1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-02332
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline E. Heintzelman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Mark S. Zaid, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant had several alcohol-related incidents, and incurred some formerly
delinquent debt. He has resolved all of the debt, has no current alcohol problem, and
has no recent incidents of security concern. Based upon a review of the pleadings,
testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on February 1, 2014. On
September 3, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility
(DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security
concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline F (Financial
Considerations). 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), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, effective within the
Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
2
Applicant answered the SOR in writing (AR) on September 30, 2014, and
requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared
to proceed on January 28, 2015. The case was assigned to me on February 2, 2015.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on
February 25, 2015, setting the hearing date for March 17, 2015. I convened the hearing
as scheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5, which were admitted
without objection, and Hearing Exhibit (HE) I, a Government exhibit list. Applicant
offered Exhibits (AE) A through M, which were admitted without objection, and his
exhibit list that was marked HE II. HE III is a copy of the statute of which Applicant was
convicted, and which was added to the record with consent of both counsel. Applicant
and four other witnesses testified on his behalf. I granted Applicant’s request to leave
the record open until April 6, 2015, for submission of additional evidence. Applicant
affirmatively declined to submit additional evidence on that date. DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on March 26, 2015. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 34-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he has
worked since October 2012. He is a high school graduate, and has taken some college
classes. He is engaged to be married, for the second time, to a woman who has two
children. He served a six-year enlistment in the Army, and earned an honorable
discharge as a staff sergeant in March 2007. He worked for another defense contractor
between his active service and his current job. He has held a security clearance since
his Army basic training. (GE 1; AE B; Tr. 64, 79-81.) 
Applicant admitted the factual allegations set forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.c, and 2.a,
with explanations. He denied the remaining allegations, also with explanations, because
they contained incorrect details concerning incidents for which he provided accurate
information. (AR.) Applicant’s admissions and explanations are incorporated in the
following findings.
Applicant admitted that he experimented with alcohol during his teenage years,
and has consumed alcohol in moderation since becoming an adult. He had two minor
incidents involving underage drinking in 1996 and 1998 that led to police involvement,
primarily due to the misbehavior of friends with whom he had consumed alcohol. (SOR
¶¶ 1.d and 1.e.) Neither incident resulted in any criminal charges against Applicant, but
he and his mother were required to attend an eight-hour class after the first, when he
was age 15. (AR; GE 3; Tr. 101-113, 118-121.)
While on active duty in the Army and stationed in Korea in 2003, Applicant was
involved in an alcohol-related incident in which he was assaulted by another soldier and
injured upon returning to base after a minor dispute over the attentions of a young
woman in a bar where they had all been drinking. The other soldier received non-judicial
punishment for the assault, but Applicant was not disciplined. Army policy at the time
required participation in the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) after
involvement in such an incident, so Applicant self-referred into ASAP. He benefitted
3
from the program, and significantly reduced the frequency and amount of his alcohol
consumption thereafter. (AR; GE 2; GE 3; GE 4; Tr. 113-117, 173-174.)  
Applicant married another soldier in 2004. They both left active duty in 2007,
after their second deployment to Iraq. Applicant later deployed to Afghanistan as a
civilian contractor for about a year to earn some extra money, returning in November
2011. While he was overseas, his wife initiated a legal separation pending divorce.
Applicant, while attempting to establish a new social life, was arrested on September
23, 2012, for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). He had driven to a local bar with some
friends for a night of socializing, and had arranged for his sister to come and pick them
up as their designated driver at the end of the evening. Around midnight he tried to
contact his sister, without success. He stopped drinking and waited for about an hour
and a half, while continuing to try to contact his sister. Eventually he felt that he was
sober enough to drive safely and, having agreed to be responsible to his friends for
providing a ride home, left the bar driving his car. He was stopped shortly thereafter for
speeding about 10 miles per hour over the limit, and a subsequent breath test revealed
his blood alcohol content (BAC) to be .089. The legal limit is a BAC of .08, so he was
charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) before being released and taken home
by the police officer. (AR; GE 1; Tr. 121-126, 175-176.) 
Applicant’s attorney obtained several continuances in the court proceedings on
his DUI charge, during which he underwent an alcohol assessment that resulted in a
finding of, “No Significant Problem.” He also attended the state’s mandatory eight-hour
alcohol and drug abuse awareness class and a DUI victims’ impact panel to satisfy
anticipated court requirements. No other treatment program was either required or
recommended. On February 21, 2013, Applicant’s DUI charge was dismissed and he
pled guilty to the misdemeanor lesser offense of alcohol-related negligent driving. He
was sentenced to 90 days in jail, all of which was suspended, and ordered to pay a fine
and court fees totaling $663. He satisfactorily complied with all court requirements and
no subsequent criminal or alcohol-related incidents have occurred. (AR; GE 1; HE III;
Tr. 126-130.)  
Applicant’s ex-wife was the primary borrower on the purchase money mortgage
loan for the home they owned together during their marriage. As a result of his wife’s
misappropriation of their marital assets before initiating their separation while he was
deployed in Afghanistan, the presiding judge awarded ownership of the home (and
debt) to him in the final divorce decree issued in December 2013. During the divorce
proceedings, neither Applicant nor his wife made mortgage payments toward the
disputed property, and the loan became delinquent as alleged in SOR ¶ 2(a). Applicant
remained in contact with the lender during that time, with the understanding that he
would enter into a loan modification agreement if he was awarded the property rather
than undergo foreclosure. During late January 2014, a good friend from his time in the
Army was staying in the home while Applicant was staying with his fiancée at her home.
One night while the friend was asleep, a chimney fire started and destroyed the house.
Applicant, following legal advice, held out for the higher home insurance payment
provided under his policy’s “Total Loss” provision instead of accepting the insurer’s
4
initial, lower settlement offer. In the meantime, Applicant entered into a November 2014
loan modification agreement with the mortgage lender that reduced his outstanding
principal balance from $294,365 to $98,500; and his interest rate from 4.375% to 2%.
He has fully complied with these modified loan terms, and the loan is in good standing.
On March 13, 2015, the Superior Court adjudicating the insurance claim for the fire
damages issued a summary judgment in Applicant’s favor, for compensation under the
Total Loss provision. Applicant will accordingly receive more than $405,000 (plus some
amount of interest) from his insurance company. (AR; GE 1; AE C; AE E; AE F; AE J;
Tr. 132-157.)   
The $406 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 2.b arose from a disputed billing by a doctor’s
office for an appointment that had to be cancelled because Applicant had been
scheduled to see the wrong person to perform the required treatment. He originally
thought the clinic’s desk staff said that they would take care of the issue, but found it
listed as a delinquency on his credit report in connection with applying for this
clearance. He found the bill easier to pay than to continue disputing, so he paid it on
May 2, 2014. (AR; GE 1; Tr. 131-132.)
Applicant met his current fiancée shortly before his DUI arrest in 2012. Since his
home burned down in January 2014, he has been living with her and her children in her
home. She works in the healthcare field, and they share an active and healthy lifestyle.
They consume alcohol on occasion, but not regularly or to excess. Their financial
situation was stable and solvent before Applicant’s recent award of more than $400,000
for his home insurance claim, and a substantial raise in his salary was pending at the
time of his hearing. Before issuance of the SOR, Applicant satisfactorily resolved
several other previously delinquent debts that were caused by his ex-wife before and
during their separation. He had two non-delinquent credit card accounts totaling about
$21,000 that he intended to pay in full from the insurance proceeds. Applicant’s financial
situation has fully recovered, and should continue to improve in the future. (AR; GE 1;
Tr. 82-95, 154, 158-163, 180.) 
Applicant provided compelling and uncontradicted evidence of his good military
service, conscientious compliance with security procedures, sound judgment, reliability,
trustworthiness, and demonstrated commitment to future responsible alcohol
consumption and financial responsibility. This included testimony and documentary
evidence from his fiancée, fellow soldiers, past and present supervisors and coworkers.
(AE A; AE B; AE D; AE G; AE H; AE I; AE K; AE L; AE M; Tr. 39-95.)
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
5
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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the 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, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
Analysis
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
AG ¶ 21 expresses the security concern pertaining to alcohol consumption:
Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about
an individual's reliability and trustworthiness.
6
AG ¶ 22 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The DCs raised by the allegations in the SOR and record evidence are:
(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under
the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or
other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; and
(c) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol
abuser or alcohol dependent. 
Applicant was stopped for speeding after leaving a bar in September 2012, and
his BAC was tested at .089; which was above the legal limit of .08 and resulted in his
conviction of alcohol-related negligent driving. He was assaulted and injured in a
confrontation after drinking while stationed in Korea in 2003, and had two alcohol-
related run-ins with law enforcement while in high school. He admitted having
consumed alcohol in excess on a few occasions over the past 20 years. These facts
support security concerns under the foregoing DCs.
AG ¶ 23 provides conditions that could mitigate alcohol consumption security
concerns:
(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or
does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness,
or good judgment;
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol
abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and
has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or
responsible use (if an alcohol abuser);
(c) the individual is a current employee who is participating in a counseling
or treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse,
and is making satisfactory progress; and
(d) the individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient
counseling or rehabilitation along with any required aftercare, has
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, such as
participation in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar
organization and has received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified
medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff
member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.
7
Applicant’s youthful alcohol experimentation before 1998 raises no present
security concerns. The 2003 incident, in which he was injured, resulted in his voluntary
ASAP attendance and a significant reduction in recreational drinking. His 2012 DUI
arrest resulted from the unexpected inability to contact his sister for a prearranged ride
home after an evening with friends at a bar, and his misjudgment about having stopped
drinking for long enough to be under the limit. He has been evaluated to have no
substance abuse problem, and has only consumed alcohol in moderation since that
incident. These incidents do not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment. Applicant met his burden to establish substantial mitigation under AG ¶
20(a). 
Applicant did not meet the full criteria to establish mitigation under the terms of
AG ¶¶ 23 (b), (c), or (d). He has neither met the criteria for, nor been diagnosed with,
alcohol abuse or dependence. He benefitted from the substance abuse education
programs he attended, but has never been recommended to attend a counseling or
treatment program. He is not abstinent, but drinks moderately and responsibly as called
for under AG ¶¶ 23(b) and (d), This establishes some additional, partial mitigation under
those provisions.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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 record evidence potentially raises security concerns under two Guideline F
DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
At the time of his application for this clearance, Applicant had some delinquent
debt issues. This evidence raised security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), thereby
shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. The
SOR allegations and evidence do not support any other DC under this guideline. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
8
(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;
(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; 
(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.
Applicant’s delinquent mortgage issue was directly related to his ex-wife’s
financial misconduct and their subsequent divorce proceedings. His medical bill was
initially disputed, for a valid reason, then paid. The evidence establishes that these
financial issues arose under unique circumstances, are unlikely to recur, and do not
reflect on his current reliability and judgment. Applicant established substantial
mitigation under AG ¶ 20(a). 
Applicant also offered evidence to support mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20(b), (c), and
(d) with respect to his formerly delinquent debts. He successfully renegotiated his home
mortgage on greatly improved terms, and simply paid off the disputed medical bill rather
than have it remain as a potential issue. He is in a solvent and steadily improving
financial position, with frugal spending habits that will prevent future issues. 
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 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
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
9
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
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a sincere
individual, who has matured after exhibiting some irresponsible conduct in his youth. He
accepted accountability for his earlier bad choices and actions, demonstrated
responsible conduct over the past several years, and resolved his financial issues. He
documented positive permanent behavioral changes and rehabilitation with respect to
both financial and alcohol-related issues that supported potential security concerns
earlier in his life. His conduct has eliminated the potential for pressure, coercion, or
duress, and makes continuation or recurrence of similar problems unlikely. Overall, the
record evidence creates no doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a
security clearance.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.e: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a and 2.b: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge