1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 12-01578
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Catie E. Young, Esquire
June 25, 2014
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On October 30, 2013, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines G, E, and F for
Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992) (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On November 20, 2013, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested a hearing in this case. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge
on January 16, 2014. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
notice of hearing on January 29, 2014, and I convened the hearing as scheduled by
video teleconference on March 5, 2014. The Government offered Exhibits 1 through 12,
which were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and
submitted Exhibits A through X, which were also admitted without objection. Two
additional witnesses testified on behalf of Applicant. DOHA received the transcript of the
2
hearing (Tr) on March 17, 2014.  The record was left open until March 19, 2014 to allow
Applicant to submit additional evidence into the record. Applicant submitted additional
documents, which were identified incorrectly as Exhibits X through BB, but have now
been correctly identified and entered into evidence without objection as Exhibits Y
through CC.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and the testimony of
Applicant and his witnesses, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record discussed
above, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of
fact: 
Applicant is 45 years old. He was married from 2002 to 2009, and he has two
sons. Applicant served in the United States Army from 1990 to 2000. He earned a
Master’s of Science degree in Technology Management in 2005 and a Bachelor’s
Degree in Information Systems in 2004. Applicant is employed by a defense contractor,
and he seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the
defense sector.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption) 
The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has
engaged in excessive alcohol consumption, which leads to the exercise of questionable
judgement or the failure to control impulses. The following allegations are cited in the
SOR as tending to show that:
1.a. It is alleged in the SOR that despite Applicant undergoing inpatient chemical
and alcohol abuse treatment in 1989, he suffered alcohol abuse relapses as described
in allegations 1.b. and 1.d., below.
Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. He testified that he considered
himself an alcoholic. During a period when he was in college and then he dropped out,
he fell in with a bad group and started using marijuana, methamphetamine, and cocaine
for a period of seven or eight months, approximately six days a week. His family
encouraged him to seek help. He was 19 at the time. He attended an in-patient program
for 28 days. Applicant testified that he stayed sober for about three years before his first
relapse. Applicant averred that he did not use illegal drugs after 1989, but in 1991 he
began consuming alcohol again while in the Army. He started drinking heavily,
consuming alcohol on a nightly basis. (Tr at 102-107.)
1.b. It is alleged in the SOR that in 1996, Applicant was arrested and charged
with (1) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and or Drugs (DUI), (2) Driving with .08%
or higher Blood Alcohol Count, and (3) Failure to Pay the Fine. Count (2) was
dismissed, and Applicant pled guilty to Count (1) and was sentenced to five days in jail,
probation for five years, restricted driving privileges during probationary period, and
3
community service. He was also ordered to pay a fine of approximately $1,215, and to
complete an alcohol awareness program.
In his RSOR, Applicant admitted allegation 1.b. During his testimony, Applicant
stated that this incident occurred after he had been consuming alcohol at a barracks
party. After he had consumed a few drinks, he drove to a store, and he was arrested for
the DUI charge described above. (Tr at 107-109.)  
1.c. It is alleged in the SOR that despite Applicant completing a court ordered
alcohol rehabilitation program in 1996, he suffered an alcohol abuse relapse as
described in allegation 1.d., below. In his RSOR, Applicant admitted allegation 1.c.
Applicant testified that after this 1996 incident, and the counseling he received, he was
not convinced that he was an alcoholic, just that he should be more careful with his
drinking. (Tr at 109-111.)  
1.d. It is alleged in the SOR that in August 2008, Applicant was arrested and
charged with (1) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and or Drugs (DUI), (2) Having a
Measurable Blood Alcohol Content Level, and (3) Failure to Use Child Passenger Seat
Restraints. Count (1) was dismissed, and Applicant pled guilty to Count (2) and was
sentenced to summary probation for five years, 179 days custody pending, 14 days
public service, attend a First Conviction program for nine months, and attend one
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting a week for 18 months. Applicant’s driving
privileges were also restricted for six months, and he was fined approximately $1,942.
Applicant’s probation has been scheduled to end in January 2014. 
In his RSOR, Applicant admitted allegation 1.d. During his testimony, Applicant
stated that when this incident occurred, he was consuming alcohol on a daily basis and
this was a very low period in his life. He stated there is no question that he is an
alcoholic. On the day of the incident, he had been drinking all day and he was driving
his two sons in the car with him. He ran his vehicle off the road, and the police found
him passed out with his two children in the vehicle.  (Tr at 111-112.) 
He testified that he ultimately plead guilty to DUI with a blood alcohol level of .15,
which is almost twice the legal limit. While fortunately, his children were not physically
harmed from the incident, he did feel that the older child was emotionally bothered by
the incident. Applicant conceded that all of the requirements stated in the allegation as a
result of his guilty plea were enforced. As part of the First Conviction Program, he
attended weekly group meetings and additional counseling sessions with a counselor
and him, regarding his alcohol consumption. Within a short time after this incident,
Applicant’s wife left him and moved with their children to the east coast. (Tr at 112-118.)
In 2009, Applicant attempted to remain sober, but he testified that he still drank
on and off. During that year, his divorce became final. In March 2010, Applicant had
gastric bypass surgery. As a requirement for the surgery, he had consumed no alcohol
for a few months prior to the surgery. Within three weeks afer his surgery, he was
abusing his pain medication, using approximately twice as much as he should have
been. He also started consuming alcohol again. On June 10, 2010, Applicant met with
4
his primary doctor, who told him if he did not stop consuming alcohol, he would not live
much longer. As a result he had himself admitted to a detox center on that date.
Applicant considers June 11, 2010, as his sobriety date. Applicant testified that he has
not consumed any alcohol since that date four years ago, nor has he had the desire to
drink since that day. Applicant intends to never consume alcohol again. (Tr at 120-134.)
Exhibit C is a letter from Applicant’s primary physician, who stated that Applicant has
had several random drug tests including the most current one on February 12, 2014, all
of which were negative. 
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct) 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he engaged in conduct that exhibited questionable judgement,
unreliability, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and untrustworthiness.  
         2.a. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant deliberately failed to inform his Facility
Security Officer of his August 2008 DUI arrest because he was ashamed, embarrassed,
did not want the people at work to know about it, and he feared losing his job. It was
also alleged that Applicant conceded his failure to inform his Facility Security Officer in a
Personal Subject Interview dated October 19, 2011, and in a response to an
interrogatory sent to him on March 28, 2013. (Exhibit 2.) 
In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this allegation. During the hearing, Applicant
testified that he did not believe he was required to disclose the 2008 DUI arrest. He had
not given the explanation that he was not required to disclose that information in the
previous Personal Subject Interview, the interrogatory response or in the RSOR. He
conceded that he should have reported the arrest, but he did not feel he wanted to
disclose the information “for fear of possibly losing my job.” (Tr at 134-135.) 
2.b. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant failed to provide truthful and candid
answers to Questions asked under section 26 of an Electronic Questionnaires for
Investigations Processing (e-Quip), executed by him on October 4, 2011. (Exhibit 1.)
The questions asked whether in the last seven years, Applicant has had any bills turned
over to a collection agency; Applicant has had any account or credit card suspended,
charged off or canceled for failing to pay as agreed; or whether Applicant had been over
120 days delinquent on any debt. It also asked if Applicant is currently over 120 days
delinquent on any debt. Applicant answered, “No,” to all of these questions and listed no
debts. It is alleged that Applicant deliberately failed to disclose that information
concerning his finances and overdue debts as set forth in subparagraphs 3.b. through
3.u., below.
In his RSOR, Applicant denied this allegation, writing that at the time he
completed his e-Quip he was in the early stages of his divorce and he believed he had
“no gross delinquencies of debt.”  During his testimony, Applicant  stated that when he
completed his security clearance application in 2011, he was unaware that any of his
debts were overdue or met any of the criteria in which he should have answered, “Yes.”
(Tr at 139.)  Applicant stated that when he met with a Government investigator after he
5
completed the e-Quip, and he was confronted with all the bills he owed he was
overwhelmed. He stated, “I knew there were a lot of bills out there. I didn’t know the
disposition of them.” (Tr at 166.) 
When questioned, Applicant admitted that at the time he completed his e-Quip he
had already filed for bankruptcy. (See 3.a., below.) He claimed that while he knew he
had debts and that was why he was filing bankruptcy, he did not know any of these
debts was over 120 days overdue, nor did he understand what collection or charged off
accounts were or that any of his debts were in these categories. (Tr at 183-190.)   
Paragraph 3 (Guideline F -  Financial Considerations)
The SOR lists allegations 3.a. through 3.ii. regarding financial difficulties of
Applicant.
3.a. The SOR alleges that in February 2012, Applicant filed a Chapter 13
Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court, and that the bankruptcy is still in
progress. In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this allegation. He testified that he initially
filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in March 2012, and not all of the creditors listed made a
claim. (Tr at 140-142.)  
3.b.- 3.ii. The SOR alleges that Applicant has 34 overdue debts, totaling
$123,042, that remained unpaid as of the date of the Statement of Reasons, October
30, 2013. In his RSOR, Applicant denied this allegation. He wrote that all of his
delinquent accounts are part of his Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, and he makes payments
through the trustee on a monthly basis.  
Applicant testified that his current plan under the bankruptcy is to make monthly
payments of $845 for up to five years. At the time of the hearing, the plan had not yet
been finalized, nor had the judge or trustee approved the plan. (Tr at 143-152, 175-
180.) Exhibit Q confirms that Applicant made one payment of $845 on February 21,
2014. Exhibits R and S establishes that Applicant took the financial courses required by
the bankruptcy code.  
Exhibit CC includes a letter from Applicant’s bankruptcy attorney, dated March
14, 2014. He writes that the bankruptcy was filed on January 16, 2014, and the case is
currently “pre-confirmation,” with another creditor’s meeting scheduled for April 21,
2014. He indicated that the meeting of creditors was continued because of the change
of debtor’s expenses, as Applicant is planning to move to a new location, which may
result in a change in housing, utilities, and transportation expenses. He also indicated
that the initial creditors list was incomplete and had to be modified. The attorney
anticipated the plan would be approved in early summer. Exhibit CC also shows that the
total amount owed to creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims is $168,719.
Applicant indicated that some of the overdue bills listed on the SOR resulted from
gastric bypass surgery that he received. His divorce from his wife also contributed to his
overdue bills, especially the largest debt, which was from student loans for Applicant
and his wife that had been consolidated. Applicant also testified that he is in arrears on
child support in an estimated amount of $5,000 to $7,000. Finally, Applicant testified
6
that the amount of $114,000 that he owes in student loans cannot be discharged in
bankruptcy, and he will still owe that amount after the bankruptcy. (Tr at 141, 156-157,
159-161, 180-181.)     
Mitigation
As mentioned above, two additional witnesses testified on behalf of Applicant.
The first witness, who has known Applicant for four years, is a recovering alcoholic for
the past 22 years, who now is employed as a Clinical Supervisor of 14 substance abuse
programs. He met Applicant through Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and comes in contact
with him at least twice a week as they both attend AA meetings. He testified that when
he first met him, Applicant was a broken man, suffering from depression, but over the
years he has had an excellent recovery, and physically, emotionally, and mentally he is
a new man. He lost more than 100 pounds from his surgery, he exercises, he no longer
suffers from depression, and most significantly, he does not consume alcohol. He also
attends AA meetings on a regular and consistent basis, and because of his sobriety
program, while there are no guarantees, there is far less likelihood of Applicant suffering
a relapse. (Tr at 39-59.) 
The second witness was Applicant’s adopted father. He is retired, but had been a
Navy captain. Applicant’s father had been aware for many years of Applicant’s issues
with over-consumption of alcohol. He and Applicant’s mother participated in his in-
patient alcohol treatment program in 1989, as described in 1.a. of the SOR. He also
described how Applicant’s drinking caused serious concern to his wife and him over the
years. (Tr at 60-69.) 
Applicant’s father now sees his son two or three times a week. It is his belief that
Applicant has been consistent and faithful to the AA program and “faithful to his
sobriety.” He has never seen Applicant consume any alcohol in the last four years, and
he believes he will not drink alcohol in the future. (Tr at 70-76.)  
Applicant also submitted a number of documents in mitigation. These included a
letter, dated January 29, 2014, from an individual, who has been identified as a
Licensed Clinical Social Worker and a Licensed Clinical Addictions Counselor. (Exhibit
G.) He wrote to confirm that Applicant had attended counseling from February 15, 2007,
through December 15, 2007, after being referred by Federal Probation. He wrote that
Applicant “responded well to the individual counseling and attending AA once a week.
The positive response was demonstrated by [his] maintaining abstinence and
commitment to stay sober.”
There were 7 extremely positive character letters submitted on Applicant’s
behalf. (Exhibits A through G.)  One was from his physician, which has been reviewed
above. (Exhibit C.) Another is from his father, who as reviewed above, testified at the
hearing. (Exhibit G.)  All of the other letters spoke in very laudatory terms as they
described Applicant. Exhibit A was a letter from Applicant’s ex-wife, who spoke of
Applicant’s more than three years of successful sobriety. He also was described by a
co-worker as someone of the highest “professionalism, honesty and integrity in all
aspects of his work. 
7
Applicant introduced a number of awards and recognitions that he received
during his civilian and military employment. (Exhibit I.) Applicant also submitted Exhibits
R and S, which establish that Applicant took two credit counseling sessions required for
bankruptcy.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching
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 national 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
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 as to obtaining 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 protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 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
8
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption) 
       The security concern relating to the guideline for Alcohol Consumption is set out in
AG ¶ 21:  
Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of
questionable judgement or the failure to control impulses, and can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. 
Applicant's alcohol consumption resulted in the criminal conduct and convictions
listed in subparagraph 1.b. and 1.d.. The Government established that Applicant was
involved in “alcohol-related incidents away from work,” and “binge consumption of
alcohol to the point of impaired judgement.” Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 22(a) and (c)
apply to this case.
In reviewing the mitigating conditions, I find that ¶ 23(a) and 23(b) are applicable
because Applicant’s last alcohol related incident occurred in 2010, and Applicant has
completely abstained from alcohol consumption since 2010. I also find these mitigating
conditions apply because of the credible testimony of Applicant that he strongly intends
not to consume alcohol in the future, and the testimony of the other two witnesses of
Applicant’s commitment to sobriety. Therefore, I find Paragraph 1 Guideline G for
Applicant.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in
AG ¶ 15:  
      Conduct involving questionable judgement, 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
an candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he engaged in conduct that exhibited questionable judgement,
unreliability, and untrustworthiness.  
In reviewing the disqualifying conditions under Guideline E, I conclude that there
was “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel security questionnaire” by Applicant. I find that even if Applicant did not know
all of his overdue debts, he knew or should have known that some of the 34 debts listed
9
on the SOR were more than 120 days overdue or were charged-off or collection
accounts, especially when he had already completed a divorce where his debts were
reviewed, and he had engaged an attorney and begun the process of filing for
bankruptcy. Applicant could give no reasonable explanation for not informing the
Government that he had any overdue debts.
Therefore, I find ¶ 16 (a) applies against Applicant. I do not find any mitigating
condition under ¶ 17 is applicable.  I, therefore, resolve Guideline E against Applicant.
Paragraph 3 (Guideline F -  Financial Considerations)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG ¶ 18:  
      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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19 (a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19 (c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant has accumulated significant delinquent debt. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties: Under AG ¶  20 (b), it may be mitigating where “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.” While
some of Applicant’s overdue finances occurred as a result of his divorce, a significant
amount of his debts were due to an elective medical procedure, which could not be
considered unexpected so this mitigating condition would not be applicable. Additionally,
while Applicant has acted responsibly by engaging the services of a law firm to use the
legal remedy of bankruptcy, the bankruptcy has not yet been approved by the judge or
trustee, and even if it is eventually is approved, Applicant will still owe more than
$116,000 for his student loans after the bankruptcy is discharged.  Therefore, I cannot
find that this mitigating condition is a factor for consideration in this case. 
Finally, I do not find that AG ¶ 20(d) is applicable because even though Applicant
has “initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,”
by filing for bankruptcy, as reviewed above, it is too soon to determine that his finances
are being resolved. I also do not find that any other mitigating condition applies under
Guideline F. 
10
I conclude that at this time Applicant has not reduced or resolved his overdue
debt, nor has he mitigated the financial concerns of the Government. Therefore, I
resolve Guideline F against Applicant.
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 the 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
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. Based on all of the reasons cited
above as to why the disqualifying conditions apply under Guidelines E and F, and none
of the mitigating conditions apply under these guidelines, I find that the record evidence
leaves me with significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and
suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person concept. For all these
reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-
person concept. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. - 1.d.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a. - 2.b.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
11
Subparagraph 3.a. - 3.ii: Against Applicant
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 eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
        
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge