The Government submitted eight items for the record.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-10453
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A, Administrative Judge:
On January 29, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline E (Personal
Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense
(DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines
(AG), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a review based on the written
record in lieu of a hearing. The case was assigned to me on July 13, 2015. Department
Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated April 27, 2015.  Applicant1
received the FORM on May 6, 2015. Applicant did not submit any information in
2
response to the FORM.  Based on a review of the case file, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted and denied the factual allegations
under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption),  and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct). 
Applicant is a 48-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He obtained his
GED in 2001.  Applicant is married and has children.  He has worked for his current
employer since 2012. (Item 3) This is his first application for a security clearance.
Financial
The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to file his federal income tax returns for tax
years 2003 through 2010; that he has a 2011 tax lien in the amount of $71,103; that he
failed to file his state tax returns for tax years 2003 through 2010; and that he is
indebted to the state for delinquent tax years 2003 through 2008 in an amount of
approximately $4,800. The SOR alleges six collection accounts totaling approximately
$4,000. (Item 1)
Applicant admits that he did not file his federal or state income tax returns for tax
years in question. He acknowledges that these were  poor decisions. (Item 4) He
denies the responsibility for debts 1.e through 1.k. He stated that  “vehicle insurance”
was responsible for the debts. There is nothing in the record to show that Applicant has
addressed the collection accounts. He has not sought financial counseling or debt
consolidation. (Item 4) Applicant did not submit any documentation that he filed the
returns or paid the income taxes due. Applicant claims that he filed the tax returns in
March 2012 after realizing that he needed to grow up and straighten his life. He did not
submit any evidence to confirm his assertion. There is no documentation to show that
Applicant has paid or resolved any of the state or Federal taxes owed. Applicant noted
on his completed 2012 SF-86 that he thought that taxes were taken out by the
contractor who employed him. He also stated that he had been in touch with the IRS
and was seeking advice from a tax attorney to resolve the issues. The record does not
contain any documentation to support this claim, and Applicant did not submit any
information in response to the FORM. 
Applicant denied that he is indebted to the Federal government for a 2011 tax
lien (1.b). He states that as of August 2014 he is paying bi-weekly and will continue to
do so until the debt is paid. Applicant submitted a release of levy, dated August 22,
2014, but the garnishment of his salary does not indicate that it is for the lien alleged in
question. (Item 2) The federal tax lien of $71,103 is verified in the document marked
Item 6. There is no information in the record that shows a payment agreement with the
IRS for the federal lien.
Applicant was also charged with marijuana related incidents and failure to stop or return to scene of an      2
accident.
3
Personal Conduct
Although Applicant denied the allegations under the personal conduct guideline,
the conduct is based on the allegations under the financial considerations guideline 1.a
and 1.c for not filing federal and state income tax returns from 2003 through 2010. He
admitted under Guideline F that he did not do so. Although, he claimed that he filed in
2012, he presented no proof.
Alcohol Consumption 
Applicant admitted SOR allegation 3.a through 3.d concerning his alcohol driving
convictions. He denied 3.e which alleged that he continues to drink to the point of
intoxication approximately twice a month. However, this is in conflict with his 2012
investigative interview. (Item 4) 
 Applicant has a history of arrests and charges for driving under the influence
from 1986 until 2009. Applicant reported his four DUI incidents on his security
clearance application. He pled nolo to the 1986  DUI charge. He was found guilty of
possession of marijuana, hit and run and alcohol offense by furnishing alcohol to a
person below legal age.2
In 1995, Applicant was arrested and charged with misdemeanor DUI, and felony
habitual offender. He pled nolo to the DUI charge, the prosecution of the habitual
offender charge was deferred. He was sentenced to jail for 12 months (suspended) and
ordered to pay a fine for the DUI offense.
In August 2007, Applicant was arrested and charged with misdemeanor DUI . He
pled guilty; his license was revoked for six months; and he was fined. He was ordered
to complete a DUI class and was placed on probation for one year.
In September 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with misdemeanor DUI
and battery. He was convicted of the DUI charge. He was confined for 24 hours,
ordered to perform 40 hours of community service, fined, and placed on probation for
12 months. 
Since 2009, Applicant has continued to drink, to include drinking to the point of
intoxication approximately twice a month. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant stated
that he no longer gets intoxicated. He claims that he started AA in 2009 and believes he
has become a better person. He states that since coming to work for his current
employer he is making progress. 
Applicant explained in his 2012 investigative interview that he does not recall
completing his alcohol education class or community service. In response to questions
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      3
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      4
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
4
during the interview he stated that he attended AA classes in 1986 after the first DUI.
Applicant stated that he first used alcohol when he was 15 years old. He would drink
beer at home. At age 19, Applicant changed from drinking beer to whiskey on the
weekends.  He noted that from 2009 to the present he has three to four beers on the
weekend. He noted that he may still become intoxicated every other weekend at home.
There is no evidence in the record that Applicant has been evaluated for alcohol
abuse, or that he has attended any counseling or treatment related to alcohol. There is
no indication that Applicant currently attends AA.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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.
The United States Government must present evidence to establish controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. 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. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a3
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  4 5
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      6
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      7
 Id.      8
5
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance6
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt7
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a8
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
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.”
AG ¶ 22 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying:
(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;
(b) alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or
duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on the job,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol
abuser or alcohol dependent;
(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;
6
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g.,
physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or
alcohol dependence;
(e) evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence by a
licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a
recognized alcohol treatment program;
(f) relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and
completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program; and,
(g) failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education,
evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.
Applicant has a history of alcohol-related incidents. His convictions for
DUI started at the age of 19 and continued until 42.  AG ¶ 22(a) and (c) apply.
AG ¶ 23 provides conditions that could mitigate 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.
After considering the mitigating conditions, I find that given the information
in this record, Applicant has not mitigated the alcohol concern. His last  DUI was
in 2009. Given his pattern of alcohol use over a 23 year span and the fact that he
7
states that he still sometimes drinks to intoxication does not provide mitigation.
There is not sufficient information in the record to meet his burden.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.” It also
states that “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk
of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
Applicant admitted that he failed to file federal and state income tax
returns from 2003 through 2010. He had no valid reason for not doing so. He
incurred delinquent debts. He did not pay his taxes (federal or state), incurred tax
liens, and failed to pay several bills. Consequently, Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy
debts),  and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations)
apply. Also 19(g) (failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns
as required or the fraudulent filing of the same) is applicable. With such
conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against him and
mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant has not provided any evidence to mitigate the current security
concern under Guideline F. He did not present evidence that he filed the returns,
despite his claim that he did so in 2012. He provided no information on any
payments or plans to address the taxes or debts. Consequently, Financial
Considerations Mitigating Condition (FCMC) AG ¶ 20(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) does not apply.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior 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) applies. As noted, Applicant answered that he just made a poor
decision not to file and that he did not act as a grown person. There is no
evidence that he acted reasonably under the circumstances. He has not
submitted documentation to show that he has resolved or is resolving his
delinquent debts. This mitigating condition does not apply.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies. Applicant has not provided
8
evidence of any payment plans.. His failure to provide information about financial
counseling obviates the applicability of FC MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has
received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control).
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
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.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying. Under AG ¶ 16(c), a disqualifying conditions exists when there
is  “Credible adverse information in several adjudicative 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.” 
Applicant’s failure to file his Federal and State tax returns from 2003
through 2010 or pay any taxes or penalties is a security concern. There is no
evidence in the record that he contacted the IRS or state authorities at the time
he was required to file, in order to explore his options. The failure to file tax
returns suggests that Applicant has a problem with complying with rules.
Voluntary compliance with rules and systems is essential for protecting classified
information. Applicant’s failure to file his tax returns precludes a finding that he
has the good judgment and reliability needed to be cleared for access to
classified information. 
After considering the mitigating conditions outlined in AG ¶ 17, I conclude
that none of them apply.  Applicant has not  taken steps to alleviate and change
his behavior and that this is unlikely to recur.  I have  doubts about his good
judgment and reliability. He has not  provided information in this record to show
that he has met his burden of proof to mitigate the personal conduct concern.
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 the circumstances. The administrative judge should
consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
9
(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. As noted
above, the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security
clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light
of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-
person factors. Applicant is 48 years old. He has had a pattern of financial,
alcohol, and personal conduct concerns over a span of 23 years.
He did not provide any information in response to the FORM to provide
evidence that he has mitigated any of the three guidelines. He has not met his
burden of proof. I have doubts about his judgment and reliability based on the
record. Any doubts must be resolved in favor of the national security.  
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1k: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a -3.e: For Applicant
10
 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 a security
clearance. Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge