1
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
)
) ISCR Case No.  17-02158 
)
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Carroll J. Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
HEINTZELMAN, Caroline E., Administrative Judge: 
This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines F (Financial 
Considerations), J (Criminal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), and E (Personal 
Conduct). Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns raised by his financial situation, 
alcohol-related criminal conduct, and dishonesty in not disclosing his entire criminal 
history on his security clearance application. Eligibility for access to classified information 
is denied.  
History of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on March 16, 2015. On 
October 11, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines F, J, G, and E. The DOD acted under 
Executive Order (EO) 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) promulgated in Security Executive Agent 
Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), for all 
decisions on or after June 8, 2017. 
 
 2
 Applicant answered the SOR on October 30, 2017, and requested a decision on 
the record without a hearing. On November 27, 2017, a complete copy of the File of 
Relevant Material (FORM), containing eight items, was mailed to Applicant and received 
by him. The FORM notified Applicant that he had an opportunity to file objections and 
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the 
FORM. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. Hence, Items 1 through 8 are admitted 
into evidence without objection. The case was assigned to me on April 9, 2018.  
  
Findings of Fact1 
 
Applicant is 55 years old and works as a configuration analyst for a defense 
contractor. He has worked for his employer since 1982, and requires a clearance for his 
employment. He was married between 1991 and 2001, and has two children with his ex-
wife. He has been cohabitating with his partner since 2002, and they share one child. 
Applicant received his bachelor’s degree in 1994. Applicant admitted all of the allegations 
in the SOR, without explanation. I make the following findings of fact: 
 
Financial  
 
 Applicant failed to timely file his state and federal income tax returns for tax years 
2010 through 2016. He has yet to file his state and federal returns for tax years 2014 
through 2016. Additionally, he owes the IRS approximately $40,000 for tax years 2010 
through 2016 (Item 3 at 3 and 20-21). He provided no documentation that he has entered 
into a payment plan with the IRS, nor has he provided evidence he was not required to 
establish a payment plan.2 During his December 2015 interview, Applicant told the 
government investigator he did not file or pay his taxes due to financial hardship. He 
claimed that in 2013, he filed tax years 2010 through 2012. He also claimed he filed 2013 
in a timely manner (Item 3 at 20). In his September 2017 Response to DOHA 
Interrogatories, he disclosed he did not file his state and federal tax returns on time for 
2010 through 2016, contradicting his statement to the investigator (Item 3 at 3). 
 
 Applicant has five delinquent debts totaling $2,511 (SOR ¶ 1.f. through 1.j.). These 
debts appear in his credit reports (Items 4 and 5). In 2004, he filed for Chapter 7 
bankruptcy (Item 3 at 16-17). His assets totaled $308,225 and his liabilities totaled 
$465,131 (Item 6 at 7). In 2013, Applicant could not afford to pay for his daughter’s high 
school graduation party. He charged $4,000 to his company credit card for the party. 
When he failed to make payments, his company became aware of the issue. He was 
ordered to repay the balance in full and attend training. He had to borrow money from his 
father to repay the debt (Item 2 at 27 and Item 3 at 18). Applicant has written a series of 
bad checks to a local merchant (Item 3 at 21).  
 
                                                          
1 Applicant’s personal information is extracted from his security application (Item 2) unless otherwise 
indicated by a parenthetical citation to the record. 
 
2 In December 2015, Applicant told the government investigator, the IRS granted him an extension for tax 
years 2014 and 2015. Additionally, he claimed the IRS send him a letter in which it agreed Applicant did 
not have the means or the ability to pay what he owes (Item 3 at 20-21). 
 
 3
 Applicant attributes his financial problems, in part, to his 2001 divorce. He states 
that he was assigned the marital debt, including all credit-card debt, car loans, and the 
mortgages for two homes. He further claims his ex-wife took all of his money, and after 
the divorce and bankruptcy, she opened credit cards in his name and made unauthorized 
charges. His wages were ultimately garnished by at least one of these credit-card 
companies (Item 3 at 17-19). Applicant claims a series of surgeries since 2009 have 
caused additional financial strain (Item 3 at 21). 
 
Applicant’s home was damaged during a 2010 hurricane. He claims his insurance 
company did not reimburse him for cleaning expenses and other necessary repairs, 
totaling approximately $3,000. He wanted his mortgage company to intervene, and he 
refused to make his payments, missing between 24 and 30 payments. After he failed to 
make payments for approximately one year, his mortgage company initiated foreclosure 
proceedings. Applicant ultimately was able to modify the loan. Applicant also claims he 
gave a former cousin-in-law $25,000 to make home improvements that were never 
completed, nor was the money returned to him (Item 3 at 20).  
 
Applicant admits he stopped opening his mail years ago and does not monitor his 
credit report (Item 3 at 21). His annual salary is $108,000 a year, without overtime pay. 
However, he has difficulty keeping track of his finances. He feels overwhelmed and 
hopeless about his finances (Item 3 at 21-22). 
 
Criminal 
  
 In September 2014, Applicant was arrested and charged with domestic assault 
and battery and strangulation, both felonies. He admitted to the government investigator 
that during an argument, he grabbed his partner by the neck and pushed her to the floor. 
He called the police, and when they questioned both of them, they found red marks on 
his partner’s arm and neck. As a result, Applicant was arrested and charged. He 
consumed approximately eight alcoholic drinks prior to this incident (Item 3 at 12).  
 
 Applicant and his partner reconciled after the September 2014 incident; however, 
he was placed on pre-trial probation and ordered to refrain from future abuse and from 
alcohol use. His urine was tested as well. Approximately one month later, Applicant and 
his partner went to a restaurant for dinner. He consumed several alcoholic beverages and 
an argument ensued. After they returned to their home, the argument resumed and the 
police were called. When the police arrived, they took Applicant into custody because he 
had consumed alcohol.  
 
Applicant was arrested the next day for violating the terms of his pre-trial probation. 
Ultimately, Applicant received a continuance without finding and probation for one year 
(Item 7 at 8). Per the terms of his probation, he was also ordered to attend a batterer’s 
program, alcohol counseling, and anger management training (Item 8).3 His probation 
                                                          
3 The court records indicate stress due to medical and financial issues were related to the criminal behavior 
(Item 8 at 2). 
 
 
 4
started in November 2014. As of his December 2015 security clearance interview, 
Applicant had not yet completed the terms of his probation. He had not completed the 
required alcohol counseling, domestic violence batterers program, and only paid $100 of 
his $1,180 fine. He was to notify his company FSO when his probation ended (Item 3 at 
13 and 15). 
 
Alcohol 
 
 Applicant consumed alcohol prior to both of the incidents mentioned above. As a 
result of these arrests, he was court-ordered to attend outpatient alcohol counseling (Item 
3 at 15). In December 2015, Applicant told the government investigator he attended 
sessions twice a month between February and July 2015, and once a month between 
July and December 2015. He also claimed that prior to attending these sessions, he went 
to a few Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Applicant claimed he had not consumed 
alcohol since the October 2014 incident; however, he disclosed he asked his therapist if 
it was all right for him to drink on an upcoming vacation. She had to remind him that a 
condition of his probation was to abstain from alcohol (Item 3 at 16). Finally, he admitted 
alcohol brings out the worst in him. Applicant did not provide proof in his Answer to the 
SOR or in his Response to the FORM that he completed the court-ordered alcohol 
treatment. 
 
Personal Conduct  
 
Applicant’s misuse of his corporate credit card, issuance of bad checks, and 
September 2014 felony arrest are all cross-alleged under Guideline E. In his May 2015 
SCA, Applicant disclosed his September 2014 arrest, but did not disclose his October 
2014 arrest for violating his pre-trial probation (Item 2 at 22-24). He also failed to disclose 
the alcohol counseling he was court-mandated to attend (Item 2 at 25-26). Finally, he did 
not disclose his tax issues as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.e. (Item 2 at 26-28).  
 
At the start of his interview, Applicant told the government investigator he had 
difficulty completing his SCA, and he was forced to revise it four or five times (Item 3 at 
7). Later during the interview, after being confronted by the government investigator, with 
derogatory information, Applicant claimed he thought he disclosed the necessary 
information in his SCA (Item 3 at 13, 15-16).  
 
Applicant reported on his SCA his misuse of his corporate card (Item 2 at 27). 
However, he disclosed he spent $400, rather than the actual amount of $4,000. He told 
the government investigator that this was a typographical mistake (Item 3 at 18). 
 
Policies 
 
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”4 As Commander in Chief, the 
President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security 
                                                          
4 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 
 
 
 5
and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such 
information.”5 The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to 
grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it 
is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”6 
 
Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the 
criteria contained in the AG. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, 
recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these 
guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative 
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An 
administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, 
past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 
 
 The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 
access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and 
endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the 
possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in 
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”7 Thus, a 
decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met 
the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for 
issuing a clearance. 
 
 Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the 
personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from 
being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of 
establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR.8 “Substantial evidence” is “more than 
a scintilla but less than a preponderance.”9 The guidelines presume a nexus or rational 
connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an 
applicant’s security suitability.10 Once the Government establishes a disqualifying 
condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, 
                                                          
5 Egan at 527. 
 
6 EO 10865 § 2. 
 
7 EO 10865 § 7. 
 
8 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
 
9 See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). 
 
10 ISCR Case No. 92-1106 at 3, 1993 WL 545051 at *3 (App. Bd. Oct. 7, 1993). 
 
 
 6
extenuate, or mitigate the facts.11 An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating 
condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government.12 
 
  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”13 “[S]ecurity 
clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”14 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 The concern under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) is set out in AG ¶ 18: 
 
Failure 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 or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be 
caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other 
issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental 
health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An 
individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to 
engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds . . . .  
 
 This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly 
compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a 
person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified 
information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, 
unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information.15  
 
 Applicant’s admissions and his credit report establish five disqualifying conditions 
under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability to satisfy debts”), AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not 
meeting financial obligations”), AG ¶ 19(d) (“deceptive or illegal financial practices such 
as embezzlement, employee theft, check fraud, expense account fraud, mortgage fraud, 
filing deceptive loan statements and other intentional financial breaches of trust”), AG ¶ 
19(e) (“consistent spending beyond one’s means or frivolous or irresponsible spending, 
which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, a 
                                                          
11 Directive ¶ E3.1.15. 
 
12 ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). 
 
13 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). 
 
14 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; See also AG ¶ 2(b). 
 
15 ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). 
 
 
 7
history of late payments or of non-payment, or other negative financial indicators”), and 
AG ¶ 19(f) (“failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income tax 
returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required”). 
 
 AG ¶ 20 describes conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Two are 
potentially applicable in this case: 
 
(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; and 
 
(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, a death, divorce or separation, clear 
victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the 
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances. 
 
I considered that Applicant is not required to be debt-free in order to qualify for a 
security clearance.16 However, Applicant consistently filed his state and federal tax 
returns late. He still has not filed for tax years 2014 through 2016, and he owes $40,000 
to the IRS. Applicant went through a divorce, medical issues, and other financial 
stressors; however, he did not meet his burden to establish that he acted responsibly to 
address his unfiled federal tax returns and unpaid debts in a timely manner. Additionally, 
he failed to provide documentation showing he has resolved any of the debts alleged in 
the SOR. His 2004 Chapter 7 bankruptcy is indicative of a lengthy history of financial 
issues, which continues to the present day, as evidenced by his failure to pay his 
outstanding court fine for the 2014 domestic violence incident. Finally, Applicant’s habitual 
writing of bad checks and misuse of his company credit card demonstrate a failure to 
follow rules and regulations. AG ¶ 20(a) and 20(b) are not established.  
 
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct  
 
AG ¶ 30 expresses the security concerns pertaining to criminal conduct: 
 
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. 
 
AG ¶ 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. Three are potentially applicable in this case: 
 
                                                          
16 ISCR Case No. 15-02903 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017) (An applicant does not have to be debt-free in 
order to qualify for a security clearance. Rather, all that is required is that an applicant act responsibly given 
his circumstances and develop a reasonable plan for repayment, accompanied by “concomitant conduct” 
that is, actions which evidence a serious intent to effectuate the plan). 
 
 
 8
(a) a pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be 
unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in 
combination cast doubt on the individual's judgment, reliability, or 
trustworthiness; and 
 
(b) evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an 
admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of 
whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted. 
 
 Applicant’s history of criminal activity establishes the above disqualifying 
conditions. He did not provide any documentation to demonstrate he has fulfilled the 
terms of his probation.17 
 
AG ¶ 32 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns raised in this 
case. The following two 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; and 
 
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited 
to, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, 
compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher 
education, good employment record, or constructive community 
involvement. 
 
 Domestic violence is a serious offense, and Applicant was charged with two 
felonies for assaulting his partner. Applicant did not provide documentation of successful 
rehabilitation or completion of his probation, which included a domestic violence batterers’ 
program. Based on all the evidence, Applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient pattern 
of modified behavior to conclude that his questionable judgment associated with past 
criminal misconduct is behind him or that he has provided sufficient evidence of 
rehabilitation. AG ¶¶ 32(a) and 32(d) are not established. 
 
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. 
                                                          
17 I considered AG ¶ 31(c), but Applicant’s probation purportedly ended in December 2015.  Nonetheless, 
Applicant’s failure to provide documentation showing he complied with the terms of his probation tends to 
show a lack of rehabilitation and undermines the mitigating value that can be attached to the passage of 
time since recurrence of similar issues. 
 
 9
AG ¶ 22 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and be 
disqualifying. One is potentially applicable in this case: 
(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.  
 
 In 2014, Applicant consumed alcohol and then engaged in criminal activity, 
establishing the above disqualifying condition. AG ¶ 23 provides conditions that could 
mitigate security concerns raised under this guideline. Three are potentially applicable: 
 
(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); 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 medical 
professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a 
recognized alcohol treatment program. 
 In 2014, Applicant consumed alcohol prior to being arrested, twice. As a result of 
these offenses, he was ordered to attend alcohol counseling. As mentioned above, 
Applicant did not submit documentation to reflect completion of the required alcohol 
counseling. AG ¶¶ 23(a), 23(b), and 23(c) do not apply.  
   
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
The concern under this guideline is set out in 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 or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to 
cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security 
investigative or adjudicative processes. The following will normally result in 
 
 10
an unfavorable national security eligibility determination, security clearance 
action, or cancellation of further processing for national security eligibility: 
 
(a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or 
cooperate with security processing, including but not limited 
to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, 
completing security forms or releases, cooperation with 
medical or psychological evaluation, or polygraph 
examination, if authorized and required; and 
 
(b) refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful 
questions of investigators, security officials, or other official 
representatives in connection with a personnel security or 
trustworthiness determination. 
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and be 
disqualifying. Two are potentially applicable in this case: 
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from 
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar 
form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, 
award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or 
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; and 
 
(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 individual may not properly safeguard 
classified or sensitive information. 
 
When a falsification allegation is controverted, the Government has the burden of 
proving it. An omission, standing alone, does not prove falsification. An administrative 
judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine an applicant’s state of 
mind at the time of the omission.18 An applicant’s level of education and business 
experience are relevant to determining whether a failure to disclose relevant information 
on a security clearance application was deliberate.19 In this case, Applicant admitted all 
of the Guideline E allegations (Item 1). 
                                                          
18 See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004). 
 
19 ISCR Case No. 08-05637 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2010). 
 
 
 11
AG ¶ 17 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and be 
disqualifying. Two are potentially applicable in this case: 
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, 
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and  
 
(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. 
 
Applicant failed to disclose derogatory information regarding his criminal history, 
alcohol treatment, and financial issues. He made statements to the government 
investigator that were inconsistent with his admissions in his Response to the DOHA 
Interrogatories and Answer to the SOR. Based upon the totality of the evidence, Applicant 
lacks credibility.  
 
 The SOR cross-alleges Applicant’s misuse of his company credit card, his bad 
checks, and his criminal conduct as a concern under Guideline E. As explained 
previously, such conduct calls into question Applicant’s judgment and willingness to 
comply with rules and regulations. His conduct also establishes disqualifying condition 
AG ¶ 16(c).20 I considered mitigating condition AG ¶ 17(c)21 under Guideline E and, for 
similar reasons explained under Guidelines F, J, and G, find that it does not apply.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing 
of national security eligibility is clearly consistent with the interests of national security 
must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
following guidelines, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person. 
An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG 
¶ 2(d): 
 
(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 
                                                          
20 Credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that . . . 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 classified or sensitive information. 
 
21 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. 
 
 
 12
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. 
 
 I have incorporated my comments under the guidelines at issue in my whole-
person analysis, and I have considered the factors in AG ¶ 2(d). After weighing the 
disqualifying and mitigating conditions under these guidelines, and evaluating all the 
evidence in the context of the whole person, Applicant has not mitigated the security 
concerns at issue. Accordingly, Applicant has not carried his burden of showing that it is 
clearly consistent with the interests of national security of the United States to grant him 
eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
  
Subparagraphs 1.a. – 1.m.: Against Applicant 
  
Paragraph 2, Guideline J:     AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 2.a. – 2.b.:    Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline G:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.a.:    Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 4, Guideline E:    AGAINST APPLICANT  
 
  Subparagraphs 4.a. – 4.d.:   Against Applicant  
 
Conclusion 
 
I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security of 
the United States to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified 
information. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
__________________________ 
Caroline E. Heintzelman 
Administrative Judge