The case number assigned to the Statement of Reasons in this case (12-01438) is incorrect. The case1
number assigned to this decision (12-01433) is correct and is the same as has been assigned to this matter
throughout its adjudication. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 12-014331
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s financial problems remain a concern because his debts are largely
unaddressed. Allegations of criminal conduct also cause doubts about Applicant’s
suitability for a security clearance. He was charged at least 13 times with various
criminal offenses between 1995 and 2008. Although several years have passed since
his last offense, his conflicting statements about some of the charges, combined with
the scope of his criminal record, undermine confidence that he is wholly rehabilitated.
Clearance is denied.
  Authorized by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), Section E3.1.2.2.2
 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.3
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These4
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
2
Statement of the Case
On October 5, 2011, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for his
employment with a defense contractor. The results of the ensuing background
investigation, which included his responses to interrogatories  from Department of2
Defense (DOD) adjudicators, did not support a finding that it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant Applicant’s request for access to classified information.  On3
July 31, 2013, DOD issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts
which raise security concerns addressed in the adjudicative guidelines  for criminal4
conduct (Guideline J) and financial considerations (Guideline F).
Applicant timely responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. The
case was assigned to me on October 23, 2013, and I convened a hearing on November
20, 2013. Department Counsel presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 7, which were
admitted without objection. (Tr. 19 - 25) Applicant testified, but offered no documents. I
left the record open after the hearing to allow Applicant additional time to submit
documents in support of his case. DOHA received the transcript of hearing (Tr.) on
December 4, 2013. The record closed on December 11, 2013, when I received
Applicant’s post-hearing submission. It has been admitted without objection as
Applicant’s Exhibit (Ax.) A.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline J, the Government alleged that between August 1995 and
September 2008, Applicant was charged 13 times with various criminal offenses (SOR
1.a - 1.m). The allegations at SOR 1.a, 1.h, and 1.i were misdemeanor offenses for
criminal mischief, reckless driving, and providing false information to law enforcement,
respectively. The allegations at SOR 1.b, 1.g, 1.j, 1.k, and 1.m were for drug or alcohol-
related offenses, one of which (SOR 1.b) involved felony possession of cocaine. SOR
1.e and 1.f concerned assault or battery offenses. SOR 1.c and 1.d alleged probation
violation offenses. Applicant admitted all of these allegations without explanation.
(Answer)
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owed $7,734 for
seven past-due or delinquent debts (SOR 2.a - 2.g). The largest debts listed were a
$3,004 past-due child support obligation (SOR 2.d) and a $2,141 debt for the remainder
due after a car repossession (SOR 2.e). Applicant admitted SOR 1.c and 1.e, and
3
denied the rest. (Answer) In addition to his admissions under both guidelines, I make
the following findings of fact.
Applicant is 36 years old. He has never been married, but has one child, now age
nine, whom he supports through monthly child support payments of about $550.
Applicant is employed by a large defense contractor as a media production analyst. He
has worked there, initially as a temporary staffer, since July 2011. He also has a second
job as a chef, which he has held since March 2011. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 68 - 70)
Applicant has worked in the visual media and productions industry since 1997.
He worked for a local television station from September 1997 until September 2006,
when he resigned after allegations of misconduct. Applicant stated that he was accused
of coming to work with alcohol on his breath, and that there were other instances when
he was accused of making mistakes at work. He denied those allegations, but averred
that he and his employer mutually agreed that he should leave that job. Applicant then
worked as a freelance media specialist until February 2009, when he was hired by a
private media relations firm. He was laid off from that job in December 2010 and was
unemployed until March 2011, when he started working as a chef. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2)
Applicant had a turbulent childhood. At age 15, he was thrown out of the house
by his father, with whom Applicant never had a good relationship. Applicant fell in with
the wrong crowd and began selling marijuana and cocaine to support himself. The first
arrest alleged in the SOR was for criminal mischief in August 1995, but that charge was
disposed of as nolle prosequi. The record contains no detailed information about this
event. (SOR 1.a) A month later, he was arrested and charged with felony possession of
cocaine, misdemeanor possession of marijuana, smuggling contraband into prison
(because drugs were found on him when he was being processed for incarceration),
and misrepresenting his age regarding underage possession of alcohol (he was 18 at
the time). Applicant was convicted of all but the smuggling charge, and was sentenced
to six months “community control” (house arrest), four-and-a-half years of probation,
and his driver’s license was suspended for two years. (SOR 1.b) During the first year of
probation, Applicant was tested every week for drugs and had to report to a probation
officer each week. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 5)
After he was released from house arrest, Applicant moved away from his home
town and his past criminal associations. He obtained his high school general education
development (GED) certification in 1997, then began his career in the visual media and
production industry. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 5; Tr. 72)
In August 1996, he was charged with violating his probation (SOR 1.c). Applicant
believes this was the result of his failure to timely pay court costs and fines. In February
1998, he was required to register as a repeat offender (referred to as “criminal
registration”) because of his arrest record at that point. (SOR 1.d) Applicant admitted
this allegation, but the record does not provide any further detail about this allegation.
(Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 5; Tr. 65)
4
In March 1998, Applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault
(SOR 1.e). Applicant believes the charge stemmed from a bar fight that he was not
involved in. He was arrested after he left the bar and was found in possession of a knife.
The charges were later dismissed because there were no witnesses to support the
charge. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 5)
In March 2001, Applicant was charged with misdemeanor battery. (SOR 1.f)
Although Applicant admitted this allegation, the charge does not appear in the arrest
records presented by the Government. A March 2003 arrest for battery was discussed
with Applicant during his subject interview (SI) with a Government investigator in
November 2011. However, he could not recall any details about the charge or what may
have led to an arrest. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 3; Gx. 5)
In July 2001, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence
of alcohol or drugs (DUI). (SOR 1.g) The charge was dismissed, but Applicant has no
recollection of this arrest. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 5)
In September 2001, Applicant was charged with reckless driving and driving on a
suspended license. He was subsequently charged in December 2001 for failing to
appear in response to the September 2001 charges. (SOR 1.h) In March 2003, all
charges were dismissed after a 12-month deferred adjudication. Although his license
had been suspended, Applicant was not driving illegally because he was still allowed to
drive to work. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 3; Gx. 5)
SOR 1.i alleged that in November 2001, while awaiting disposition of the charges
listed in SOR 1.h, Applicant was charged with providing false information on an accident
report and obstruction of justice. In January 2002, adjudication was withheld pending
completion of six months of probation, payment of a fine, and performance of 20 hours
of community service. In discussing this event during his SI, Applicant recalled rear
ending another car in 2000 and being ticketed. He denied giving false information and,
despite admitting to this SOR allegation, claims he was not aware of the charges.
(Answer; Gx. 2)
Between April 2004 and May 2005, Applicant and his infant son were living with
Applicant’s friend after Applicant and his child’s mother split up. Applicant’s friend, who
recently died accidentally, was a drug dealer. Large amounts of marijuana were stored
in their apartment, but no sales actually took place there. On May 4, 2005, Applicant
and the other residents were arrested by police at the house and charged with various
drug-related offenses. Applicant was charged with misdemeanor possession of
marijuana and drug paraphernalia. In October 2005, he was placed on one year
probation, assessed about $500 in fines and court costs, and adjudication of the
charges was deferred. (SOR 1.j) Applicant averred that he was only arrested because
he was in the house and the drugs were in a common area. He denied any knowledge
of or participation in drug trafficking, or that he actually possessed any drugs. However,
the police report he provided in response to DOD interrogatories stated that plastic bags
commonly used to package marijuana for sale were found in Applicant’s bedroom, and
5
that marijuana was found in plain sight in the kitchen and other common areas of the
residence. Applicant was not incarcerated, and he later pleaded guilty to the
misdemeanor charges because he could not afford a lawyer. (Answer; Gx. 1 - 3; Gx. 5;
Tr. 32, 57)
In February 2007, Applicant was cited for having an open container of alcohol.
(SOR 1.k) In his SI, Applicant denied ever having been charged with this offense.
However, a police report he provided in response to DOD interrogatories supports the
allegation. Applicant was walking on a public sidewalk with a plastic cup containing beer
he had bought at a nearby bar. In May 2008, Applicant was arrested for violating
probation (SOR 1.l), ostensibly because of the 2007 open container charge. Applicant
admitted the SOR allegation, but had denied in his SI that he had been charged with
open container. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 3)
On September 6, 2008, Applicant was driving to see his son, but was stopped for
speeding. A check by police revealed there was a May 2008 outstanding warrant for his
arrest for failure to appear on a violation of probation charge. Applicant was arrested
and an inventory search of the car produced a backpack containing 4.4 grams of
marijuana and a pipe containing marijuana residue. According to a police report
provided by Applicant in response to DOD interrogatories, he admitted the marijuana
was his but that he had packed it two weeks earlier and forgot it was in the car.
Applicant was arrested and charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana and
drug paraphernalia. He also had to answer the probation violation and failure to appear
charges that provided probable cause for the search of his car. In November 2008, he
pleaded guilty to all charges, was assessed a $688 fine, and was placed on 180 days of
house arrest. He was also ordered to complete a substance abuse evaluation, his
driver’s license was suspended for two years, and he was subjected to random drug
testing. (SOR 1.m) At his SI and in his testimony, Applicant claimed that the marijuana
was in a diaper bag that the boy’s mother had left in the car during a previous visit, and
he claimed the marijuana must have been hers. As his son at that time had been out of
diapers for about two years, Applicant claimed that the bag and its contraband had been
in the car for over a year and had been forgotten. Applicant repeated this version of
events in his testimony. (Answer; Gx. 1 - 3; Gx. 5; Tr. 31 - 32)
Applicant averred that he has never used illegal drugs. None of the court-ordered
drug tests detected any illegal drugs.
When Applicant submitted his eQIP, he disclosed that he was about $9,000 in
arrears on his child support payments. Available information on which the SOR was
based showed his past-due payments totaled $3,004. (SOR 2.d) He also disclosed that
he owed about $5,000 for a vehicle that was repossessed. Available information on
which the SOR was based showed he owes $2,141 for the balance due after the vehicle
was resold. (SOR 2.e) Applicant established that he incurred both delinquencies when
he lost his television job in 2006. In May 2013, Applicant and the lender had agreed to a
lump sum, principal only payment. After the hearing, he again contacted the creditor for
the car loan to ask if he could make monthly payments. The lender did not approve and
 See Directive. 6.3.5
6
referred Applicant to the deal they struck in May. Applicant has not made any payments
on this debt. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 4; Gx. 6; Gx. 7; Ax. A; Tr. 49 - 50)
Applicant has made progress in repaying his child support arrearage. Monthly
payments of $550 are being deducted from his paycheck. The original amount he was
ordered to pay each month was $610, but his obligation was adjusted over the years in
response to his and the boy’s mother’s changing circumstances. The current payment
includes money assigned to the missed payments. The arrearage has also been
reduced through annual diversion of his income tax refunds. The total amount past-due
is now about $1,470. (Gx. 4; Ax. A; Tr. 26 - 27, 35 - 43, 53)
In response to the SOR, Applicant acknowledged that he owed $634 for a past-
due cell phone account (SOR 2.c). In response to DOD interrogatories, he claimed he
settled the debt for $126.87 in May 2013, but he did not provide any support for his
claim. At hearing, he testified that he was still trying to resolve this debt. He denied the
other debts alleged, which total $1,955 (SOR 2.a, 2.b, 2.f, 2.g). The Government’s
information, including his discussion of these debts and credit reports obtained during
the background investigation, supports the allegations. Applicant allowed at hearing that
the insurance debt at SOR 2.g may be related to the repossessed vehicle addressed in
SOR 2.e. As to the $905 credit card debt alleged at SOR 2.b, Applicant believes this
was generated through theft of his personal information. (Gx. 2; Gx. 4; Gx. 6; Gx. 7; Ax.
A; Tr. 45 - 53, 75)
Applicant is meeting all of his current obligations. However, a personal financial
statement (PFS) he submitted in May 2013 showed that, after expenses, he has less
than $100 remaining each month. At his hearing, he stated that the information in the
PFS has not changed since it was submitted. Applicant has not sought help from any
financial counselors or other financial professionals in managing his personal finances.
(Gx. 4; Tr. 76)
Applicant has a solid reputation in the workplace. His co-workers and supervisors
are aware of his criminal conduct. Applicant testified he told them about the adverse
information in his background because he did not expect to be hired. (Ax. A; Tr. 73 - 74)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,5
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative
guidelines (AG). Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a)
of the new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those
factors are:
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).6
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.7
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).8
7
(1) The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified
information.
A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest  for an applicant to either receive or continue to6
have access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  7
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government
has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment,
reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her
own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of
any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the
Government.8
Analysis
Criminal Conduct
The Government’s information, combined with Applicant’s admissions to the
SOR 1.a - 1.l allegations, reflect an extensive history of criminal conduct. Applicant’s
8
numerous arrests between 1995 and 2008 support application of those security
concerns expressed at AG ¶ 30, as follows:
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.
More specifically, available information requires application of the following AG ¶ 31
disqualifying conditions:
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses;
(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted; and 
(e) violation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-mandated
rehabilitation program.
In 1995, 2005, and 2008, Applicant was convicted of drug-related offenses that
required varying degrees of incarceration. He was also arrested multiple times for
violating the terms of his probation from those offenses. Although some of the charges
were dropped because there was no basis for prosecution, Applicant’s record of drug-
related conduct and other offenses over the course of his adult life presents a significant
security risk.
In response, Applicant avers that his circumstances have changed and that he
has matured significantly in the past few years. I have considered the following AG ¶ 32
mitigating conditions:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or
does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment;
 
(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.
As to the offenses alleged at SOR 1.e, 1.f, and 1.g, the record either is not
sufficient to support the SOR allegations, or the underlying charges were dismissed for
want of evidence. AG ¶ 32(c) applies here. As to AG ¶¶ 32(a) and 32(d), Applicant
presented information showing he has a good reputation at work, and that his co-
workers and supervisors are aware of his criminal record. He also claims his last arrest,
9
almost six years ago, was for possession of marijuana that belonged to his son’s mother
and that he was not culpable. However, Applicant’s testimony conflicts with what he told
police at the time of his arrest. A similar discrepancy exists between Applicant’s
statements about his 2005 arrest for drug possession and the version contained in the
police report. In discussing his 2008 arrest for a probation violation, Applicant denied
that he was cited in 2007 for the underlying charge of open container. However,
information he provided documented the open container charge. 
Despite leaving his home town in the late 1990s to get away from circumstances
that had promoted his earlier criminal conduct, Applicant’s criminal conduct continued.
All of the foregoing undermines confidence in his claims of rehabilitation and precludes
full application of AG ¶¶ 32(a) and 32(d). On balance, I conclude Applicant did not
mitigate the security concerns about his criminal conduct.
Financial Considerations
Applicant accrued significant unpaid or past-due debt consisting mostly of a child
support arrearage and the remainder after resale of a repossessed vehicle. Available
information also attributes to Applicant five other delinquent debts that remain unpaid.
These facts are sufficient to raise a security concern about Applicant’s finances. That
concern is expressed, in relevant part, at AG ¶ 18 as follows:
Failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
More specifically, available information requires application of the disqualifying
conditions at AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and AG ¶ 19(c) (a
history of not meeting financial obligations).
I have also considered the following AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions:
(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 (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;
10
(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.
To his credit, Applicant has paid down his child support debt to roughly half of the
amount alleged in the SOR. His past-due debts generally arose from his loss of
employment in 2006, and Applicant is meeting all of his current obligations. He claimed
he settled SOR 2.c, but he did not corroborate his claim. He also claimed identity theft
as the reason for the debt at SOR 2.b, and that he resolved other debts. However, they
still appear on his credit reports and he provided no proof of payment. Applicant’s ability
to pay is also in question given his cash flow of less than $100 each month. Available
information does not support application of the mitigating conditions listed above. On
balance, Applicant has not presented sufficient information to mitigate the security
concerns about his finances.
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts and have applied the appropriate adjudicative factors
under Guidelines J and F. I also have reviewed the record before me in the context of
the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is 36 years old and presumed to
be a mature, responsible adult. In many respects, the positive changes in his personal
and professional circumstances support that presumption. He disclosed his past
criminal conduct to his current employer, and he has done what he can to provide for
his son. However, concerns about his criminal conduct are not mitigated, chiefly
because he did not sufficiently account for his most recent arrests. Applicant’s burden of
establishing rehabilitation is significant given the scope of his arrest record. His
inconsistent statements about some of his arrests indicates he is unwilling to fully
accept responsibility for his conduct. Likewise, as to his finances, Applicant told
adjudicators that he had resolved some debts, but later had to acknowledge that all but
one of his debts remain unresolved. His lack of action and his limited resources indicate
that resolution of his remaining debts is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
As a result, the totality of positive information about his current circumstances is not
sufficient to overcome the security concerns raised by the facts established by the
Government’s information. 
Accordingly, doubts remain about Applicant’s suitability for access to classified
information. Because protection of the national interest is the principal goal of these
adjudications, those doubts must be resolved against the Applicant.
11
Formal Findings
Formal findings on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section
E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.m: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.g: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
for Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security
clearance is denied.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge