Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-3 and hearing exhibit (HE) I. 1
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February2
20, 1990), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the
DoD on 1 September 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )       ISCR Case No.15-05026
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Rhett E. Petcher, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  Applicant’s clearance is denied.1
On 8 March 2016, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines E, Personal
Conduct.  Applicant timely answered, requesting a hearing before the Defense Office of2
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). DOHA assigned the case to me 19 October 2016, and I
convened a hearing 2 December 2016. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 13
December 2016, and the record closed.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. She is a 28-year-old assembler
employed by a defense contractor since February 2012. She was previously employed
in a similar position from August 2010 to February 2012. She has not previously held a
clearance.
Applicant has an extensive history of motor vehicle infractions, having been cited
for multiple violations seven times between September 2011 and November 2015. Each
of the violations involves the status of her driver’s licence: driving with her learner’s
permit without the required licensed driver (twice), driving on a suspended licence
(thrice), and driving without a license (twice). All of the infractions included ancillary
charges which were nolle prossed, placed on the stet docket, or dismissed. Most of the
dispositions involved fines, suspensions, and probations, although she spent four days
in jail for driving without a license in November 2012.
In September 2011, Applicant was charged with a learner’s permit violation and
failing to secure a minor child in a car seat, and paid a fine. In June 2012, July 2012,
and October 2012, she was charged with driving on a suspended license, she paid fines
in each instance, but received probation before judgment for the October 2012
infraction. In November 2012, she was charged with driving without a license. At her
January 2013 trial, she was sentenced to 60 days in jail, with 56 days suspended, and
placed on probation until January 2014.
In September 2015, she was again charged with driving without a license. She
paid a fine and was given 18 months probation at her February 2016 court date (Tr 37).
In November 2015, she was charged with another learner’s violation, as well as violating
her rental car agreement, when she was involved in an accident.
Applicant attributes her conduct to being “young and dumb and listening to the
wrong person (Tr. 31),” but acknowledges that she made the decisions to drive without
a valid license. Her explanations for these violations do not excuse her conduct. None
of them involved emergency situations which might have justified her behavior. All of
them involved her knowing decisions to violate the terms of her license or her court
dispositions. She has been unable to obtain a new driver’s license, the result of a
speeding ticket she received in August 2016 (Tr. 44). She has continued to drive without
a valid license since November 2015 (Tr. 43).
Applicant submitted no work or character references, or any evidence of civic or
community involvement. She provided no evidence to corroborate her claimed
commitment to a more responsible lifestyle.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for
access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶ 16 (c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse4
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; (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. . . ;
3
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is
not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case
can be measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of a clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.3
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline E, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Between September 2011 and
November 2015, Applicant was stopped and cited for a variety of motor vehicle
violations—principally driving on a suspended license or on a learner’s permit without
the required licensed driver in the car—seven times. Yet, she has continued to drive in
violation of her learner’s permit since November 2015, and has been unable to get a
regular license because of a speeding violation in August 2016.
Distilled to its essence, Applicant’s misconduct demonstrates a consistent pattern
of poor judgment over many years.   By her own assessment, she has exhibited poor4
judgment. She has not provided any evidence to support her claim that she is trying to
4
move toward a more responsible lifestyle. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline E against
Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-g: Against Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                 
                           
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge