1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 14-06321
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his criminal conduct
and personal conduct. He also did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his
unresolved financial problems. His request for a security clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On May 25, 2013, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to renew his eligibility for a security clearance required
for his employment with a defense contractor. Based on the results of the ensuing
background investigation, Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators could not
  Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.1
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These2
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
2
determine that it is clearly consistent with the national interest for Applicant to continue
to hold a security clearance.1
On January 22, 2015, DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts
which raise security concerns addressed under the adjudicative guidelines  for criminal2
conduct (Guideline J), personal conduct (Guideline E), and financial considerations
(Guideline F). Applicant timely responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a
hearing. The case was assigned to me on October 1, 2015, and I convened a hearing
on October 23, 2015. The parties appeared as scheduled. Department Counsel
presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 10. Applicant and one witness testified.
Applicant also presented Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A - D. All exhibits were admitted
without objection. Additionally, I held the record open until November 6, 2015, so that
Applicant could submit additional relevant information. However, Applicant did not
provide a post-hearing submission. DOHA received a transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on
November 6, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline J (SOR 1.a), the Government alleged that in January 2004,
Applicant was charged with sexual battery - capital felony, 3  degree felony child abuse,rd
two counts of misdemeanor violation of a protective injunction against domestic
violence, and 3  degree felony neglect of a child. SOR 1.a further represented that in ard
January 2006 plea agreement, he was found guilty of the 3  felony degree child abuserd
and the misdemeanor violation of a protective injunction charges. The other two
charges were not further prosecuted, and Applicant was assessed a fine and court
costs, and placed on a total of five years of supervised probation for both convictions.
(SOR 1.a) The foregoing was cross-alleged under Guideline E. (SOR 2.a)
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owed $124,658 for
four past-due or delinquent debts (SOR 3.a - 3.d), the largest of which was a delinquent
$124,074 mortgage debt (SOR 3.a); and that he was 120 days past due for a mortgage,
with the property secured by that mortgage being in foreclosure. (SOR 3.e)
Applicant admitted, with explanations, the SOR 1.a allegations. (Answer; Tr. 60 -
62) He denied, with explanations, the SOR 2.a and 3.a - 3.e allegations. (Answer) In
addition to the facts established by Applicant’s admissions, I make the following findings
of fact.
Applicant is 69 years old. He and his wife have been married since August 1993.
Applicant was also married from 1969 until divorcing in 1993. From both marriages,
Applicant has two children of his own, now in their forties, and seven stepchildren
3
between the ages of 24 and 43. His youngest child is a girl born in 1991 to Applicant’s
current wife. Applicant adopted the girl as his own when she was 18 months old. (Gx. 1;
Gx. 2; Tr. 120)
Applicant enlisted in the U.S. Navy in August 1964. He served until April 1976,
when, after advancing to radioman chief petty officer (RMC), he was commissioned as a
limited duty officer (LDO). Applicant continued to serve until retiring in June 1988 as a
lieutenant commander with 24 years of honorable service. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2)
After he retired from the Navy, Applicant worked in the defense contracting
industry both as a direct employee and as an independent consultant. Most recently,
Applicant entered into a joint venture with a small defense contractor that was bought by
another company that is the current sponsor of Applicant’s request for clearance. He
has held a security clearance continuously and at various levels during his Navy career
and since he retired in 1988. As noted below, the adverse information that is at issue in
this case was the subject of an interview of Applicant by Government investigators in
March 2005; however, available information shows that only during the background
investigation subsequent to his 2013 EQIP was this information used to question
Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. It is possible only his access
to sensitive compartmented information (SCI) was revoked, but he has retained his
clearance without interruption. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 62 - 62, 120 - 121)
In February 2004, Applicant was indicted for sexual battery, a capital felony; for
lewd and lascivious behavior, a first degree felony; and for two misdemeanor counts of
violating an injunctive protection order. He turned himself in to the local police on
January 4, 2004, and was released on bail soon after. The charges were amended in
February 2004 to add a charge of child neglect. In January 2006, the charges were
further amended to change the charge of lewd and lascivious behavior to one of child
abuse, a third degree felony. Applicant pleaded guilty on January 10, 2006, to the
charges of child abuse and violating a protection order. The sexual battery and child
neglect charges were entered as nolle prosequi. He was placed on five years probation,
assessed fines and court costs, and ordered to complete counseling and therapy for sex
addiction. He was not required to register as a sex offender. Applicant completed all of
the court-imposed requirements and was released from probation two years early.
(Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2 - 7; Ax. C)
According to the final version of the indictments to which Applicant pleaded guilty
in January 2006 (Gx. 6), and the information about those charges contained in police
investigative records (Gx. 7), in 2003, Applicant committed several acts of sexually
inappropriate behavior with his adopted daughter. She was 12 years old at the time.
Those acts included touching the girl’s breasts as he observed that she was developing
in puberty. Also, he slept in the same bed as the girl on several occasions, but he did
not engage in intercourse with her. It also appears he engaged in other sexual acts with
the girl beginning when she was about seven years old. Information produced in
interviews with the girl (victim), her mother, and her mother’s sister suggests that, at
various times over the course of several years, Applicant placed his mouth on his
4
daughter’s vagina, put her hand on his penis, and had her watch pornographic videos
with him.
The victim brought Applicant’s conduct to her mother’s attention after her mother
became upset about the fact that Applicant had been having an affair with the mother’s
sister beginning in July 2003. Applicant has admitted inappropriate touching of his
daughter’s breasts in November 2003 and that he violated his daughter’s “boundaries.”
He also claimed that the pornography in question was on the victim’s computer, and
that Applicant regrets not making her remove it or counseling her about it. Applicant
further asserts that, at the time, his conduct was influenced by his addiction to alcohol,
and that his drinking had become markedly worse in July 2003. Police reports contain
statements by Applicant’s wife and the victim that corroborate Applicant’s alcoholism.
His wife expressed her hope that Applicant would get help with his drinking. She also
stated her belief that Applicant would not repeat his sexual misconduct in the future.
She further hoped that Applicant would not have to spend time in jail, and that he would
not lose his security clearance so he could keep working to support their family. In this
regard, Applicant’s wife cited medical problems she has had that prevent her from
working. (Answer; Gx. 7; Tr. 102 - 116)
As to the charges that Applicant twice violated injunctive protection orders,
pending the outcome of the other charges against him, he was ordered to have no
contact with his daughter. However, when all concerned were required to appear at the
courthouse for a preliminary hearing, the girl saw Applicant and went to hug him. On
another occasion, Applicant attended a church service, but did not know that his wife
and daughter had also begun attending the same church. Again, the girl went to
Applicant when she saw him. Applicant did not live with his wife and daughter from
November 2003 until February 2005. (Answer; Gx. 2 - 4; Gx. 7)
Applicant disclosed his arrests and his problems with alcohol to his facility
security officer (FSO) at or near the time of his arrest in January 2004. At that time, he
had stopped drinking and was in intensive outpatient alcohol rehabilitation. Based on an
adverse information report submitted by Applicant’s FSO, he was interviewed by a
Government investigator on March 3, 2005. When Applicant submitted his EQIP, he
disclosed the same information. On June 2013, he was again interviewed by a
Government investigator about the allegations at SOR 1.a, and about the financial
alleged at SOR 3.a - 3.e. Applicant had disclosed that information in his 2013 EQIP as
well. (Answer; Gx. 1 - Gx. 4; Ax. B; Tr. 63 - 64)
During Applicant’s June 2013 subject interview, he gave the investigator a letter
written by his daughter, who was then 22 years old. That letter was also presented at
hearing. In it, the purported author “disclaim[ed] the charges filed and eventual felony
conviction related to . . ., the victim identified by the police and court proceedings.” The
author goes on to state that Applicant “has accepted responsibility for what can be
categorized as boundary issues,” and that his poor judgment was the result of alcohol,
which he has not used since the incident in question. The author goes on to say that
she and Applicant “have enjoyed a normal and happy reunion and relationship for over
5
three years now.” Taken in context, that reunion occurred in about 2010, when his
daughter was about 19 years old. (Answer; Ax. A; Gx. 2; Tr. 45 - 46, 96 - 101)
In his 2013 EQIP, Applicant also disclosed several past-due or delinquent debts.
Credit reports obtained during the investigation and adjudication of his application
documented the debts alleged at SOR 3.a - 3.e. Applicant testified that he does not
have any clear recollection of the medical debts at SOR 3.b and 3.d, but thinks they are
among several bills for medical services for his wife, who has had significant health
issues over several years. He has paid the debt at SOR 3.d, and he also believes he
paid the debt at SOR 3.b, but he could not provide any corroborating documentation.
The debt at SOR 3.c is for a cable television and internet account that transferred with
him from his former residence in State A to his current residence in State B. The most
recent credit report available lists this account as a “paid collection.” (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx.
2; Gx. 8 - 10; Ax. D; Tr. 65 - 67, 82 - 83)
The largest debt alleged is a $124,074 mortgage that has been charged off as a
business loss. (SOR 3.a) The mortgage at issue is a second mortgage on a house that
Applicant owned in State A from 2001 until it was conveyed through a short-sale in
2012. Applicant fell behind on his ability to pay either mortgage when, in 2010, he found
himself unemployed. Applicant consulted an attorney who negotiated a short-sale that
clearly resolved the first mortgage. To complete the short-sale, the first mortgage holder
secured approval of the SOR 3.a lender to sell the house for less than the total
remaining balance of both mortgages. Applicant was relieved of his obligation for the
first mortgage, but the second remains unresolved. Applicant insists that the short-sale
satisfied both mortgage obligations. In support of his claim, he presented a court record
showing that a mortgage related to the property at issue was satisfied in March 2012.
However, it is not clear to which mortgage it pertains. Applicant also presented a
November 2014 letter from him to the SOR 3.a lender requesting confirmation that he
no longer is obligated for the second mortgage. No reply or other information about the
mortgage was presented. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 8 - 10; Ax. D; Tr. 65 - 66, 69 - 81)
The debt alleged at SOR 3.e is for a delinquent mortgage on undeveloped land in
State B. In 2008, Applicant bought 20 acres of land as a real estate development
investment. Unfortunately, the economic recession of 2007 caused the land’s value to
plummet and he was forced to sell. He executed a short-sale of all but eight acres,
choosing to retain the remaining land at a monthly mortgage payment of about $300.
Eventually he could not make those payments because his income had declined and he
was saddled with the costs of his legal defense for the matters addressed in SOR 1.a.
(For those costs, he borrowed $60,000 from a former employer and is repaying the loan
at $750 each month. See Tr. 92) The mortgage was foreclosed and Applicant claims he
has no remaining obligation. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 8 - 10; Ax. D; Tr. 83 - 87)
Applicant earns sufficient income from his Navy retired pay, VA disability
benefits, and Social Security to cover his routine monthly expenses. When he is
engaged in consulting agreements, he earns on average another $2,500 to $4,000
 See Directive. 6.3.3
6
monthly. Aside from the debts alleged in the SOR, Applicant has no other delinquent
debts. (Ax. D; Tr. 120 - 123)
Applicant presented a witness who owns the defense contractor that is
sponsoring Applicant’s current request for clearance. Applicant is responsible for up to
half of the business revenue earned by the company. She has known Applicant for
about 30 years, beginning when both were in the Navy. She recommended Applicant for
a position of trust, but it was unclear from her testimony that she was fully informed of
the issues raised by the Government through the SOR. Applicant also provided
recommendations from current and former professional associates. He has a reputation
for trustworthiness and integrity, as well as professional expertise and solid
performance. One letter is from a former associate who was Applicant’s FSO when he
was arrested, and corroborates Applicant’s statement that he timely disclosed his
criminal charges and his alcohol problems. (Ax. B; Tr. 47 - 59)
Applicant also provided several letters of recommendation and support. Two of
the letters were submitted by fellow members of the church Applicant has attended for
the past 11 years. Applicant began his alcoholism recovery through intensive inpatient
treatment in November 2003 and subsequent participation in Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA) for another year or two. Since about 2004, he has participated in a faith-based 12-
step recovery program through his new church. Both letters from his fellow parishioners
show that Applicant is active and fully vested in the church’s recovery group. They also
extol Applicant’s leadership in the church’s volunteer and missionary work. (Ax. B)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,3
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative
guidelines (AG). Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a)
of the guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors
are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.5
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).6
7
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified
information.
A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest  for an applicant to either receive or continue to4
have access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  A person who has access to classified information enters into a5
fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the
Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the
requisite judgment, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national
interests as his or her own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard
compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in
favor of the Government.6
Analysis
Criminal Conduct
The Government presented sufficient information to support the criminal conduct
allegations at SOR 1.a. Applicant was convicted of two counts of misdemeanor violation
of a protective injunction pertaining to his child pending the outcome of a law
enforcement investigation into his conduct with his daughter. Applicant also was
convicted of a third degree felony child abuse charge. This information reasonably
raises a security concern addressed at AG ¶ 30:
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.
More specifically, these facts and circumstances require application of the
disqualifying conditions at AG ¶¶ 31(a) (a single serious crime or multiple lesser
offenses) and 31(c) (allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether
the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted).
 DOHA Appeal Board Decision, ISCR Case No. 96-0525 (June 17, 1997); DOHA Appeal Board Decision,7
ISCR Case 99-0116 (May 1, 2000); DOHA Appeal Board Decision, ISCR Case No. 04-05712 (October 31,
2006).
8
Of the mitigating conditions listed at AG ¶ 32, I have considered, as pertinent to
these facts and circumstances, the following:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or
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 conduct for which Applicant was convicted occurred about 12 years before
the SOR was issued. He completed all of his counseling requirements without issue,
and he was released from supervised probation two years early. One of the factors
underlying his conduct was his abuse of alcohol, which had worsened in the months
leading up to his arrest. He is active in his church and, by extension, in his community.
All of his references express knowledge, not otherwise specified, of accusations made
against him, and they recommend him for continued access to classified information.
A remaining concern is that Applicant has tried to minimize the severity of the
conduct documented by the Government’s information. The letter from Applicant’s
daughter was admitted without objection, but I have afforded it little weight, for two
reasons. First, although most of the information presented by both parties is hearsay,
the rules of evidence are relaxed in these adjudications to allow the development of a
full record of reliable information on which an informed decision about Applicant’s
suitability for access may be based. While the police records provided by the
Government fall loosely within the business records or official records exceptions to the
hearsay rule, Applicant’s daughter’s letter does not. Second, although the letters of
reference may be afforded some persuasive value as the authors’ observations of
Applicant’s conduct in different facets of his current life, his daughter’s letter offers to
contradict the validity of Applicant’s felony conviction. The DOHA Appeal Board has
consistently held that a person is collaterally estopped from relitigating facts and
findings from a previous felony conviction.  Even were Applicant allowed to contest the7
basis of his 2006 felony conviction, there was no opportunity to cross examine the
author of the letter to establish its value. 
Applicant did not fully establish that he has accepted responsibility for the
conduct of which he was convicted. Without such acceptance, and given the serious
nature of the conduct at issue here, the passage of time and change of circumstances
9
are not enough to mitigate the security concerns raised by the Government’s
information.
Financial Considerations
Available information is sufficient to support the SOR allegations under this
guideline. The facts established reasonably raise a security concern about Applicant’s
finances that is addressed, in relevant part, at AG ¶ 18, as follows:
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.
More specifically, this record supports application of the disqualifying conditions
at AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not
meeting financial obligations).
I have also considered the following pertinent AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions:
(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.
AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply because most of the total debt at issue is still
unresolved. AG ¶ 20(b) only applies to SOR 3.a, the second mortgage on his home in
10
State A. This debt arose after he lost work and was eventually unable to make his
monthly payments. However, to be fully applicable, Applicant was required to show that
he acted responsibly in trying to resolve the debt. It may be that the short sale of the
first mortgage absolved him of his obligation to pay off the second. However, he did not
present documentation that supports this claim. None of the other debts arose from
unforeseen circumstances. I include the delinquent land investment debt at SOR 3.e
here, because Applicant decided to retain the land secured by that mortgage at the
same time he liquidated the rest of his land holdings through short sale. It was
completely within his control to take that risk. He did not present information showing he
has paid or otherwise resolved that debt.
As to the debts at SOR 3.b - 3.d, he has resolved those debts. AG 20(d) applies.
None of the remaining mitigating conditions apply. Applicant did not support his claims
that any of the debts are not valid and he did not establish that he has received financial
counseling or other professional help in resolving his debts. He also did not establish
that his finances are under control. To the contrary, he is repaying a business loan he
obtained to fund his legal defense, and available information does not show that he has
resolved or is repaying the debts at SOR 3.a and 3.e. On balance, available information
is not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns raised by the Government’s information
about Applicant’s finances.
Personal Conduct
The same information that raised security concerns about criminal conduct
reasonably cast doubt on Applicant’s personal conduct, as well. The security concern in
this regard is stated at AG ¶ 15:
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. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
I have considered the following AG ¶ 16 disqualifying conditions as potentially
applicable to these facts and circumstances:
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue 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;
11
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
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. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of:  
(1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client
confidentiality, release of proprietary information, unauthorized
release of sensitive corporate or other government protected
information; 
(2) disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior in the
workplace; 
(3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; 
(4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other
employer's time or resources; and
(e) personal conduct or concealment of information about one's conduct,
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's
personal, professional, or community standing, or (2) while in another
country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is
legal in that country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a
basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence
service or other group.
AG ¶ 16(d) does not apply, because the adverse information presented by the
Government is squarely addressed by the criminal conduct (AG ¶ 30) guideline. AG ¶
16(e) does not apply because there is no indication that Applicant has tried to conceal
his arrest or his financial problems. To the contrary, he disclosed his arrest (and his
alcohol problem) to his FSO at or near the time he turned himself in to the police in
January 2004. He disclosed his arrest and his delinquent debts in his 2013 EQIP. He
has a good reputation among his personal and professional associates, all of whom
know, at a minimum, that he was arrested and that he is an alcoholic.
Application of AG ¶ 16(c) is limited by my conclusions that the security concerns
established by the Government’s information about Applicant’s criminal conduct and
financial problems have not been mitigated. One or both of those security concerns are
sufficient to disqualify Applicant from holding a security clearance.
12
The Government’s information, as it pertains to this guideline, established that
Applicant showed exceedingly poor judgment when he violated the trust of his adopted
daughter. Available information falls most appropriately within the general security
concern articulated at AG ¶ 15.
By contrast, I have considered the following AG ¶ 16 mitigating conditions:
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment; and
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.
For the same reasons Applicant’s conduct was not mitigated under AG ¶ 32, I
conclude neither of the pertinent AG ¶ 16 mitigating conditions apply. Applicant’s
criminal conduct was not minor. It constituted a fundamental breach of trust that is not
overcome through the passage of time alone. In light of lingering questions about
whether he has accepted full responsibility for his conduct, available information is not
sufficient to mitigate the security concerns about his judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness.
I also have evaluated this record in the context of the whole-person factors listed
in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is a retired Navy officer and has been gainfully employed in the
defense industry since leaving the military. Applicant is dedicated to his work and has
an excellent reputation in his field. Applicant also is a recovering alcoholic and is active
in his church. However, at issue in this case are unmitigated criminal conduct and
unresolved financial problems that are fundamentally at odds with the Government’s
compelling interest in being able to trust Applicant’s judgment and trustworthiness. The
positive information presented is not sufficient to resolve the doubts about his suitability
for a clearance that have been raised by the financial, criminal conduct, and personal
conduct security concerns. Because protection of the national interest is the principal
focus of these adjudications, any remaining doubts must be resolved against the
Applicant.  
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
13
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a and 3.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 3.b - 3.d: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
for Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security
clearance is denied.
                                       
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge