1 
     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
) ISCR Case No. 16-01691 
) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
May 26, 2017 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant is alleged to be delinquent on eight debts, in a total exceeding $19,802. 
He has resolved one debt and is making payments on two other debts. Five debts are 
unresolved. Applicant failed to introduce documentation to show that his history of 
financial delinquencies, including a 2005 Chapter 7 bankruptcy, does not cast doubt on 
his current judgment. Additionally, he has three alcohol-related arrests and convictions. 
This conduct raised unmitigated security concerns under the Guidelines for Criminal 
Conduct and Alcohol Consumption. Eligibility for access to classified information is 
denied.  
Statement of the Case 
On August 17, 2015, Applicant submitted a signed Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP.) On August 20, 2016, the Department of Defense 
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under 
Guidelines F, Financial Considerations; G, Alcohol Consumption; and J, Criminal 
Conduct. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of 
 
2 
 
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review 
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines 
(AG) effective September 1, 2006.  
 
Applicant answered the SOR on September 29, 2016 (Answer), and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on December 5, 
2016. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing 
on December 14, 2016, scheduling the hearing for February 7, 2017. The hearing was 
convened as scheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GE) 1 through 8, which 
were admitted without objection. Applicant testified and submitted four exhibits (AE) 
marked AE A through AE D. Department Counsel had no objections to AE A through AE 
D, and they were admitted. The record was left open until March 7, 2017, for receipt of 
additional documentation. On March 7, 2017, the Applicant submitted additional 
exhibits, marked AE E through AE I. The Government had no objection to AE E through 
AE I, and they were admitted into the record. The record then closed. DOHA received 
the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on February 15, 2017.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is 31 years old. He served in the Marine Corps from 2006 to 2014. He 
achieved the rank of sergeant. He received an honorable discharge. He has been an 
employee of a government contractor for approximately a year and a half. He is married 
to his second wife and has two minor children. (GE 1; Tr. 25-28, 58.) 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 As alleged in the SOR, Applicant was delinquent on eight debts, in a total 
exceeding $19,802. He also filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in August 2005. That 
bankruptcy was discharged in November 2005. Applicant admitted the SOR allegations 
in ¶¶ 1.a through 1.e, and 1.g through 1.i. He denied the SOR allegations in ¶ 1.f. His 
debts are identified in the interrogatories, bankruptcy records, and credit reports entered 
into evidence. (Answer; GE 3; GE 4; GE 5; GE 6; GE 7.) After a thorough and careful 
review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact.  
 
 Applicant attributes his current financial delinquencies to “irresponsibility on [his] 
behalf,” and unemployment for nine months after separation from the Marine Corps. He 
received unemployment for those nine months, but did not have enough to cover all of 
his expenses. (Tr. 22, 43.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a to be indebted to a collection agent for a 
delinquent account in the amount of $60. Applicant presented documentation that 
shows the debt as a “paid collection.” This debt is resolved. (AE G; Tr. 29-30.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be indebted to a collection agent for a delinquent 
account in the amount of $132, in SOR ¶ 1.b. Applicant presented a copy of a credit 
report entry relating to this debt as proof it was resolved. However, the entry reflects 
 
3 
 
that it was placed for collection and still has a balance of $132. This debt is not 
resolved. (GE 7; AE G; Tr. 30-31.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be indebted to a collection agent for a delinquent 
account in the amount of $140, in SOR ¶ 1.c. Applicant testified that this debt was paid. 
However, in his post-hearing documentation, Applicant claimed to be in the process of 
contacting the creditor to set up payment arrangements. This debt is unresolved. (AE E; 
Tr. 31-32.)  
 
 Applicant was alleged to be indebted to a collection agent for a delinquent 
account in the amount of $424, in SOR ¶ 1.d. In his post-hearing documentation, 
Applicant claimed to be in the process of contacting the creditor to set up payment 
arrangements. This debt is unresolved. (AE E; Tr. 32-33.)  
 
 Applicant was alleged to be indebted to a collection agent for a delinquent 
account in the amount of $735, in SOR ¶ 1.e. Applicant presented a copy of a credit 
report entry relating to this debt as proof it was resolved. However, the entry reflects 
that it was placed for collection, and still has a balance of $735. This debt is not 
resolved. (GE 7; AE G; Tr. 33-34.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be indebted to a collection agent for a delinquent 
account in the amount of $1,319, in SOR ¶ 1.f. This debt was originally owed to a cell 
phone service provider. The credit report entry reflects that Applicant disputed this debt, 
but that it “meets FCRA [Fair Credit Reporting Act] requirements.” He testified that he 
disputed the debt because he was deployed overseas at the time the debt was incurred 
and did not have a cell phone. This debt is not resolved. (AE G; Tr. 34-35, 60.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be indebted to a collection agent for a delinquent 
account in the amount of $918, in SOR ¶ 1.g. This debt was also originally owed to a 
different cell phone service provider. Applicant is making payments on this debt. His 
credit report reflects the balance is $718. This debt is being resolved. (AE G; AE H; Tr. 
35-37.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be indebted to a collection agent for a delinquent 
vehicle loan in the amount of $16,074, in SOR ¶ 1.h. Applicant testified he is making 
payments on this debt. He presented a billing statement that shows he made a $100 
payment on this debt in approximately February 2017. His remaining balance, according 
to that billing statement, is $12,850. He is resolving this debt. (AE C; AE I; Tr. 37-38.)  
 
 Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in August 2005. He listed $31,173 in 
liabilities and $18,560 in assets in that petition. His debts were discarded in November 
2005. He was 19 years old when he filed bankruptcy. He attributed this bankruptcy filing 
to “sheer immaturity.” (GE 4; Tr. 40.)  
 
 Applicant purchased two new vehicles in approximately 2016. He testified he has 
not missed a payment on either vehicle. (Tr. 22, 46.) He presented documentation that 
he is resolving several other unalleged delinquent accounts. (AE B; AE C.)    
 
4 
 
Criminal Conduct/Alcohol Consumption 
 
 The SOR alleges Applicant committed three recent alcohol-related criminal 
violations. Applicant admitted to all of the criminal and alcohol-related allegations 
contained in the SOR. He indicated the arrests were due to “immature choices on [his] 
behalf.” (Tr. 23.) 
 
 Applicant was arrested in December 2005 and charged with Driving While 
Intoxicated (DWI). He was found guilty of this offense. On this occasion, he was 
celebrating his enlistment. He had just turned 21 and “made a bad decision of going 
across the street, and driving across the street. And got pulled over, and got arrested.” 
(Tr. 47.) He was fined and required to take alcohol classes. His driver’s license was 
suspended for six months. (Tr. 46-48.) 
 
 Applicant was arrested in July 2010 and charged with Misdemeanor DWI, First 
Offense. On this occasion, Applicant had consumed two 18-ounce beers before driving. 
He was found guilty. As a result, he was fined, required to take alcohol classes, and his 
driver’s license was suspended. After this arrest, Applicant participated in outpatient 
alcohol counseling on base once a week, for two months. He also participated in 
Alcoholics Anonymous. He does not believe he ever received an alcohol-related 
diagnosis. (Tr. 48-51.) 
 
 Applicant was arrested by military policy for driving under the influence of alcohol 
(DUI) in November 2013. Applicant was having an altercation with his first wife and 
decided to go on base to avoid any domestic disputes. He was sleeping in his vehicle in 
a base parking lot with the vehicle running, when a civilian police officer woke him and 
administered a field sobriety test. Applicant was arrested and charged with driving under 
the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty and received disciplinary action. He was 
denied re-enlistment as a result of this incident. (TR. 51-54.) 
 
 After the 2013 arrest, Applicant stopped drinking alcohol for six months. He 
testified he resumed alcohol consumption after six months, but that he limits his drinking 
to a couple of beers at home. He estimated that he now drinks eight to ten beers per 
month, and does not drink to the point of intoxication. He does not drink alone. He no 
longer goes out to bars or drinks excessively. (GE 8; Tr. 54-57.) 
 
 Applicant presented one letter of recommendation from a co-worker and friend. 
She indicated Applicant “is a man of integrity, is extremely dedicated to his family and 
work, and is of good report.” (AE A.) 
  
 
 
 
 
5 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations 
for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and 
mitigating conditions, which are to be used 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines in 
conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The 
administrative judge’s overarching 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.  
 
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 to obtain 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 EO 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).  
 
 
6 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in 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.  
 
 AG ¶ 19 describes two conditions that could raise security concerns and may be 
disqualifying in this case:  
 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant has a history of financial indebtedness since 2005 to present, as 
documented by the bankruptcy records and credit reports in evidence, which 
substantiate all allegations. He failed to provide proof that he resolved or is resolving 
five of his eight delinquencies. The evidence raises security concerns under both 
disqualifying conditions, thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or 
mitigate those concerns.  
 
 The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties: 
 
(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;  
 
 
7 
 
(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. 
 
 Applicant’s financial problems are ongoing. He has a long history of 
delinquencies beginning with financial irresponsibility that caused his 2005 bankruptcy 
and continuing today with his unresolved debts. He has yet to resolve five delinquent 
debts, ranging for $132 to $1,319. Yet, since his default on the vehicle loan in 
subparagraph 1.h, he has purchased two new vehicles. He has not demonstrated that 
future financial problems are unlikely. Mitigation under AG ¶ 20(a) has not been 
established. 
 
 Applicant attributed his recent delinquencies to his irresponsibility and 
unemployment for nine months. His unemployment was potentially a circumstance 
beyond his control. However, he failed to establish that he acted reasonably or 
responsibly with respect to his debts. He failed to document payments to his remaining 
creditors. He has not demonstrated that he addressed his debts in a responsible or 
timely manner. Full mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b) has not been established. 
 
 Applicant failed to produce evidence of credit counseling. Further, there are no 
clear indications that his financial problems are being resolved or are under control. 
Mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20(c) or (d) has not been established. 
 
 Applicant contested the delinquency in SOR ¶ 1.f with the credit reporting 
agencies, because he does not believe he incurred this debt. However, the credit 
reporting agency indicated the debt met FCRA requirements. Mitigation under AG ¶ 
20(e) has not been established with respect to subparagraph SOR ¶ 1.f.  
 
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Criminal Conduct is set out in 
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. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
 AG ¶ 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. The following are potentially applicable:  
 
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; and 
 
(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the 
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted. 
 
Applicant has a recent history of multiple criminal arrests and convictions that 
occurred in 2005, 2010, and 2013, including three alcohol-related convictions. These 
offenses give rise to concerns about Applicant’s judgment and reliability, both because 
of the nature of the offenses and the quantity of criminal offenses. The aforementioned 
disqualifying conditions have been established.  
 
Four Criminal Conduct mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 32 are potentially 
applicable:  
 
(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; 
 
(b) the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those 
pressures are no longer present in the person’s life; 
 
 (c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense; 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. 
  
 Applicant’s criminal past continues to cast doubt on his trustworthiness and 
judgment. His offenses are recent and he failed to present evidence to show that similar 
criminal conduct is unlikely to recur. AG ¶ 32(a) does not provide full mitigation. 
 
 Applicant failed to present evidence to show that he was pressured into criminal 
acts. He admitted each of the allegations. Neither AG ¶¶ 32(b) nor 32(c) provide 
mitigation. 
 
 Applicant failed to introduce sufficient evidence of rehabilitation. While he 
expressed remorse for his past, and participated in an outpatient alcohol rehabilitation 
program, not enough time has passed since his last alcohol-related arrest, given that he 
had three arrests over an eight-year period. AG ¶ 32(d) does not provide full mitigation. 
 
 
 
 
9 
 
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. The disqualifying conditions raised by the evidence are: 
 
(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; and 
 
(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.     
  
 Applicant was convicted of three DWI/DUI incidents after he consumed alcohol to 
the point of impaired judgment in 2005, 2010, and 2013. These incidents raise security 
concerns under AG ¶¶ 22(a) and 22(c).   
 
AG ¶ 23 provides conditions that could mitigate alcohol consumption 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 
 
10 
 
medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff 
member of a recognized alcohol treatment program. 
 
 Applicant’s alcohol-related incidents are recent, occurring over a span of eight 
years. Other than completing the court ordered alcohol-related rehabilitation and briefly 
attending Alcoholics Anonymous, he produced little evidence that would show future 
alcohol-related misconduct is unlikely to occur. He testified he reduced his alcohol 
consumption, but still consumes alcohol. No prognosis was offered into evidence. Not 
enough time has passed to show that Applicant has overcome his problems with 
drinking and driving. Applicant failed to meet his burden to mitigate the alcohol-related 
concerns. 
 
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 relevant 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 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under 
Guidelines F, G, and J in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) 
were addressed under that guideline, but some warrant additional comment. Applicant 
is trusted by his co-worker. He served honorably in the Marine Corps for eight years. 
However, Applicant’s debts remain largely unresolved and his criminal and alcohol-
related behavior continues to lead to questions about his trustworthiness and reliability. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s 
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude 
Applicant failed to mitigate the Financial Considerations, Alcohol Consumption, and 
Criminal Conduct security concerns.  
 
 
11 
 
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 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.f:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.g:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.h:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.i:    Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline J:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.b:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.c:    Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 3, Guideline G:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.a:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 3.b:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 3.c:    Against 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. 
 
 
________________________ 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge