1 
 
                                                              
         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 [Name redacted]   ) ISCR Case No. 16-01087 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert Blazewick, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Leon J. Schachter, Esq. 
 
                      
            
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOGAN, Erin C., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86 
Format) on June 16, 2016. On September 29, 2016, after reviewing the application and 
information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense 
Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland,  sent Applicant a statement 
of reasons (SOR), explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information.1 The SOR 
detailed the factual reasons for the action under the security guideline known as Guideline 
E, Personal Conduct. Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. 
                                                          
1  This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of 
Defense  Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated 
January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility 
for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on June 8, 2017, apply 
here.  
2 
 
 
The case was assigned to another administrative judge on June 5, 2017, and 
transferred to me on November 1, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled on 
December 5, 2017. At the close of the hearing and after a review of the record and the 
transcript, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary 
disposition in Applicant’s favor. Applicant did not object. Department Counsel had 10 days 
to consider the matter and provided written notice that Department Counsel did not object.  
 
My basis for the summary disposition is as follows: 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.a: Arrest for DUI, Reckless Driving, Failure to Give Immediate Notice of 
Accident on October 2, 2011. Applicant testified to the circumstances of the evening of 
October 2, 2011. Her explanation was plausible. A disinterested witness provided a 
statement supporting her explanation of the events. In court, she pled and was found “Not 
Guilty.” (Tr. 28-34, AE A, Tabs 25-26) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.b:  Citation for marijuana possession on June 22, 2012: Applicant testified 
that she was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and admits to possessing, but 
not smoking marijuana. I find her explanation plausible. In addition, more than five years 
have passed since this incident and Applicant has had no further incidents. (Tr. 36-41) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.c: Applicant did not falsify her e-QIP, dated June 16, 2015. She admits to 
the one marijuana possession incident, but denies using marijuana. It is alleged she did 
not list her citation for possession of marijuana in response to section 23. She explained 
her citation for marijuana possession in response to section 22 on the same e-QIP 
application. It may not have been under the correct question, but the information was 
provided. I find Applicant did not deliberately falsify her e-QIP application. (Gov 1, page 
48)  
 
 SOR ¶ 1.d:  Applicant’s termination from employment from a restaurant in July 
2012 after coming up short on cash: I find no ill intent in this allegation. This was 
Applicant’s first waitressing job. The restaurant was newly opened and management did 
not want to deal with an inexperienced waitress as verified by her former assistant 
manager. Applicant disclosed this information on her e-QIP. (AE A, Tab 24; Gov 1, pages 
25-26) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.e:  Applicant was discharged under General Under Honorable Conditions 
from the United States Air Force for Misconduct – Minor Disciplinary Infractions in 
November 2011.  Aside from the DUI arrest, Applicant’s disciplinary infractions consist of 
several failure to go offenses and is indicative of an immature airman who did not adapt 
to military life. Applicant has since matured and is more responsible. 
 
 In summation, Applicant no longer drinks alcohol excessively and has never used 
marijuana. She has not had an incident, arrest or citation in over five years. She is well 
regarded in her current civilian position as indicated by reference letters. She has a more 
mature outlook on life. She mitigated the security concerns.  
3 
 
Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel 
presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, and 
1.e raising security concerns under Guideline E, AG ¶ 16(c). I find SOR ¶ 1.c for Applicant. 
I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel. In particular, 
I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating 
conditions: AG ¶¶ 17(c) and 17(d).  
 
The security concerns raised under Guideline E no longer create doubt about 
Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified 
information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and 
considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or vice versa. 
I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that 
Applicant met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with 
the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. This case 
is decided for Applicant.  
 
 
Erin C. Hogan  
Administrative Judge