Authorized by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), Section E3.1.2.2.1
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 10-04607
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his extensive arrest
record and his other adverse conduct since at least 1999. Additionally, he failed to
mitigate the security concerns resulting from his numerous and intentional false
statements to the Government about his illegal use of drugs, and about his treatment for
drug and mental health issues. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
The results of a recent background investigation, which included Applicant’s
responses to interrogatories  from Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators, did not1
support a determination that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.2
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These3
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
 Gx. 29 was received for administrative notice purposes only. An index listing each exhibit is included in the4
record as Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 1. See Tr. 18 - 49. 
 Tr. 50 - 51.5
2
Applicant’s request for access to classified information.  On September 11, 2013, DOD2
issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security
concerns addressed in the adjudicative guidelines  regarding personal conduct3
(Guideline E).
Applicant timely responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. The
case was assigned to me on December 11, 2013, and I convened a hearing on January
22, 2014. Department Counsel presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 29, which were
admitted without objection.  Applicant testified and offered eight notarized reference4
letters that were admitted collectively as Applicant’s Exhibit (Ax. A).  DOHA received the5
transcript of hearing (Tr.) on February 6, 2014.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline E, the Government alleged that Applicant failed to register for
the draft as required by federal law (SOR 1.a). The Government also alleged that
between June 1999 and April 2011, Applicant was cited or charged with various civil
infractions and criminal offenses, including speeding and other driving offenses (SOR
1.b, 1.c, 1.bb, and 1.ff); violations of state natural resources and wildlife management
ordinances regarding trees, clams, lobsters, and fish (SOR 1.e, 1.m, 1.n, 1.q, and 1.s -
1.t); and theft of property (SOR 1.r). Some of the SOR allegations of criminal conduct
also involved failure to abide by court orders and terms of sentencing or probation (SOR
1.n, 1.r, 1.s, and 1.t). 
The SOR contained other allegations that Applicant was arrested for offenses
involving violent and threatening conduct, as well as twice being issued temporary
protective orders (SOR 1.h, 1.p, 1.u, 1.w, and 1.gg); that he had several instances of
aggressive behavior, rules violations, or other inappropriate conduct in the workplace,
for which he was disciplined or fired (SOR 1.d, 1.f, 1.g, and 1.l); and that on one
occasion at his current workplace, his employer filed an adverse information report with
DOD (SOR 1.cc).
The Government also alleged that between 2003 and 2005, Applicant illegally
abused and became addicted to Oxycontin; that he failed drug tests while on probation;
that he received outpatient drug treatment in 2003 and 2004; and that he requested
detoxification treatment in 2005 while incarcerated for an assault charge (SOR 1.i - 1.k,
3
and 1.v). It was further alleged that in 2004, after he threatened to kill himself, Applicant
was involuntarily admitted to inpatient mental health treatment, where he was
diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder and adjustment disorder with possible
depressed mood (SOR 1.o).
Additionally, the Government alleged that, on several occasions during the
investigation and adjudication of his request for clearance, Applicant made deliberate
false statements to the Government. Specifically, it was alleged that he failed to
disclose adverse information about his illegal use of prescription drugs in multiple
Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (EQIP) submitted on February
28, 2006 (SOR 1.y), December 9, 2010 (SOR 1.ee), and September 24, 2012 (SOR
1.hh). It was further alleged that he deliberately failed to disclose his illegal use of
prescription drugs when he was interviewed by Government investigators in May 2006
(SOR 1.z), and in response to DOD interrogatories on February 1, 2007 (SOR 1.aa) and
on March 11, 2013 (SOR 1.kk). 
Applicant is also alleged to have deliberately withheld information about his drug
treatment from his February 2006 EQIP (SOR 1.x) and from his September 2012 EQIP
(SOR 1.ii). Finally, the Government alleged that Applicant deliberately omitted the fact
that he received mental health counseling from his December 2010 EQIP (SOR 1.dd)
and in response to DOD interrogatories in October 2012 (SOR 1.jj).
Applicant admitted with explanations all of the SOR allegations. (Answer) In
addition to his admissions, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is 32 years old. He has never been married, but has one child, now age
11, who has lived with Applicant since 2006. Applicant is currently engaged to be
married in March 2014. In February 2006, he was hired by a defense contractor for work
as a laborer and installer. He started working as an installer and technician for his
current employer in October 2008. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 68 - 70)
Applicant grew up and lived in State A until 2005, when he moved to his current
residence in State B. After graduating from high school in June 2000, he attended
college for about six months. While in college, he used marijuana between 10 and 20
times in response to peer pressure. (Gx. 1 - 3)
From August 2000 until late 2005, Applicant held various jobs, including six jobs
in restaurants, two in boat shops, one as a roofer, and one as a clam harvester. As
alleged in SOR 1.d, 1.f, and 1.l, Applicant left some of his jobs under unfavorable
circumstances. He also accrued multiple misdemeanor violations of state laws. His work
as a clam harvester from April 2004 until December 2005 coincided with numerous
citations for violating laws and regulations concerning harvesting of clams, shellfish, and
other natural resources, as alleged in SOR 1.m. 1.n, and 1.p - 1.t. Also, he was cited in
November 2001 for cutting Christmas trees or boughs (SOR 1.e). Between June 1999
and November 2005, Applicant was charged with three motor vehicle-related offenses
(SOR 1.b, 1.c, and 1.g). (Answer; Gx. 1 - 3; Gx. 14 - 17, 19 - 20)
4
Also before he moved to State B, Applicant was arrested, in June 2002 (SOR
1.h) and in October 2005 (SOR 1.u), for assault and criminal terrorizing. In 2002, a 45-
day jail sentence was suspended. In 2005, he served 45 days in jail. When he was
released from incarceration, a temporary abuse order was entered against him at the
request of the victims in that case (SOR 1.w). (Answer; Gx. 1 - 3, 4, 13)
Between 2002 and 2005, Applicant became addicted to prescription painkillers
he started taking after he broke his leg. Chief among the medications he abused was
Oxycontin, an opiate-based controlled substance. (SOR 1.i) His addiction led him to fail
court-ordered drug tests when he was on probation from his SOR 1.h arrest. When he
was in jail in 2005, he requested treatment for opiate detoxification. (SOR 1.v) After his
arrest in 2002, Applicant was placed on probation for a year and ordered to have
periodic drug testing. After he failed a test, he was ordered to undergo treatment at a
state chemical dependency agency (SOR 1.j and 1.k). In 2010, Applicant’s father died
unexpectedly. Applicant relapsed in his recovery from opiate addiction and used
Oxycontin and other painkillers for about two weeks. He self-referred to drug treatment
and claimed he has not abused prescription medications since. Applicant acknowledges
he is always going to be a recovering addict, but he discontinued medical treatment for
his addiction in 2010. He has not participated in any 12-step program or other structured
rehabilitation effort. (Answer; Gx. 4, 26; Tr. 62, 66 - 69, 72 - 74)
Applicant moved to State B in 2005. After living with his parents for a time, he
was hired for his first job with a defense contractor. He worked as a laborer with his first
company from February 2006 until October 2008, when he was hired by his current
employer. He now works as an installer and often travels to military installations in the
United States and abroad. (Gx. 1 - 4)
Since moving to State B, Applicant has been twice cited for moving violations
and driving on a revoked or suspended license (SOR 1.bb and 1.ff). (Answer; Gx. 1, 2,
and 4)
Applicant struggled with anger management issues before 2005, as shown by
the nature of his violent behavior offenses in 2002 and 2005. His anger has also been a
concern since he moved in 2005. In April 2007, Applicant’s employer submitted an
adverse information report to DOD regarding an incident in which Applicant had used
profane language and had threatened some of his coworkers. (SOR 1.cc) The report
indicated that it was not the first time this had happened. (Answer; Gx. 4 and 27)
Applicant has been seen for his anger management problem by at least three
mental health professionals. In September 2004, police were called when he and a
girlfriend were arguing. In their presence, he stated that he would rather be dead than
put up with his domestic circumstances. As a result, the police were required to take
Applicant to the local hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Applicant has tried to downplay
the incident as nothing more than exasperation. However, as alleged in SOR 1.o, a
mental health professional diagnosed him with intermittent explosive disorder with
possible depressed mood. When Applicant was discharged, he was referred to another
5
mental health professional, who confirmed that Applicant had anger management
issues. The record also shows, as alleged in SOR 1.dd, that Applicant has since been
seen by two other mental health professionals based on referrals by his primary care
physician, who confirmed that Applicant has a problem with anger management.
(Answer; Gx. 1, 5 - 7)
Another incident occurred in April 2011, while Applicant was on an extended
temporary assignment for work (SOR 1.gg). He and his fiancee had agreed to suspend
their relationship for a while. Applicant began seeing a woman in the city where he was
working. One night, when that woman was staying overnight with Applicant at his hotel,
Applicant’s fiancee called and the woman answered because Applicant was sleeping.
The woman became enraged that Applicant’s fiancee would call him and started hitting
Applicant. He awoke and grabbed the woman to stop her from hitting him, and he
physically removed her from the hotel room. The police were called and he was
arrested. No charges were entered against him, but the woman involved obtained a
temporary protective order against Applicant. (Answer; Gx. 1 and 4; Tr. 90 - 92)
Applicant first submitted an EQIP on February 28, 2006 (Gx. 3), after he was
hired by his first defense contractor employer. During the ensuing background
investigation, he was interviewed by DOD investigators on May 15, 2006, and
responded to six sets of DOD interrogatories (Gx. 4 - 11, dated April 10, 2006; February
1 and 16, 2007; July 5, 2007; December 31, 2007; and April 8, 2008). However, that
background investigation was not adjudicated. After he started working for his current
employer, he submitted another EQIP on December 9, 2010 (Gx. 2). Thereafter, he
responded to DOD interrogatories on April 12, 2011. (Gx. 5) Again, it does not appear
his request for clearance was adjudicated, and he was asked to submit another EQIP,
which he did on September 24, 2012. (Gx. 1) Applicant was interviewed by a
Government investigator on October 11, 2012, and responded to additional
interrogatories on March 11, 2013. (Gx. 4)
Applicant has not registered for the draft with the U.S. Selective Service. Federal
law (50 U.S.C. § 453) requires this of all male citizens between the age of 18 and 26.
Applicant disclosed his failure to register when he submitted his first EQIP. When he
was interviewed in May 2006, he stated that he intended to do so and “would look into
it.” He was 25 years old at that time. During his October 2012 subject interview, at age
31, he stated he did not register because he did not want to serve in the military.
(Answer; Gx. 4; Tr. 58 - 60)
When Applicant submitted his first EQIP (Gx. 3), he disclosed that he had left
jobs under adverse circumstances, as alleged in SOR 1.d, 1.f and 1.l. He also disclosed
that he had been arrested as alleged 1.h and 1.u. He also disclosed, as alleged in SOR
1.h, that he had received counseling for anger management as part of his probation
after a June 2002 arrest for criminal terrorizing. Finally, he disclosed that he used
marijuana “10 to 20 times” while in college. As alleged in SOR 1.y, he did not disclose
that he had illegally abused prescription medications. As alleged in SOR 1.x, he also did
6
not disclose that, in addition to his 2002 anger management counseling, he had
received psychiatric treatment in 2004 after police heard him express suicidal thoughts.
  
When Applicant was interviewed by a Government investigator in May 2006, he
discussed his use of marijuana. However, he also claimed that he had not illegally
abused any legal drugs, such as pain medication. As alleged in SOR 1.z, his statement
omitted his use of prescription medications up to 2005. As alleged in SOR 1.z, in
response to DOD interrogatories, Applicant repeated his claims that he had not abused
prescription drugs. (Gx. 4)
In his December 2010 EQIP (Gx. 2), Applicant updated certain personal
information, such as his home address and his work history. He also disclosed his
college marijuana use, a 2007 citation for driving on a suspended license, and his 2005
arrest and conviction for assault and terrorizing. As to mental health counseling,
Applicant disclosed only his court-ordered anger management counseling after his 2002
arrest for terrorizing. Applicant again did not disclose that he had abused prescription
medications. He also failed to disclose that he had received additional counseling for
anger management since he submitted his first EQIP.
In his September 2012 EQIP (Gx. 1), Applicant updated his personal information
to reflect that he was cohabiting with his fiancee, and that his father had passed away
since his last EQIP. He also deleted reference to his marijuana use because it had been
more than seven years since he used the drug. He still did not disclose his illegal use of
prescription medications as recently as 2010 after his father died. He also added
information about the temporary protective order against him in 2011. Applicant still did
not list any mental health counseling or drug treatment despite the fact he had been
seen by multiple mental health professionals for anger management issues since 2006,
and that he had received detox treatment while incarcerated in 2005 and after his
relapse in 2010. When Applicant was interviewed by a Government investigator in
October 2012, he again omitted information about his mental health counseling over the
previous seven years. (Gx. 4)
Applicant responded to DOD interrogatories on March 11, 2013. As to his drug
involvement, he was asked the following question:
Have you ever used any narcotic, depressant, stimulant, hallucinogen (to
include LSD or PCP) and/or any Cannabis (to include marijuana and
hashish), except prescribed by a licensed physician?(emphasis in original)
Applicant answered “yes,” but discussed only his use of marijuana while in college. (Gx.
4)
In response to the SOR allegations that his false statements were made
intentionally, Applicant claimed he did not intend to mislead the Government about his
past. He further claimed he was advised by his late father to omit information about his
illegal use of and addiction to Oxycontin and other pain medications. Applicant’s father
 See Directive. 6.3.6
7
was retired from active duty in the Navy and was, at the time of his death, a civilian
employee of the DOD agency Applicant’s employer supports. To the best of Applicant’s
knowledge, his father was not involved with or experienced in the adjudication of DOD
security clearances when he advised Applicant about his clearance applications. At his
hearing, Applicant acknowledged that, despite his late father’s advice, he knew his
statements were false when he made them. Applicant did not explain the false
statements he made after his father passed away. (Answer; Gx. 4; Tr. 63 - 66)
In all three of his EQIPs, Applicant stated that his record of misconduct was in
the past. He asserted that, since moving to State B in 2005, he had left behind the
influences and circumstances that contributed to his poor record. At his hearing,
Applicant averred that he has matured since 2005 and that his improved circumstances
indicate he is more responsible and trustworthy. Applicant has sole custody of his child,
in whose life he is actively involved with the help of Applicant’s mother, who lives
nearby. Applicant is now a homeowner and has a good reputation at work and in the
community. (Answer; Gx. 1 - 3; Ax. A; Tr. 53 - 57)
In response to the most recent set of DOD interrogatories, Applicant disclosed
that he was arrested in November 2013 while on a temporary work assignment. He was
charged with driving while intoxicated and with having an open container of alcohol in
his vehicle. As of the hearing in this matter, Applicant was to appear in court at the end
of January 2014. Applicant informed his supervisor of this event when he returned from
travel, and an adverse information report was entered in the Joint Personnel
Adjudication System (JPAS). This matter was not alleged in the SOR; however, I have
considered it as probative of Applicant’s claim that his adverse personal conduct will not
recur. (Gx. 4; Gx. 28; Tr. 42 - 45, 104 - 105)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,6
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:
(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. 
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).7
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.8
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).9
8
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 to7
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.  8
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.9
Analysis
Personal Conduct
The Government’s information, along with Applicant’s admissions, is sufficient to
raise a reasonable security concern about Applicant’s suitability for access to classified
information. That security concern is articulated in the guideline for Personal Conduct at
AG ¶ 15, as follows:
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.
9
Applicant has a well-documented record of criminal offenses, illegal use of drugs,
and other misconduct over the past 15 years. Most recently, he has engaged in
repeated attempts to conceal from the Government information in his background that is
relevant and material to a determination of Applicant’s suitability to hold a clearance.
The facts contained in this record require application of the following AG ¶ 16
disqualifying conditions:
(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; 
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning
relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent
medical authority, or other official government representative; 
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is
not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single
guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a
whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not
properly safeguard protected information; and
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of: (1) untrustworthy or unreliable
behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of proprietary
information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or other
government protected information; (2) disruptive, violent, or other
inappropriate behavior in the workplace; and (3) a pattern of dishonesty or
rule violations.
In response to the Government’s information, it was Applicant’s obligation to
provide information sufficient to mitigate these security concerns. Available to Applicant
were the following pertinent mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; 
10
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was
caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of
authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual
specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made
aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the
individual cooperated fully and truthfully; 
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment; and
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.
AG ¶ 17(a) does not apply because Applicant failed to correct his omissions from
his first EQIP and repeatedly falsified his EQIP answers in subsequent submissions.
Applicant also intentionally made false statements in his subject interviews and in his
responses to DOD interrogatories. AG ¶ 17(b) does not apply because Applicant’s
father was not an appropriate source of advice on how to complete an EQIP. Even if he
was, Applicant knew at all times that he was intentionally trying to hide from the
Government important information in his background. All available information probative
of Applicant’s intent when he was responding to the Government’s inquiries shows that
he engaged in a deliberate and persistent effort to mislead the Government so he could
get a security clearance. 
AG ¶ 17(c) does not apply because nothing about Applicant’s falsifications or his
lengthy history of criminal conduct, drug abuse, and deceit, when taken as a whole, can
be considered minor or remote in time. For most of his adult life, he has shown he is
unwilling to comply with the law. He has also shown a propensity for substance abuse
and that he has trouble acting in a reasonable way with persons with whom he works or
has a relationship. At all stages of the Government’s efforts to assess his suitability for
access to classified information, he has acted in ways that are fundamentally at odds
with the Government’s need for accurate information about him. 
Finally, AG ¶ 17(d) does not apply. Applicant has not acknowledged that he has
any behavioral issues or that he should not have lied about his background. To his
credit, Applicant has not illegally used prescription medications since 2010. However, he
has not sought treatment or counseling on his own. Further, his recent DWI charge and
his extensive record of misconduct and his intentional false statements undermine my
confidence that his substance abuse will not recur. Applicant has not mitigated the
security concerns about his personal conduct. 
11
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts and have applied the appropriate adjudicative factors
under Guideline E. I also have reviewed the record before me in the context of the
whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is a 32-year-old single father. He is
engaged to be married this year, and he has made several positive changes in his life
since 2005. However, these positive developments, when weighed against the
extensive record of misconduct and falsification amassed by Applicant, are not sufficient
to counter the disqualifying security concerns presented here. 
Applicant also has a solid record at work. His supervisors have recommended
that he be given a security clearance. However, Applicant’s references did not articulate
what, if anything, they know about his background. Accordingly, I have assigned little
persuasive value to their recommendations. Significant 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.
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 E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.kk: 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