1
       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-01168
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Nicole A. Smith, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
September 29, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On August 22, 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines F and G for Applicant.
(Item 1.) 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 (AG)
effective within the Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
On October 21, 2015, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 2.)
On December 9, 2015, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the
FORM, Department Counsel offered eight documentary exhibits (Items 1-8).  Applicant
was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on February 3, 2016. Applicant did not
submit additional evidence. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on April
2
1, 2016. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR and the FORM, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make
the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 37 years old. He has never been married and he has no children.
Applicant is a high school graduate. Applicant has been employed since 2012 by a DoD
Contractor, and he seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in
the defense sector. (Item 3.)
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)
The SOR lists seven allegations (1.a. through 1.g.) regarding financial difficulties,
specifically failing to file tax returns and overdue debts, under Adjudicative Guideline F.
The allegations will be discussed below in the same order as they were listed on the
SOR:
1.a.  It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant failed to file Federal income tax returns
for tax years 2008 through at least 2011. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR
and wrote, “I obtained my W-2s for 2008 - 2011 on 10/20 [2015?]. I am currently in the
process of filing them.” (Item 2.) No evidence was submitted to show that Applicant has
filed his Federal tax returns for tax years 2008 through 2011.
1.b.  This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a tax lien to State A, entered in
2012, in the approximate amount of $1,125. Applicant denied this allegation in his RSOR
and wrote, “I am in the process of a resolution.” (Item 2.) A full data credit report, dated
March 18, 2014, establishes that this tax lien is owed. (Item 5.) I do not find any evidence
has been introduced to establish that this tax lien has been resolved or reduced.
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $2,877. (Item 1.) Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR and wrote, “I am
currently trying to resolve.” (Item 2.) I do not find any evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account to a city
government in the amount of $170. (Item 1.) Applicant admitted this allegation in his
RSOR and wrote, “I am currently trying to resolve.” (Item 2.) I do not find any evidence
has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $451. (Item 1.) Applicant denied this allegation in his RSOR. (Item 2.) Item 5
establishes that this debt is owed. I do not find any evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.
3
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $451. (Item 1.) Applicant denied this allegation in his RSOR. (Item 2.) Item 5
establishes that this debt is owed. While this may be the same debt as 1.e., above, since
the amount owed is the same, Applicant did not establish that this is the same debt, and
I do not find any evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been
resolved or reduced.
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $345. (Item 1.) Applicant denied this allegation in his RSOR. (Item 2.) Item 5
establishes that this debt is owed. I do not find any evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption) 
The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has
engaged in excessive alcohol consumption, which often leads to the exercise of
questionable judgement or the failure to control impulses. The SOR lists four allegations
(2.a. through 2.d.) regarding Alcohol Consumption. The allegations will be discussed
below in the same order as they were listed on the SOR:
2.a. It is alleged in the SOR that in April 1997, Applicant was arrested and
charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). (Item 1.) Applicant admitted this
allegation in his RSOR and wrote, “Resolved.” (Item 2.) 
2.b. It is alleged in the SOR that in October 2001, Applicant was arrested and
charged with DUI. (Item 1.) Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR and wrote,
“Resolved.” (Item 2.) 
2.c. It is alleged in the SOR that in February 2006, Applicant was arrested and
charged with DUI and was court-ordered to attend alcohol counseling. (Item 1.) Applicant
denied this allegation in his RSOR and wrote that he was a resident of a different state
than the one where the SOR alleged that he was  arrested. (Item 2.) In his Electronic
Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), Applicant confirmed that he had
been arrested and found guilty in 2006 for DUI, for which he was fined $800 and
received counseling. (Item 3.) 
1.d. It is alleged in the SOR that from about 1996 until at least 2014 Applicant has
consumed alcohol, at times in excess and to the point of intoxication. (Item 1.) Applicant
admitted this allegation in his RSOR and wrote, “I have alcohol consumption under
control.” (Item 2.) 
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
4
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 n AG ¶ 2(a), describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
over-arching 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance
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 safeguard classified
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as
to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in
terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of
the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple
prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline F -  Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG ¶ 18:  
5
      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 guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations,” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant has accumulated significant delinquent debt, which has not been satisfied.
Additionally, AG ¶ 19(g), “failure to file Federal, state or local income tax returns as
required,” is applicable in this case as Applicant failed to file timely Federal tax returns
for tax years 2008 through 2011.
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. Since no evidence has been introduced to establish that Applicant has filed
his Federal tax returns or resolved any of his debts, I do not find that any of the
mitigating factors can be considered to have been established in this case. 
Finally, no evidence was submitted to allow me to conclude that Applicant will be
able to pay off his past debts or keep up to date on his current debts and expenses,
especially if any new or unexpected debts are incurred. Therefore, I find that Applicant
has not mitigated the Financial Consideration concerns, which are found against
Applicant. 
Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption 
       The security concern relating to the guideline for Alcohol Consumption is set out in
AG ¶ 21:  
Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of
questionable judgement or the failure to control impulses, and can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. 
Applicant's alcohol consumption resulted in the criminal conduct and DUI charges
listed in subparagraphs 2.a. through 2.c. The Government established that Applicant was
involved in “alcohol-related incidents away from work,” and “binge consumption of
alcohol to the point of impaired judgement.” Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 22(a) and (c)
apply to this case.
In reviewing the mitigating conditions, I find that ¶ 23(a) could be argued to apply
because Applicant’s last alcohol-related incident occurred in 2006. However, Applicant
continues to consume alcohol, at times to excess and to the point of intoxication, and
there has been no independent evidence introduced to establish that Applicant has taken
6
steps to insure that his alcohol consumption remains under control. Therefore, I find
Guideline G against Applicant.
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 the 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
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 the
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited above
as to why the disqualifying conditions apply under Guidelines F and G, and no mitigating
conditions were established. I find that the record evidence leaves me with significant
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance
under the whole-person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not
mitigated the security concerns under the whole-person concept. 
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 F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. - 1.g.: Against  Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a. - 2.d.: Against  Applicant
7
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.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge