bipolar condition,
NOS, with opiate and cannabis dependence. Applicant indicated he was spending about
$840 a week on drugs and supporting his addiction through earnings and stealing. He was
confined in the hospital for six days of detoxification, and only allowed to leave his room for
group therapy and meals. He was prescribed medication for sleep withdrawals and his
bipolar condition. He was discharged on January 21, 2011. Applicant’s psychiatric
discharge summary reflects that he was not considered a risk to himself or others. The
discharge diagnoses were bipolar disorder, and opiate and cannabis dependence. (SOR
2.a) The discharge recommendations included continued therapy, NA and Alcohol
Anonymous (AA) meetings, 90 meetings in 90 days, and obtain a sponsor. (GE 2 at 5, 12-
14, 28-33; Tr. 62-63, 114-115, 137, 165, 166-168, 171)
After having a brief relapse on February 3, 2011, Applicant was admitted to a second
inpatient treatment facility for 24 days. Upon admission, he was diagnosed as opioid
dependent. Clinical notes reflect that he attended all groups and activities. Though he had
difficulty realizing the severity of his addiction, he developed an understanding of his
disease and the 12 steps of NA. He committed full attention to treatment. He was attentive
at all the group and individual therapy meetings. He demonstrated a willingness to help
others and respond to suggestions. His daily routine started with taking medications in the
morning followed by group therapy with NA or AA involvement. After physical exercise,
Applicant and the other inpatients had lunch. Then, he reported to afternoon group therapy
to discuss the topic of the day, including discourse about NA or AA issues. Following
dinner, Applicant attended group therapy. (GE 2 at 14, 28-30; Tr. 117-120)
5
On February 26, 2011, Applicant was discharged to another inpatient facility [3rd
inpatient treatment] for additional treatment because he did not have strong coping skills.
Applicant stated: 
When I was in treatment in [the 2009 treatment facility] they told me that if I
wanted to stay clean, I had to change people, places, and things. And I don’t
know why but that stuck out (in) my mind at the [second inpatient treatment
facility]. So I wanted to get more time away from it and deal with the coping
mechanisms and gain some more tools to stay clean if I did have to go back
to those people, places, and things. That’s what led me to it. (Tr. 174-177)
Applicant’s diagnosis at admission was bipolar disorder and heroin dependence. (SOR 2.a)
The emphasis at the new facility was two daily meetings of one-on-one therapy. There were
three daily group meetings. AA and NA met twice a day. When Applicant was discharged
on March 26, 2011, his diagnosis was “heroin dependence; bipolar (?).” The discharge
counselor noted Applicant’s full participation in individual and group therapy. The counselor
pointed out that Applicant needed to take charge of his own recovery. (GE 2 at 21-23, 34;
Tr. 120-123, 174-177)
The day before Applicant was discharged on March 26, 2011, the counselor listed
six recommendations to ensure continued abstinence from drugs: (1) remain abstinent; (2)
strengthen stable recovery in a recovery house; (3) attend 90 meetings in 90 days, and
obtain a home group and sponsor to work the NA steps; (4) comply with all continuing care
recommendations for medical and dental care; (5) obtain an updated mental health
evaluation; and, (6) follow through with mental and dental treatment. Applicant indicated
he accomplished all recommendations. In addition, he has spoken many times at the
February 2011 inpatient treatment facility to provide the inpatients a good example that
dedication to treatment leads to successful results. (GE 2 at 23, 176-179)
On March 26, 2011, Applicant was discharged to a halfway house where he lived
until the middle of January 2012. He attended an NA meeting immediately upon his
discharge and found a sponsor in April 2011. At the halfway house, he had to take five
urine tests a week. The tests were negative. He and other tenants new to recovery were
required to do house chores, be responsible, and have a job. He returned to his employer
in April 2011. After the halfway house, Applicant moved into an apartment. From April 2012
until May 2013, he lived with his former girlfriend. He left that living arrangement because
he did not want to be around alcohol consumption. Since June 2013, he has been living
with three other recovering substance addicts, including his high school friend who is
currently a residential coordinator at a drug treatment facility. The reason for the move was
to fortify his recovery with other addicts in a sober environment. (Tr. 123-126, 193-194)
6
Applicant testified the doctor who diagnosed him as bipolar during his six-day
detoxification in January 2011, continued to treat him every other week for status reports
until approximately November 2011, when the doctor decided to stop the medication.
Applicant has consulted no mental health professional since November 2011. He attempted
to contact the treating doctor, but decided not to contact him after reading the Directive
indicating the mental health professional had to be a government psychiatrist. No
documentation was provided from the treating doctor. (Tr. 168-169, 186-191)
Applicant has been drug free for about two years and seven months. He does not
have any present concerns about his recovery because he understands he has to take the
necessary steps on a daily basis to remain free from drugs. He sponsors the residential
coordinator and five other individuals. He speaks to each sponsee about 20 or 30 minutes
a day and sees them two or times a week. He attends three NA meetings a week and is
currently on the sixth step of NA. He has identified 100 defects and is writing the description
of action taken to address and remove the defect to improve his recovery. He does not
intend to use drugs again. Applicant’s two primary goals are to have a family and return to
school. He swears he will never use illegal drugs in the future. If he does use drugs, he will
voluntarily withdraw his security clearance. (AE P: Tr. 126-132, 182)
Character Evidence
Applicant’s father testified that he divorced Applicant’s mother when he was nine
years old. There was a long custody dispute followed by Applicant not living with his father
between 2005 and 2009. After becoming aware of Applicant’s drug use in 2009, his father
drove him to a rehabilitation facility in September 2009. Following the completion of the
2009 treatment, the father recalled Applicant acting strangely within two weeks after he
returned home. The father considered Applicant a changed person after the 2011
treatment. Applicant’s father grew much closer to Applicant during his 2011 treatment. In
his father’s view, based on Applicant’s participation in NA meetings and attention to his
sponsees, Applicant is committed to sobriety. His father opined that Applicant is not on
drugs because of the positive changes in his physical appearance, his normal sleep
patterns, the regular work hours he maintains, and his maturity. (Tr. 29-44)
Applicant’s coworker during the night shift from April 2012 until the coworker
switched to the day shift in approximately July 2013, believes Applicant is diligent, reliable,
and responsible. In the three occasions that the two have socialized, Applicant has
consumed no alcohol because he said just one drink could lead to drug use again.
Applicant told the fellow employee that he attends NA meetings at least weekly. The
employee has never been to Applicant’s home. (Tr. 51-58)
A high school friend, currently a residential coordinator (RC) at a drug treatment
facility, interacted daily in high school with Applicant from 2001 to 2005 or 2006, and drank
7
and used drugs with him once a week at parties. They stopped seeing each other in 2006
when the friend migrated to a different peer group and moved three times. In the
intervening years, RC used a variety of drugs with heroin imposing the most negative effect
on RC. When RC reestablished contact with Applicant in April 2012 at an NA meeting, he
immediately noticed a dramatic change in Applicant. Rather than seeing a person whose
only concern was trying to obtain drugs, RC saw a person who had established structure
in his life by regularly attending NA meetings, going to work, and helping his parents and
other people. (Tr. 59-82)
Applicant became RC’s sponsor and guided him through the steps and principles
of the NA program so that he could apply them in his daily life. Because Applicant is
assigned to the night shift, they attend NA meetings on the weekend. Applicant imparted
coping tools to help RC successfully deal with the thoughts of using drugs again. Applicant
is the primary reason for RC’s successful recovery that has reached 511 days. Living with
Applicant and two other recovering addicts since June 2013, has provided a wholesome
environment that enhances recovery. Neither Applicant nor RC associate with any drug
users. (Tr. 59-82)
Applicant’s sponsor for more than two years, who has been drug free and a member
of NA for 12 years, attends three NA meetings a week with Applicant. The sponsor
explained that when a recovering addict is new to the NA program, they have to attend 90
NA meetings in 90 days, and Applicant accomplished this task, even occasionally attending
more than one meeting a day during the 90-day period. Early on in his recovery, Applicant
kept to himself. He became more outgoing as he and the sponsor started working the steps
of the program. Applicant obtained a position in the home group where he helps out at
meetings while ensuring that new people feel welcome in the NA fellowship. The sponsor
indicated that as long as the sponsee goes to the meetings every day, talks to his sponsor
regularly, and has a commitment to the home group, the chances of a relapse are slim to
none. Applicant is the sponsor’s best sponsee because he does what his sponsor advises,
he works the steps, he goes to meetings, and he follows through with his service
commitment to his home group. The sponsor referred to Applicant’s commitment to the NA
program as “being in the middle.” The sponsor has seen no indication of a relapse by
Applicant. The sponsor has never seen Applicant associate with drug users. The sponsor
indicated: 
He’s living in a house with other recovering addicts. He only talk(s) to
recovering addicts. He only hang(s) out with other recovering addicts. And
he’s doing his step work. He’s doing everything he should be doing. (Tr. 97)
The sponsor considers Applicant to be honest, trustworthy. He also believes Applicant
demonstrates good judgment. (Tr. 83-104)
8
Applicant submitted four character affidavits in support of his security clearance
application. Applicant’s immediate supervisor since July 2011, commented that there are
no disciplinary infractions in his record. The supervisor and second-line supervisor
indicated that Applicant is conscientious, honest, and trustworthy. (AE I) The second line
supervisor believes Applicant is a professional with a good attitude. The senior project
engineer, who participated in the interview process of Applicant, praises Applicant’s
honesty. (AE M) A 20-year-old friend, who met Applicant in NA, stated that Applicant
helped the friend reach one-and-one-half years of drug freedom. The friend has asked
Applicant to be his sponsor. (AE N) Applicant’s mother is certain Applicant has been drug
free for two-and-one-half years. (AE I, M, N, O)
Policies
Each guideline under the AG lists potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions, which are required to be considered to the extent they apply in evaluating an
applicant's eligibility for access to classified information. These guideline-conditions must
be evaluated in the context of the whole-person concept, nine factors that bring together
all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, in making a decision. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation about 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.l5., the applicant is
responsible for presenting "witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . ." The applicant
has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security decision.
Analysis
Drug Involvement
Paragraph 24 of the AG sets forth the security concern associated with 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 or
willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.
The pertinent disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 25 that could raise security
concerns are: (a) (any drug abuse); (b) (testing positive for drug use); (c) (illegal drug
9
possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution,
or possession of drug paraphernalia); and (d) (diagnosis by a duly qualified medical
professional of drug abuse or drug dependence). Between age 12 (1999) and 23 (February
2011), Applicant used a variety of drugs, including marijuana, methadone, oxycontin, and
heroin. He also abused prescription drugs during his rehabilitation following the 2006 car
accident. He received at least three diagnoses by a duly qualified medical profession of
heroin and cannabis dependence. He financed his drug use through earnings or stealing.
AG ¶¶ 25(a), 25(b), 25(c), and 25(d) apply.
The three pertinent 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); (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 (4) a signed statement of intent with automatic
revocation of clearance for any violation); and (d) (the satisfactory completion of a
prescribed 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).
When evaluated by itself, Applicant’s freedom from drug use since February 6, 2011,
represents a meaningful period of abstinence. Even though the period of abstinence is less
meaningful when contrasted with Applicant’s extensive period of addiction to several drugs
concurrently or separately, and his relapses after treatment in 2009, 2010, and early 2011,
Applicant receives some mitigation under AG ¶ 20(a) based on the network of support he
has developed since February 2011. 
Applicant has stated and testified that he does not intend to use drugs in the future.
He began severing his connections to drug users when he stopped using drugs on
February 3, 2011 and entered treatment. The medical records demonstrate that he has
been fully committed to treatment and NA. On the day he was discharged from treatment
on March 26, 2013, he attended a NA meeting. He moved a couple of times to ensure his
living environment was drug and alcohol free. Since June 2013, he has been living with
three other recovering addicts. Applicant’s period of abstinence of two years and seven
months, combined with his signed statement of intent, entitles him to full mitigation under
AG ¶ 26(b).
Though Applicant completed a drug treatment program in 2009, he resumed drug
use to addictive levels by the end of the year. While he attended the outpatient methadone
program in 2010, the only evidence in the record is that he left the program in October
2010, and resumed serious drug use. However, the combined effect of inpatient treatment
10
at the two facilities in February and March 2011, turned Applicant’s life around. He has
been abstinent since February 3, 2011. He has continually strengthened his recovery with
a network of support that includes his parents, particularly his father. He has attended 90
NA meetings in 90 days, and obtained a home group and sponsor to work the NA steps.
He is currently working the sixth step and is sponsoring six individuals. The strong support
network that Applicant has developed since February 2011 entitles him to mitigation under
AG ¶ 26(d) even without a favorable diagnosis from a medical professional.        
Psychological Conditions  
AG ¶ 27 sets forth the security concern related to psychological conditions:
Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required
for there to be a concern under this guideline. A duly qualified mental health
professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist) employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government, should be consulted
when evaluating potentially disqualifying and mitigating information under this
guideline. No negative inference concerning the standards in this Guideline
may be raised solely on the basis of seeking mental health counseling. 
The medical records show that Applicant received a diagnosis of a bipolar condition
during his treatment in 2009 and twice during treatment in 2011. The pertinent disqualifying
condition that applies is AG ¶ 28 (b) (an opinion by a duly qualified mental health
professional that the individual has a condition not covered under any other guideline that
may impair judgment, reliability and trustworthiness). 
The three pertinent conditions that may mitigate AG ¶ 28(b) are: AG ¶ 29 (a) (the
identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual has
demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan); AG ¶ 29(b) (the
individual has voluntarily entered a treatment program for a condition that is amenable to
treatment, and the individual is currently receiving counseling or treatment with a favorable
prognosis by a duly qualified mental health professional) and AG ¶ 29(g) (there is no
indication of a current problem).
I have carefully evaluated the diagnoses of bipolar condition in the medical records.
Applicant indicated he consulted with his doctor throughout his 2011 treatment until
November 2011, when the doctor told him that he no longer needed medication or
consultation. However, other than his testimony, the record lacks corroboration for
Applicant’s testimony. He is not currently in counseling and there is no favorable prognosis
11
of a mental health professional. With no evidence from a mental health professional, I am
unable to conclude that Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by the
psychological conditions guideline. 
Whole-Person Concept 
In evaluating Applicant’s security clearance worthiness, I have examined the
evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of the drug involvement and
psychological conditions. 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 set forth in 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.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate decision of whether the granting or continuing eligibility for
a security clearance is clearly consistent with the interests of national security must be a
judgment based on common sense after a careful review of the guidelines, which are to be
evaluated in the context of the whole-person concept.
Applicant engaged in extensive drug abuse and dependence in his teenage and
early adulthood. However, beginning with inpatient treatment in February 2011, he has
steadily developed a strong support system, complimented by a good work record, which
will improve the chances for long-term recovery. He is committed to the NA program and
to helping those in need of advice and guidance whenever possible. Having weighed the
record in the context of the whole-person factors, Applicant has sufficiently removed the
security concerns of his extensive drug involvement. On the other hand, given the 2009
and 2011 diagnoses of a bipolar condition and the absence of current mental health
evidence to corroborate Applicant’s testimony, I am unable to find for him under the
guideline for psychological conditions.
12
Formal Findings
Formal findings for against Applicant on the SOR allegations are:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline H): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c:  For Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Guideline I): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant access to classified information.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge