1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
) 
 [NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 17-01916 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert Blazewick, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:  
 
 Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his financial problems; 
however, the security concerns about his criminal conduct remain unresolved. His request 
for a security clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
  
 On September 22, 2015, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to renew his eligibility for a security clearance required 
for his employment with a defense contractor. Based on the results of the ensuing 
background investigation, Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators could not 
 
 
2 
 
 
determine that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security for Applicant 
to have a security clearance.1 
 
 On June 21, 2017, DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts that 
raise security concerns under the adjudicative guideline for financial considerations 
(Guideline F) and criminal conduct (Guideline J). Applicant timely responded to the SOR 
(Answer) and requested a hearing.  
 
 I received the case on January 24, 2018, and convened the requested hearing on 
March 8, 2018. The parties appeared as scheduled. Department Counsel proffered 
Government Exhibits (GX) 1 - 4. Applicant and two witnesses testified. Applicant also 
proffered Applicant Exhibits (AX) A. All exhibits were admitted without objection. I held 
the record open after the hearing to allow Applicant time to submit additional relevant 
information. The record closed on March 28, 2018, when I received Applicant’s timely 
post-hearing submissions (AX B and C)2 and Department Counsel’s waiver of objections. 
I received a transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on March 15, 2018.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that in 2016, Applicant lost his home 
to foreclosure (SOR 1.a); and that he owed $17,793 for four delinquent or past-due debts 
(SOR 1.b – 1.e). The $14,820 civil judgment debt at SOR 1.e constituted about 83 percent 
of the total alleged. In response, Applicant admitted, with remarks and supporting 
documents, SOR 1.a, 1.b, and 1.d. The attached documents established he had paid the 
debt at SOR 1.b. He denied SOR 1.c, providing documents that showed the accounts 
with that creditor had zero balances in 2015 and 2016. He also denied SOR 1.e, claiming 
the debt was not his and was the result of identity theft. (Answer) 
 
 Under Guideline J, the Government alleged that in July and November 2016, 
Applicant was charged with an unspecified offense that was reduced to reckless driving 
(SOR 2.a). It was also alleged that on April 30, 2016, he was charged with misdemeanor 
driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), and misdemeanor possession of less than 
one ounce of marijuana, for which he was convicted of reckless driving and place on 12 
months of probation, with the drug charged conditionally suspended during that time 
(SOR 2.b). In response, Appellant admitted SOR 2.b, but denied SOR 2.a, averring it was 
a duplicate of SOR 2.b. At hearing, Department Counsel agreed and withdrew SOR 2.a. 
(Answer; Tr. 9 – 10) 
 
 The Government also alleged under Guideline J that on December 9, 2015, 
Applicant was arrested and charged with damage to a business, for which he was ordered 
                                                 
1 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended. 
 
2 Applicant’s post-hearing submissions are identified and admitted as follows: AX B is a single-page copy 
of his DD FORM 214 Worksheet reflecting information about his military service and his honorable 
discharge therefrom. AX C consists of three pages of personal finance and budget information. 
 
 
3 
 
 
to complete 40 hours of community service and a drug and alcohol evaluation (SOR 2.c); 
that in September 2006, he was charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana 
(SOR 2.d); and that in February 2003, he was charged with possession of marijuana, 
public intoxication, driving on a suspended license, and three other traffic violations (SOR 
2.e). In response, Applicant admitted 2.b – 2.e, and provided documents showing he 
completed all terms of his sentencing for his 2015 arrest and that his court-ordered 
evaluation reflected no diagnosis of substance abuse and no recommendation for 
treatment. (Answer)  In addition to the facts established by Applicant’s admissions, I make 
the following additional findings of fact.  
 
 Applicant is 40 years old. He joined the Army in October 1998, serving as an 
aviation electronics technician until he was honorably discharged in October 2004. 
Thereafter, he found work with defense contractors supporting military avionics 
requirements. After recently earning an associate’s degree in information technology (IT), 
most of his work has focused on IT aspects of contractor support of military avionics 
programs. Applicant currently is studying for his bachelor’s degree in IT. He has held a 
security clearance both in the Army and in connection with his civilian work as a defense 
contractor. (GX 1; Tr. 6 – 7, 37, 39) 
 
 Applicant and his wife were married in October 2015, but recently separated. 
Applicant has three children, ages 19, 13 and 2. Applicant has custody of his 13-year-old 
child and shares custody of the two-year-old with his wife. (GX 1; Tr. 36 – 37) 
 
 Applicant generally has been gainfully employed since leaving the military. In 
December 2012, he became unemployed due to a company reduction in force. He did 
not find work again until August 2013. Unfortunately, that contract ended unexpectedly 
early and Applicant again was unemployed, this time until June 2014. In 2007, Applicant 
obtained a mortgage to purchase the house that is the subject of the foreclosure 
addressed in SOR 1.a. When he lost work in 2013 and 2014, he struggled to meet his 
mortgage payments because, as he acknowledged at hearing, he was already 
overextended financially. Applicant initially thought a short sale would be approved by the 
lender, but the mortgage was foreclosed and resold in September 2016. Applicant has no 
further obligation regarding his mortgage. (Answer; GX 1; GX 2; Tr. 40 – 41) 
 
 The debts alleged at SOR 1.b and 1.d are for an unpaid utility bill and a delinquent 
homeowners association (HOA) account, respectively, in connection with the house 
Applicant lost to foreclosure. Applicant has paid the utility bill and he sent the HOA $100 
as a deposit on a proposed repayment plan. The HOA kept Applicant’s $100 but has not 
responded to his attempts to resolve the debt. (Answer; GX 1 – 3; Tr. 42 – 44) 
 
 In response to the SOR, Applicant denied responsibility for the civil judgment debt 
alleged at SOR 1.e, claiming he has no knowledge of the debt or the original creditor 
involved. In support of his claim, he produced a court document that lists a defendant with 
a different middle initial than his, and testified that he has disputed this debt with the credit 
reporting services. An October 2015 credit report documented this debt, but it does not 
 
 
4 
 
 
appear on the April 2017 credit report submitted by the Government. Nor does either 
credit report mention the original creditor to whom the defendant allegedly owed money. 
(Answer; GX 2 and 3; Tr. 44 – 46, 66 – 68) 
 
 As to the debt addressed in SOR 1.c ($257 owed to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA)), Applicant obtained his associate’s degree using tuition assistance benefits 
he earned through his military service. In 2015 and 2016, he dropped classes and 
incurred debts to the VA for the cost of those classes. Information included with his 
response to the SOR shows he timely addressed those debts and has had a zero balance 
with the VA since 2016. (Answer; GX 1 – 3; Tr. 42 – 43) 
 
 Applicant’s current finances reflect stability and a positive cash flow. He files and 
pays his taxes on time, and he has incurred no new delinquent debts in the past two 
years. Applicant also has been able to save for retirement. He has only one credit card 
with a $400 limit, and he adheres to a monthly budget and appears to be living modestly 
and within his means. (AX C; Tr. 68 – 73) 
 
 Applicant has been arrested or charged with criminal offenses at least four times 
in the past 16 years. SOR 2.e alleges that in February 2003, he was arrested and charged 
with public intoxication and marijuana possession. Applicant was still in the Army and was 
pulled over for reasons not apparent from this record. A civilian friend was a passenger. 
It is also not clear from the record why Applicant was charged with public intoxication and 
not an alcohol-related driving offense. During the traffic stop, police found a small amount 
of marijuana in the car. Both Applicant and the passenger denied it was theirs, so both 
were cited for possession. Applicant denies being intoxicated when he was stopped. At 
hearing, Applicant presented information showing he actually was arrested in December 
2002 and appeared in court on January 2, 2003.3 According to that information, Applicant 
was convicted of both the public intoxication and drug offenses. He was sentenced to 90 
days incarceration (suspended) and assessed fines and court costs. Applicant was not 
disciplined by the Army for these offenses. Other minor traffic offenses were dismissed. 
(Answer; AX A; Tr. 56 – 59) 
 
 After Applicant left the Army, he worked for a defense contractor doing work with 
the Army in combat zones. On September 28, 2006, as alleged in SOR 2.d, Applicant 
was arrested and charged with DUI and with misdemeanor marijuana possession. The 
arrest occurred less than 24 hours after Applicant returned from an overseas work 
assignment. He went out drinking with some of the military personnel with whom he had 
worked overseas. Realizing he was too drunk to drive, he went to sleep in his parked car 
in a parking lot with the keys in the ignition. A police officer woke him up, and after 
determining Applicant was still intoxicated (Applicant also told him as much), arrested 
Applicant for misdemeanor DUI because the keys were in the ignition. Applicant also was 
                                                 
3 Nothing in the documents proffered at hearing by the Government reflects any information about this 
arrest that constitutes a good-faith basis for SOR 2.e. Nonetheless, that issue is mad moot by Applicant’s 
admission and proffer of AX A. 
 
 
 
5 
 
 
charged with marijuana possession, which he denied, opining that it belonged to one of 
the passengers in his car earlier that night. That charge was dismissed. As to the DUI, 
Applicant was convicted, lost his driving privileges for one year, attended DUI school, and 
had to spend one weekend in jail. (Answer; GX 1; GX 4; Tr. 53 – 56, 61 – 63) 
 
 On December 10, 2015, as alleged in SOR 2.c, Applicant was charged and 
convicted of damaging a business. Applicant went to a specific bar because it allowed 
him to smoke without going outside. At some point, the manager asked him to leave. 
Applicant claims he was not told why he had to leave and became frustrated when 
bouncers started to intervene. Applicant kicked and damaged the door on his way out of 
the bar. At that point the police were called and Applicant was arrested. The court ordered 
him to perform 40 hours of community service and to complete a drug and alcohol 
evaluation. Applicant established that he completed all of the terms of his sentencing and 
made restitution to the restaurant owner. (Answer; GX 4; Tr. 51 – 53) 
 
 In late Aril 2016, as alleged in SOR 2.b,4 Applicant was arrested and charged with 
DUI and with possession of marijuana. Applicant had traveled out of town to sell his boat. 
Before stopping at a friend’s house for the night on the way home, a police officer pulled 
him over after Applicant swerved in the road. Applicant claimed he had consumed only 
two beers with dinner before he was stopped. He denies being intoxicated and cites the 
lack of information regarding a field sobriety or breathalyzer test. Applicant also denied 
he had any marijuana with him. On February 7, 2017, he pleaded guilty, in absentia, to 
reckless driving and was placed on 12 months of probation that expired in February 2018. 
The marijuana possession charged was held in abeyance during his probation. Applicant 
paid a total of $1,850 in fines and court costs, and the marijuana charge was dismissed 
when he completed his probation. (Answer; Tr. 46 – 49) 
 
 Applicant testified that he no longer drinks alcohol very often. When he does, his 
consumption is best characterized as social and in moderation. He works long days and 
spends most of his free time with his children. His supervisor and a co-worker from his 
current job, which he has held since August 2015, testified that Applicant is a good father, 
dependable, trustworthy, and candid. Neither conveyed any specific knowledge of 
Applicant’s two arrests since joining their company. (Tr. 22 – 35, 64 – 65)  
 
Policies 
 
 Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense 
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,5 
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative 
                                                 
4 Again, nothing in the documents proffered at hearing by the Government reflects any information about 
this arrest that constitutes a good-faith basis for SOR 2.b. Nonetheless, that issue is mad moot by 
Applicant’s admission and documents provided with his SOR response. 
 
5 See Directive. 6.3. 
 
 
 
6 
 
 
guidelines (AG). Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(d) of 
the guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors are:  
 
  (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. 
 
 The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not 
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable 
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they 
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified 
information. A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest6 for an applicant to either receive or continue to have 
access to classified information.  
 
 The Government bears the initial burden of producing admissible information on 
which it based the preliminary decision to deny or revoke a security clearance for an 
applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able to prove controverted facts alleged 
in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it then falls to the applicant to refute, 
extenuate or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one has a “right” to a security 
clearance, an applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.7 A person who has access 
to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based 
on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each 
applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will 
protect the national interests as his or her own. The “clearly consistent with the national 
interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s 
suitability for access in favor of the Government.8 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations  
 
 The Government established that Applicant has experienced financial difficulties 
since about 2013. Two periods of unexpected unemployment made it difficult for Applicant 
to meet his financial obligations, most notably the mortgage on his house, in large part 
                                                 
6 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). 
 
7 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531. 
 
8 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b). 
 
 
7 
 
 
because he was already financially overextended. At the time of the SOR, it did not 
appear that he had addressed any of the debts reflected in his credit reports or declared 
in his e-QIP. All of the foregoing reasonably raises a security concern about Applicant’s 
finances that is articulated at 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. 
Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a 
security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including 
espionage. 
 
 More specifically, available information requires application of the following 
AG ¶ 19 disqualifying conditions: 
 
(a) inability to satisfy debts; and  
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 By contrast, Applicant acted to resolve the debts at SOR 1.b and 1.d, although the 
latter debt remains outstanding. The debt at SOR 1.c was resolved at or near the time it 
was reported in 2016, and Applicant has no ongoing obligation regarding the foreclosure 
addressed in SOR 1.a. In addition, all available information probative of SOR 1.e 
reasonably casts doubt on the validity of that civil judgment as Applicant’s responsibility. 
Further, Applicant’s current finances are sound and he appears to live frugally, paying 
close attention to how he manages his money. All of the foregoing supports application 
of the following pertinent mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20: 
 
(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, a death, divorce or separation, clear 
victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the 
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;  
 
 
8 
 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to 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. 
 
 On balance, I conclude the record evidence as a whole shows that the security 
concerns about Applicant’s finances are mitigated. 
 
Criminal Conduct 
  
 Available information about Applicant’s multiple criminal offenses since 2002 
reasonably raises a security concern that is articulated at 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. 
 
Applicant has been charged at least four times over the past 16 years with criminal 
offenses related to alcohol and marijuana. Each such incident, the last two of which 
occurred after he submitted his most recent application for clearance, resulted in 
conviction. He completed probation for his most recent offenses about a month before his 
hearing in this matter. This information requires application of the following AG ¶ 31 
disqualifying conditions: 
 
(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. 
 
I also have considered the following AG ¶ 32 mitigating conditions: 
 
(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;  
 
(c) no reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; 
and 
 
 
9 
 
 
(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. 
 
 AG ¶ 32(a) does not apply because Applicant’s last instance of criminal conduct 
was in 2016, not long after his 2015 arrest for destruction of property. Both arrests 
occurred after he was hired by his current employer in August 2015. Absent information 
to the contrary, and despite his disagreements with the charges of marijuana possession 
or intoxication, the information available to the courts weighing those cases was sufficient 
proof of his conduct. AG ¶ 32(c) does not apply. In addition, AG ¶ 32(d) does not apply 
because of the recency of his criminal conduct, and in view of the long-term nature of his 
record of offenses.  Further, Applicant only recently completed a term of probation and 
has yet to establish a track record of good behavior that might support a conclusion that 
his past misconduct will not recur. On balance, I conclude he has not mitigated the 
security concerns about his criminal conduct. 
 
I also have evaluated this record in the context of the whole-person factors listed 
in AG ¶ 2(d). Of note is the positive testimony from Applicant’s supervisor and a coworker. 
Nonetheless, the persuasive value of their statements is lessened by the recency of 
Applicant’s criminal conduct and their lack of knowledge about those events. Although it 
appears Applicant’s finances are on the mend, information that is reflects positively on 
Applicant’s judgment, that information is not sufficient to outweigh the doubts raised by 
his criminal conduct. Because protection of the interests of national security is the 
principal focus of these adjudications, any remaining doubts must be resolved against the 
Applicant.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section 
E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.e:  For Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline J:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraph 2.a:  Withdrawn 
 
 Subparagraphs 2.b – 2.e: Against Applicant 
 
 
 
 
 
10 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national 
security for Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a 
security clearance is denied. 
 
 
 
                                        
MATTHEW E. MALONE 
Administrative Judge