1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-01617
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel and 
Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on January 28, 2013, and he certified it on February 6, 2013. The Department
of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on June 13, 2014,
detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The action was
taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
(February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
(AG), implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
Department Counsel objected to giving Applicant the additional time. The substance of Department Counsel’s1
objections concerned the weight given to the drug assessment report, not to Applicant’s request for additional
time.
2
Applicant received the SOR on September 15, 2014, and he answered it on
September 28, 2014. Applicant requested a hearing before an administrative judge with
the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). Department Counsel was
prepared to proceed on December 5, 2014, and I received the case assignment on
January 8, 2015. DOHA issued the first Notice of Hearing on January 27, 2015, and I
convened the first hearing as scheduled on February 11, 2015. The Government offered
exhibits (GE) marked as GE 1 through GE 4, which were received and admitted into
evidence without objection. Applicant testified. He submitted exhibits (AE) marked as
AE A through AE C, which were received and admitted into evidence without objection.
DOHA received the first hearing transcript (Tr.1) on February 20, 2015. 
At the beginning of the first hearing, Department Counsel sought to amend the
SOR to add a new guideline. Because of due process considerations, Department
Counsel was not allowed to proceed with a hearing on the new guideline at this time.
Applicant requested time to answer the proposed amendments. After discussion, the
parties agreed to schedule a second hearing on March 31, 2015 to address the issues
raised in the motion to amend the SOR. In light of these discussions, the motion to
amend the SOR was granted, and the SOR is amended to include allegations under
Guideline H. 
DOHA issued a second Notice of Hearing on February 27, 2015, and I convened
the hearing on March 31, 2015 by video teleconference and with a new Department
Counsel.  The Government offered exhibit GE 5, which was received and admitted into
evidence without objection. Applicant testified. He submitted two exhibits marked as AE
D and AE E, which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. At the
close of the first hearing, Applicant was given additional time to submit further
documentation about his finances. He timely submitted AE F through AE P. DOHA
received the second hearing transcript (Tr.2) on April 6, 2015. I held the record open for
Applicant to submit additional matters related to his drug use. He requested additional
time to submit a drug evaluation report on May 26, 2015, and for good cause, he was
given until June 5, 2015 to submit the report.  He timely submitted this report and other1
post-hearing documents, AE Q - AE W, which were received and admitted. The record
closed on June 5, 2015.
Findings of Fact
In his Answers to the SORs, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in the
SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. He also provided
additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance. After
a complete and thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the following findings
of fact.  
GE 1; AE F; AE L; Tr.1, p. 31-33, 42-43.2
GE 1; GE 4; Tr.1, p. 34.3
AE G; AE M; Tr. 2, p. 63-64.4
AE M; Tr. 1, p. 54.5
3
Applicant, who is 29 years old, works as a senior associate scientist engineer
(software developer) for a DOD contractor. Applicant began his current employment in
December 2010. The president of his company wrote a letter of recommendation
praising Applicant’s skills, ability, and aptitude for the work he performs. Applicant
received an exceeds on his most recent performance appraisal.2
Applicant graduated from high school in 2004 and from college in 2010. He
received a bachelor’s degree in information technology. Applicant is not married, but he
lives with his girlfriend. He does not have any children.  3
Finances
Applicant currently earns $5,712 in monthly gross income, and he receives
$3,056 a month in net income. In addition to payroll taxes, insurance and retirement
deductions, $539 is automatically deducted each month as a garnishment to pay his
federal education loan debt. At the time of the first hearing, Applicant advised that his
girlfriend worked sporadically, which resulted in sporadic income. He paid most of the
household expenses because her income was unreliable. After the second hearing,
Applicant advised that his girlfriend obtained a steady job with steady income. Her new
job will have a positive impact on household income and payment of household
expenses.4
Applicant has not had credit counseling. He submitted a budget. Each month, he
pays $600 for rent, $50 for his cell phone, $150 for gasoline, $400 for food, $10 for
netflix, $10 for Google play music, and $927 on his private student loan. His girlfriend
pays $50 for a cell phone, $100 for gasoline, $270 for utilities, and $100 for food. In
March, he had unexpected expenses totaling approximately $1,170. He will be
reimbursed by his employer for $400 in travel expenses incurred in March 2015.
Applicant’s customary monthly expenses total $2,147, leaving $909 for debt payment.5
The SOR identified eight unpaid debts, one unpaid judgment, and a failure to file
federal and state income tax returns in 2010. Applicant advised that he performed
independent work for a company in 2010. The company did not provide him with a form
1099 showing his income for tax purposes. He contacted the company several times
about the 1099 form, but the company never located the form or had any record to show
it had paid him for work. Because he did not have the 1099 form, Applicant did not
believe he could file his 2010 federal and state income tax returns. He failed to follow up
on his efforts to obtain the 1099 form. After the hearing, he again attempted to get a
1099 form for the work performed in 2010. He was again unsuccessful. Upon a
SOR; AE B; AE K; AE S; Tr.1, p. 35-37.6
GE 4; AE H; AE J; AE Q; AE R; Tr.1, p. 53-58; Tr. 2, p. 45-46.7
GE 2; GE 3; AE U; Tr. 1, p. 51-52.8
GE 2; GE 3; AE P; Tr. 2, p. 51-52.9
4
suggestion at the hearing, Applicant prepared and filed his 2010 federal and state
income tax returns because he now understands that when he receives the 1099, he
can file an amendment to the return. Applicant provided a copy of his prepared tax
returns for 2010 and a copy of his 2010 wage and tax statement from the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS). At the present, Applicant is entitled to a tax refund from the IRS
and from the state revenue office for 2010.6
Applicant timely filed his tax returns for the tax years 2011, 2012, and 2014. At
the hearing, he indicated that he thought he had filed his 2013 tax return, but later
learned the tax return had not been filed. Because he knew he owed taxes for the tax
year 2013, he requested an extension of time to pay the taxes owed. Turbo tax
requested an extension of time to file the return. When he realized that he had misread
the Turbo tax information on extension of time, Applicant filed his 2013 tax return.
Applicant knows that he owes income taxes for 2013 and 2014 and is working to
develop a payment plan to pay this debt. The IRS has not taken any action against
Applicant because he did not file the 2010 and 2013 tax returns timely.7
Applicant contacted the creditor in SOR allegation 1.g ($1,057) after the hearing
in February 2015 and made arrangements to pay this debt. He and the creditor agreed
that he would pay $75 a month as an automatic withdrawal from his checking account
beginning in May 2015 until the debt was paid. Applicant disputes the debt in SOR
allegation 1.f ($500) because he tested a cell phone for two weeks and timely returned
the phone. He has not formally disputed this debt with the creditor or the credit reporting
agencies.8
Applicant indicated that he intended to pay $200 a month beginning in May 2015
until he resolved the $1,314 debt, now a $1,690 debt, in SOR allegation 1.j. He has not
provided proof of any payments. Applicant has not contacted the creditors in SOR
allegations 1.c ($570 judgment), 1.d ($447), 1.e ($698), and 1.k ($673) to pay or
develop payment plans for these debts.9
Finally, the SOR identified two student loans (1.h for $2,544 and 1.i for $6,308)
held by the Department of Education. Applicant made arrangements to pay these loans
in 2013. When he missed payments, he made arrangements for a voluntary
garnishment of his wages each payday. He pays $539 a month on these loans, and he
anticipates that this debt will be paid by the end of the year. He verified that his current
balance on his student loan debt with the Department of Education is $3,155. Applicant
also has two private student loans totaling $65,726. He pays $927 month on these
loans and has made a substantial monthly payment on this debt since February 2013.
GE 3; AE A; AE C; AE N; AE O; AE T; Tr. 1 , p. 26-30, 38-42, 45, 60-61, 65.10
GE 1; GE 4; Tr. 2, p. 19-22.11
GE 5; AE D - AE F; Tr. 2, p. 22-27, 32-36.12
Tr. 2, p. 24-27.13
AE W ; Tr. 2, p. 39-40.14
5
Some months he cannot make the full payment. In March 2015, he did not make the
payment because of car repairs.10
Drugs
Applicant began using marijuana in October 2010 while a high school student. He
increased his marijuana use in college. After he graduated from college, he stopped
using marijuana. Applicant describes his college use of marijuana as his heaviest use.
He purchased marijuana at times. He did not sell marijuana to others nor did he grow
marijuana.11
Applicant was not using marijuana when he completed his e-QIP in January 2013
and when he met with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator in April
2013. Applicant acknowledges that he started using marijuana with his brother and
friends later in 2013. He purchased marijuana, but he did not sell marijuana to others
nor did he grow it. He continued to periodically use marijuana until August 2014, when
he failed a drug test at work. Before he received the test results, he met with the
company president and told him that he would probably fail the drug test. He discussed
options with him about managing his drug use. The company president had him sign an
agreement that if he failed another drug test, he would lose his job. He also agreed to
random drug tests. He passed the two random drug performed by his company in
March 2015.12
Applicant has not used marijuana since August 2014. He reduced his contacts
with his friends who use marijuana and with his brother. If he is aware that they are
using marijuana, he stays away. His brother is respectful of his decision not to use
marijuana.13
Applicant underwent a drug assessment evaluation on April 16, 2015. The
counselor reviewed his family, social, health and educational history. The counselor
discussed Applicant’s drug history and usage. A random drug test was conducted, and
it was negative. The counselor did not recommend any treatment at this time and did
not diagnose drug abuse or drug dependency.14
When he completed his e-QIP in January 2013, Applicant indicated his intent not
to use drugs in the future. He made the same statement to the OPM investigator in April
2013. He acknowledged these statements. At the hearing, he reaffirmed his intent not to
GE 1; GE 4; Tr. 2, p. 28-29, 35, 37.15
AE E; AE F.16
6
use marijuana in the future because his job is more important than marijuana. He
understands that future use could jeopardize his job and future employment. He
believes because others at work are aware of his use, it is easier for him to remain
abstinent. His company has given him a last chance.15
In his letter of recommendation, the president of Applicant’s company
acknowledged that he knew about Applicant’s financial problems and his drug use. He
also stated that Applicant was taking steps to correct both problems.  16
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used 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 overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
The protection of the 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.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for 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
7
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 an 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
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
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. 
AG ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Applicant developed financial problems after college. He had not resolved many
of the debts at the time the SOR was issued. These two disqualifying conditions apply.
The financial considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through
¶ 20(f), and the following are potentially applicable:
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
8
Applicant pays his education debts, which requires more than $1,400 a month of
his income. When he realized that he was not always paying his Department of
Education student loan, he made arrangements for his payments to be deducted from
his pay starting in 2013. He recently contacted two other creditors listed in the SOR and
made arrangements for one debt to be paid through a monthly deduction. He plans to
pay $200 a month towards another debt. Although he has sufficient funds to make this
payment, he has not shown that he made any payments. 
Applicant filed his 2010 federal and state income tax returns five years late,
because he could not obtain all the income documentation he needed to file his return.
When he learned that he could file the returns and later amend the returns when or if
he gets the proper document, he filed the returns. He has sufficient income to pay his
customary monthly expenses since his girlfriend has full-time employment. The above
mitigating conditions are partially applicable.
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to 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.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and include:
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds
identified and listed in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970,
as amended (e.g., marijuana or cannabis, depressants,
narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens), and
(2) inhalants and other similar substances;
(b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner
that deviates from approved medical direction.
AG ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition);
(b) testing positive for illegal drug use; and
(c) illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture,
purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia.
9
From 2002 until 2010, Applicant used marijuana with varying frequency. He
abstained from using marijuana until late 2013 when he resumed his use of marijuana.
He failed a drug test at work in August 2014 because of his marijuana use. A security
concern has been established under AG ¶¶ 25(a), 25(b) and 25(c).
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt
on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; 
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and,
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation;
(c) abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness
during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended;
and,
(d) satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program,
including but not limited to rehabilitation and aftercare requirements,
without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified
medical professional.
I have reviewed all of the mitigating conditions. Applicant is not in a treatment
program nor has he been in a treatment program as none has been recommended. His
drug use is voluntary, not the result of abuse of prescription drugs. It has been less than
a year since his last use of marijuana. Applicant stated that he did not intend to use
marijuana again in the future, but he made this statement twice in 2013 then resumed
use of marijuana. None of the mitigating conditions apply.
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):
  (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
10
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. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct, but
on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a nexus
exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
In assessing whether an applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F,
the Appeal Board provided the following guidance in ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3 (App.
Bd. May 21, 2008):
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of
actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007). However, an applicant is not
required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and
every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2
(App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate
that he has “. . . established a plan to resolve his financial problems and
taken significant actions to implement that plan.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No.
04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). The Judge can reasonably consider
the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his actions in evaluating
the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding
indebtedness is credible and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.”) There is
no requirement that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding debts
simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and concomitant conduct) may
provide for the payment of such debts one at a time. See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 4, 2008). Likewise, there is no
requirement that the first debts actually paid in furtherance of a reasonable
debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR.
In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s
financial problems are long-standing. To his credit, he has consistently paid his
11
education loans, which reflects a track record for paying some of his debts. He delayed
filing his 2010 federal and state income tax returns because he did not have a 1099
form, instead of making inquiries about how he should manage this issue. He recently
filed the returns when he learned that he could amend his tax return when he received
the 1099 form. Applicant has not been diligent about resolving his financial issues,
ignoring many of the smaller debts until recently. His household income is improving
because his girlfriend found a steady job. While his unpaid SOR debts are not large, he
has an outstanding federal and state tax debt, which he has not resolved. He needs
more time to work out his finances and gain control over his debts.
Applicant’s use of marijuana in high school and college was far enough in the past
not to be a security concern. His decision to start using marijuana again in 2013 is a
security concern. When he completed his e-QIP and when he met with the OPM
investigator, he stated that he had no intent to use marijuana in the future. Yet, just a few
months later, he resumed his marijuana use, which showed poor judgment and decision
making by him. He continued his use of marijuana until he underwent a workplace drug
test. He knew he would fail the test. Before he received the results, he spoke with his
company president about his conduct and discussed how to proceed. Applicant agreed
to company-sponsored random drug tests and has passed the two given. His decision to
met with the company president before the drug-test results were received, showed an
improvement in his judgment. It has been less than one year since Applicant failed his
drug test and since he stopped his marijuana use. Although he stays away from his
friends when they are using marijuana, he continues to spend sometime with them. His
recent drug evaluation contained no diagnosis of a drug problem and recommended no
treatment, which reflects positively on him. Marijuana is an illegal drug and Applicant’s
recent decision to resume use of this drug when he knew he was under consideration for
a security clearance raises concerns about his judgment and reliability. Sufficient time
has not passed for me to be confident that he will continue with his goal of remaining
abstinent from marijuana use. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances and
drug use under Guidelines F and H.
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 F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
12
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: 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 a security clearance is denied.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge