1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 14-02614 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Adrienne Strzelczyk, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is denied. Applicant did not present sufficient information to 
mitigate security concerns for criminal conduct and alcohol consumption. He did present 
sufficient information to mitigate financial and personal conduct security concerns.   
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On July 11, 2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) as part of periodic background investigation to renew 
a security clearance for a position with a defense contractor. After an investigation 
conducted by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Department of Defense 
(DOD) could not make the affirmative findings required to renew a security clearance. 
On August 25, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns for criminal conduct under Guideline J, 
alcohol consumption under Guideline G, financial considerations under Guideline F, and 
personal conduct under Guideline E. These actions were taken under Executive Order 
10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as 
 
2 
 
 
amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel 
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the 
adjudicative guidelines (AG). Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on September 
3, 2014. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on September 20, 2014. He admitted all of the 
SOR allegations concerning criminal conduct, alcohol consumption, and financial 
considerations. He denied the two allegations of personal conduct for falsification of 
responses on his e-QIP. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on May 27, 
2015, and the case was assigned to me on June 8, 2015. The Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on July 2, 2015, for a hearing 
on July 29, 2015. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notice of hearing on July 10, 
2015. I convened the hearing as scheduled. The Government offered six exhibits that I 
marked and admitted into the record without objection as Government exhibits (GX) 1 
through 6. Applicant testified. I left the record open for Applicant to submit documents. 
Applicant’s timely submitted two documents which I marked and admitted into the 
record without objection as Applicant Exhibits (AX) A and B. (GX 7, e-Mail, dated 
August 17, 2015). DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on August 6, 2015. 
The record closed on August 17, 2015, on receipt of Applicant’s post-hearing 
submissions.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following findings of fact. Applicant’s admissions are included in my findings of fact.  
 
Applicant is 61 years old and has worked in a shipyard for a defense contractor 
as a welder since 1973, over 43 years. He worked on nuclear components on Navy 
ships most of the time, but because of failing eyesight from welding, he is now an 
electrical tack welder. He married in 1976 and had two children. His daughter is now 30. 
His son passed away in 2009. He has three grandchildren. He has been eligible for 
access to classified information since 1991. His last previous periodic background 
investigation was in February 2007, and he was last granted eligibility for access to 
classified information in July 2007. (Tr. 23-28; GX 1, e-QIP, dated July 11, 2012)  
 
The SOR alleges criminal conduct for drug use and possession in 1985, driving 
under the influence in 1995 and 2012; felon in possession of a firearm in 2006; 
discharge of a firearm in 2000; alcohol consumption to excess and to the point of 
intoxication from 1976 until March 2013; registering .039 alcohol content on a vehicle 
interlock device in March 2013; and driving while intoxicated in 1995 and 2012. It also 
alleges 15 delinquent debts for student loans, medical bills, credit cards, telephone 
service, and cable television service; and two allegations of deliberately providing false 
information in response to financial questions on his security clearance application of 
July 11, 2012. Applicant admitted all allegations except the falsification allegations.  
 
 
3 
 
 
The SOR lists seven allegations of criminal conduct. In chronical order, the first 
two offenses happened in 1985 and are linked. (SOR 1.e and 1.g) Applicant and his 
wife were driving in their car returning from a party in a state neighboring the state 
where they lived when stopped by the police. Applicant gave the police officer 
permission to search the car. A significant number of pills were discovered between the 
front seats of the car. Applicant and his wife told the police office that they were 
unaware of the pills. The initial tests of the drugs by the police officer were negative for 
an illegal substance. Applicant was allowed to return home while the drugs were further 
processed. When the drugs were confirmed as LSD, the neighboring state issued a 
fugitive warrant for Applicant’s arrest. Applicant was informed by his local police that he 
was listed by the neighboring state as a fugitive from justice. Applicant returned to the 
neighboring state, pled guilty to the felony offenses of possession of LSD and 
possession with intent to sell, and was sentenced to 20 weekends in jail, a fine, and five 
years of probation. He completed all parts of his sentence. Because of his good record 
in completing the 20 weekends in jail, Applicant only had to serve a little more than 2 
years on probation. The fugitive from justice offense was not prosecuted. Applicant also 
admitted that he was charged with possession of marijuana in 1985 (SOR 1.f) but the 
charge was dismissed. (Tr. 28-33; GX 2, Personal Subject Interview, dated March 18, 
2013 at 5; GX 4, Criminal Record Report, dated April 29, 2012 at 4) 
 
Applicant admits that in 1995, he was charged with driving under the influence of 
alcohol (DWI). Applicant was taking trash to the dump and had an open bottle of beer 
between his legs. He had a breathalyzer test with a .08 result. He was found guilty of 
DWI and was sentenced to probation and a restricted driver’s license. (SOR 1.d) 
Applicant did not stop drinking alcohol after this offense. He voluntarily gave up his 
driver’s license and did not drive a car for seven years. (Tr. 33-35, 45-47) 
 
Applicant admitted SOR allegations 1.b and 1.c concerning the possession of a 
firearm by a felon, and the discharge of a firearm. Since the LSD offenses in 1985 were 
felonies, Applicant could not be in possession of a firearm. He was not successful in 
disposing of a pistol he owned. He instead left it at his father’s house. When his father 
passed away in 2006, he retrieved the pistol. He went to a secluded area and fired the 
pistol (SOR 1.c)1. Police were nearby, heard the shots, and confiscated Applicant’s 
pistol. A few months later, Applicant tried to retrieve the pistol from the police. He was 
told that as a felon he could not possess a firearm. He was charged with possession 
and transport of a firearm by a felon and sentenced to 12 months in jail (suspended) 
and a fine. (Tr. 35-4; GX 4, Criminal Record Report)  
 
Applicant’s last grant of eligibility for access to classified information was in 
August 2007. He had submitted a security clearance application (SCA) in February 
2007. Since the above offenses happened prior to the submission of the SCA and the 
adjudication, it is assumed that the criminal offenses were considered during that 
adjudication process. These offenses will be considered as part of this adjudication 
because it shows a continuous course of criminal conduct by Applicant.  
                                                          
1 The date in the SOR is wrong. Applicant testified that the offense happened in 2006 and not 2000. 
 
4 
 
 
Applicant admits that he was arrested for DWI in April 2012. Applicant had been 
drinking beer at his brother-in-law’s house. On his way home, he ran off the road. He 
failed a blood alcohol breathalyzer with a .11 BAC. He was found guilty of DWI and 
sentenced to 30 days confinement suspended, attendance at the state alcohol abuse 
program (ASAP), an interlock device on his car for six months, driver’s license 
restrictions, and a fine (SOR 1.a). Applicant completed all parts of the sentence. While 
in ASAP, he was advised by the counselors that he was an alcoholic. He completed the 
ASAP which required him to attend the program one day a week for 22 week. Some of 
the sessions were group sessions and some were individual counseling. He did not 
drink alcohol while in the program, and passed all tests in the program looking for 
alcohol consumption. (Tr. 48-52; GX 3, Court Document, date May 10, 2013)  
 
The SOR has three allegations of alcohol consumption; excess consumption of 
alcohol to the point of intoxication from 1976 until March 2013 (SOR 2.a); an interlock 
failure in March 2013 (SOR 2.b); and the two DWIs noted above (SOR 2.c). Applicant 
testified he started drinking beer when he was in his early 20s in the mid-1970s. He only 
drank beer and drank five to seven days a week. He usually had a beer immediately 
after leaving work before going home. At home, he had a few more beers depending on 
his activities that day. He estimates that he drinks between 120 and 160 ounces of beer 
a week. He was intoxicated at times but does not normally drink to the point of 
intoxication. He has never gone to work intoxicated. Applicant has not been required to 
attend any alcohol prevention or counseling programs, except the ASAP program noted 
above. He does not believe he has an alcohol consumption problem. (Tr. 18-19, 48-51) 
 
After his DWI in 2012, Applicant was sentenced to have an interlock device 
placed on his car for six months. In March 2013, he was able to start his car to drive to 
work after he blew into the interlock device. After a few minutes, he was required to 
blow into the device again. This time his car stopped and he was not able to get it 
stated. His wife had to take him to work. The interlock device registered a .39 BAC 
when it was checked. He had to have the interlock device on his car for an additional six 
months. He stopped drinking beer after this incident for about a year. He started 
drinking beer again in mid-2014, and is now back consuming beer at the rate noted 
above. (Tr. 52-55)  
 
The SOR lists 13 delinquent debts of security concern. These debts are 
confirmed by Applicant’s SOR response, his admissions, and the credit reports entered 
into evidence by Department Counsel. (Tr.12-15: GX 5, dated April 9, 2014; GX 6, 
dated July 28, 2012) The delinquent accounts include two debts in collection to a school 
for tuition (SOR 3.a and 3.b), medical debts in collection or judgments (SOR 3.c, 3.d, 
3.e, 3.f, 3.h, 3.i, 3.k, 3.l, and 3.n) credit card (SOR 3.g), and telephone debts (SOR 3.j, 
3.m, and 3.0).  
 
The school tuition debts at SOR 3.a and 3.b are the same debt. The debt is for 
tuition for courses Applicant has been taking to prepare for a retirement job repairing 
small engines. He has been paying $50 monthly on the debt. His last payment was in 
 
5 
 
 
mid-July, just before the hearing, and the balance is $840. (Tr. 58-59; AX A, Statement, 
dated July 30, 2015)  
 
Applicant always had medical insurance through his employment. He believes 
the medical debt for $562 at SOR 3.c may be his medical debt for dental procedures, 
but he is not sure. He has dental insurance, and his last dental work should have been 
covered by his insurance. He believes the medical debt at SOR 3.f may also be his debt 
for medical treatment. Based on the credit report, he does not know who to contact 
about the debts. (Tr. 58-60) The credit card debt at 3.g has been paid in full. (AX B, 
Letter, dated July 30, 2015) 
 
Applicant attributes the debts at SOR 3.d, 3.e, and 3.h to 3.o to his son. 
Applicant’s son has the same name as Applicant. His son died in 2009 of a serious 
infectious disease. Applicant believes his son used his social security number to 
accumulate the medical and telephone debts. The circumstances of his son’s death add 
credibility to the belief that the son would use Applicant’s social security number to incur 
medical and credit card debt. He did not learn of the debts until confronted with the 
debts by the OPM security investigator. He did not contact police about his son using 
his identity, since his son had died by the time he learned of the debts. He contacted 
some of the creditors for his son’s debts but has not been able resolve the debt. The 
debts he identified as his son’s debts have not been paid. (Tr. 59-68). 
 
Applicant was aware he had at least four delinquent debts when he completed 
the e-QIP in July 2012. He did not know of the rest of the debts or judgments entered 
against him. He did not list any delinquent debts in response to question 26, asking in 
the last seven years if he had any judgement entered against him or any delinquent 
debt more than 120 days delinquent. He knew of four debts. He paid one, was paying 
another, and he did not know who to pay since most of his known delinquent debts were 
in the hands of collection agencies. He did not consider them as delinquent and 
required to be listed on the e-QIP. Also, he did not fully read the question and stopped 
reading after it said “child support.” Since he did not pay child support, he did not read 
the question further. I find Applicant’s testimony on this point credible. Based on 
Applicant’s testimony at the hearing, it is conceivable that he would not read an entire 
question before answering the question. (Tr. 68-80)  
 
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 must be considered 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 
 
6 
 
 
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 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 
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 protect 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Criminal Conduct 
 
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness. By its very nature it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness 
to comply with laws, rules, and regulations (AG ¶ 30). Applicant has a history of criminal 
conduct dating to 1985. The history included two DWIs, possession of LSD with intent to 
sell, and felon in possession of a firearm. This information raises security concerns and 
questions about Applicant’s judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and his ability and 
willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. This information is sufficient to 
raise the following Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions under AG ¶ 31: 
 
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; and 
 
 
7 
 
 
(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the 
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted.  
 
I considered the following Criminal Conduct Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 32: 
 
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur 
and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or 
good judgment; and 
 
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited 
to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or 
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or 
constructive community involvement.  
 
The mitigating conditions do not apply. Most of Applicant’s criminal offenses 
happened as early as 1985 and were considered in the 2007 decision to grant him 
eligibility for access to classified information. However, the DWI offense in 2012 shows 
that he has continued his criminal course of conduct. While there is no "bright line" rule 
for determining when conduct is recent or sufficient time has passed since the incidents 
to show rehabilitation, a determination whether past conduct affects an individual's 
present reliability and trustworthiness must be based on a careful evaluation of the 
totality of the evidence. There must be an evaluation whether there is a change of 
circumstances or conduct sufficient to indicate a finding of reform or rehabilitation. 
Applicant has not presented any information to show he has been rehabilitated. He 
continues to consume alcohol, which could lead to further criminal offenses. His past 
and present criminal conduct reflects adversely on his current reliability, trustworthiness, 
or good judgment. Applicant has not mitigated the criminal conduct security concerns. 
 
Alcohol Consumption 
 
Excessive alcohol consumption is a security concern because it 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 ¶ 21) 
 
The two DWIs were alleged as alcohol consumption security concerns. Applicant 
was charged with DWI in 1995 and again in 2012. In addition, he had a car interlock 
device failure in 2013. These incidents raise Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying 
Conditions AG ¶ 22(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). 
 
The mitigating conditions under alcohol consumption are similar to the mitigating 
conditions for criminal conduct. They consider the passage of time, the circumstances 
 
8 
 
 
of the offense, and rehabilitation. I considered the following Alcohol Consumption 
Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 23: 
 
(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; and  
 
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol 
abuse, provides evidence of action taken to overcome this problem, and 
has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or 
responsible use (if an alcohol abuser).  
 
These mitigating conditions do not apply. Applicant completed all aspects of his 
sentence for the 2012 DWI. Sufficient time (six months) has passed since the interlock 
device was reactivated after the failure in March 2013, so the device has been removed 
from his car. However, Applicant continues to consume significant amounts of beer 
almost daily. He was told he was an alcoholic, but he continues to consume alcohol. He 
is not in any rehabilitation or aftercare programs. His alcohol consumption continues to 
cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Applicant failed to 
present sufficient information to mitigate the security concerns for alcohol consumption.  
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 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, thereby raising 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 ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his obligations to protect classified 
information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an 
indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
 A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage finances in such a way as to meet financial 
obligations.  
 
 Adverse information in credit reports can normally meet the substantial evidence 
standard to establish financial delinquency. Applicant’s history of delinquent debts is 
documented in his credit report, the OPM interview, and his SOR response. Applicant’s 
delinquent debts are a security concern. The evidence is sufficient to raise security 
 
9 
 
 
concerns under Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability 
or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial 
obligations). The information raises both an inability and an unwillingness to pay 
delinquent debt.   
 
 I considered the following Financial Consideration Mitigating Conditions under 
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; 
 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problems 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 has initiated a good-faith effort to repay the 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 provided 
documented proof to substantial the basis for the dispute or provide 
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.  
 
 The mitigating conditions apply. Applicant credibly testified that most of the 
delinquent debts (SOR 3.d, 3.e, and 3.h to 3.o) were incurred by his son, who had the 
same name as Applicant, using Applicant’s social security number. His son passed 
away in 2009, and Applicant did not learn of the delinquent debts until informed of them 
by a security investigator. Of the debts that are attributed to Applicant, two are 
duplicates and being paid (SOR 3.a and 3.b); one is paid (SOR 3.g). Applicant does not 
have sufficient information concerning the two remaining debts to initiate payment.  
 
 Applicant has shown that he acted reasonably and responsibly under the 
circumstances to learn about the debts and try to resolve the financial issues. While he 
has not shown that he received financial advice or counseling, his debts are being 
resolve or under control. Applicant has been reasonable and responsible in regard to 
his finances. He presented sufficient information to mitigate security concerns for 
financial considerations.  
 
 
 
10 
 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 Personal conduct is a security concern because conduct involving questionable 
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and 
regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and 
ability to protect classified and sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to 
provide truthful and candid answers during the process to determine eligibility for 
access to classified information or any other failure to cooperate with this process (AG ¶ 
15). Personal conduct is always a security concern because it asks whether the 
person’s past conduct justifies confidence the person can be trusted to properly 
safeguard classified or sensitive information. Authorization for a security clearance 
depends on the individual providing correct and accurate information. If a person 
conceals or provides false information, the security clearance process cannot function 
properly to ensure that granting access to classified or sensitive information is in the 
best interest of the United States Government.  
 
Applicant provided no derogatory financial information on his 2012 e-QIP. As 
noted in the SOR and the credit reports, Applicant had delinquent debts. His failure to 
list his delinquent debts raises the following Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 
under AG ¶ 16: 
 
(a) the deliberate omission concealment, or falsification of relevant facts 
from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or 
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment 
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security eligibility or 
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.  
 
 Applicant denied intentional falsification for failing to list any delinquent debts on 
his security clearance application. Applicant acknowledged that at the time he 
completed his e-QIP, he knew he had some delinquent debt. He told the OPM 
investigator that he was unaware of his debts and believed that most of them were 
incurred by his son using his name and social security number. He also did not 
completely read the financial questions on the e-QIP before providing his answer. As 
soon as he saw the words “child custody”, he stopped reading and answered “no.” I 
found that Applicant credibly testified that he did not fully read the questions before 
answering. He did not deliberately with intent to deceive provide false information on the 
state of his finances.  
 
 While there is a security concern for a deliberate omission, concealment, or 
falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral statement to the 
Government when applying for a security clearance, not every omission, concealment, 
or inaccurate statement is a falsification. A falsification must be deliberate and material. 
It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and willfully with intent to deceive. I find Applicant 
did not deliberately fail to provide correct and accurate financial information on the 
security clearance application. I find for Applicant as to personal conduct.  
 
11 
 
 
Whole-Person Analysis  
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and 
the relevant circumstances. An 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 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. I considered Applicant’s over 43 
years of service in a shipyard supporting the Navy. Applicant has a history of criminal 
conduct and alcohol consumption. Applicant has not presented adequate information to 
establish that sufficient time has passed from the incidents to show he has been 
rehabilitated and ceased his criminal conduct and excess consumption of alcohol. 
Applicant’s history shows that he may not be reliable and trustworthy and have the 
ability to protect classified information. The record evidence leaves me with questions 
and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all 
these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated alcohol consumption and criminal 
conduct security concerns. He mitigated financial and personal conduct security 
concerns. 
 
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 J:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.g:   Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline G:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a – 2.c:  Against Applicant 
 
 
12 
 
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline F:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 3.a – 3.o:  For Applicant  
 
 Paragraph 4, Guideline E:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 4.a – 4.b:  For 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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge