1 
 
 
 
 
                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
    )   ISCR Case No. 17-02406 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert Blazewick, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Francis J. Flanagan, Esq. 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
 Applicant was arrested several times on illegal drug and assault charges and once 
for driving under the influence (DUI) during his late teens and early 20s. He pleaded guilty 
to refusing a breathalyzer test following a more recent arrest for DUI in December 2015. 
While he showed poor judgment on that occasion, he has turned his life around. There is 
little likelihood of recurrence. Clearance is granted. 
  
Statement of the Case 
 
 On July 27, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security 
concerns under Guideline J, criminal conduct, and Guideline E, personal conduct. The 
SOR explained why the DOD CAF was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national 
interest to grant or continue security clearance eligibility for him. The DOD CAF took the 
action under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial 
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); 
and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to 
 
2 
 
Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AG) effective within the 
DOD on June 8, 2017. 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR on August 21, 2017, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). 
On January 9, 2018, the case was assigned to me to conduct a hearing to determine 
whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security 
clearance for Applicant. On January 11, 2018, I scheduled a hearing for February 7, 2018.  
 
At the hearing, four Government exhibits (GEs 1-4) were admitted in evidence. A 
September 8, 2017 letter forwarding discovery of the GEs to Applicant’s counsel was 
marked as a hearing exhibit (HE 1) but not admitted as an evidentiary exhibit. One 
Applicant exhibit (AE A) was admitted in evidence. Applicant and five witnesses testified, 
as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on February 16, 2018. 
 
I held the record open to February 23, 2018, for additional exhibits from Applicant. 
Applicant submitted a report of a substance abuse evaluation (AE B), which was accepted 
into the record without any objection. 
 
Summary of SOR Allegations 
 
 The SOR alleges under Guideline J and cross-alleges under Guideline E (SOR ¶ 
2.a) that Applicant was arrested in December 1998 for felony conspiracy to deliver 
marijuana (SOR ¶ 1.a); in February 2000 for felony assault with a dangerous weapon (SOR 
¶ 1.b); in June 2000 for simple assault and malicious mischief (SOR ¶ 1.c); in May 2002 for 
simple assault and possession of marijuana (SOR ¶ 1.d); in November 2002 for 
possession of marijuana (SOR ¶ 1.e); in November 2002 for felony possession of 
marijuana (SOR ¶ 1.f); in December 2002 for DUI (SOR ¶ 1.g); in May 2004 for felony 
possession of marijuana and prescribing or selling anabolic steroids (SOR ¶ 1.h); in July 
2015 for domestic disorderly conduct (SOR ¶ 1.i); and in December 2015 for DUI (SOR ¶ 
1.j). When Applicant responded to the SOR, he admitted the allegations without 
explanation. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following 
findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 37-year-old structural engineer with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical 
engineering awarded in May 2016. He has been employed by a defense contractor since 
November 2016. (GEs 1-2.) 
 
Applicant and his brother, now age 36, were raised by their mother after their 
parents separated in 1987. (GE 1; AE B; Tr. 17, 50.) They did not have much supervision 
when they were young. While in high school, Applicant and his brother smoked marijuana 
with each other and with a close cousin around their age. Applicant used marijuana socially 
3 
 
a couple of times a week. He obtained the drug from classmates and friends. (GE 2.) After 
graduating from high school in June 2000, Applicant socialized with three or four friends 
who had little interest in furthering their education and little to no structure. (Tr. 60.) 
Applicant got into legal trouble several times when he was 17 to 23 years old, as follows. 
 
Applicant was arrested for felony conspiracy to deliver marijuana in December 1998 
(SOR ¶ 1.a). He had gone with a female friend to visit her boyfriend at a house apparently 
known by local police for drug dealing. Applicant attests that an undercover police officer 
tried unsuccessfully to get his friend to sell him drugs, but both Applicant and his friend 
were charged with conspiracy. Applicant had not dealt in any marijuana and did not have 
any marijuana on him when he was arrested, and the charge against him was dropped in 
October 1999. (GEs 1-2.) 
 
Applicant was charged with possession of alcohol by a minor in October 1999 (not 
alleged in SOR). He pleaded nolo contendere and was fined $100. (GE 4.) 
 
In late February 2000, Applicant had a fight at a convenience store with someone 
who called him a racial slur. When the police arrived, the other person claimed that 
Applicant had kicked him while he was on the ground defenseless. Applicant was arrested 
for assault with a dangerous weapon. Store surveillance tape showed that the person had 
not been struck while on the ground, and the charge against Applicant was amended to 
misdemeanor simple assault. Applicant pleaded nolo contendere in May 2000, and he was 
sentenced to six months of supervised probation, with credit for one day served; to pay 
$705 in restitution; and to have no contact with the victim. Applicant satisfied the restitution 
in March 2001. (GEs 1-4; Tr. 20-22.) Applicant now understands that he made a mistake in 
engaging with the person who uttered the racial slur. (Tr. 22.) 
 
Applicant was arrested for simple assault and malicious mischief in June 2000, in 
violation of his probation for the February 2000 assault. There is little information about the 
offense other than that Applicant got into an argument, was jumped by three people, and 
then left the scene. They claimed he was the aggressor, even though he was dazed and 
hospitalized. (Tr. 44.) He was released on bail on the conditions that he attend alcohol 
counseling and stay away from the victim. The program’s focus was alcohol education. (Tr. 
41.) In late June 2000, he pleaded nolo contendere to both charges. He was sentenced on 
each charge to six months in jail, suspended; given consecutive one-year probation terms; 
and ordered to pay restitution for the property and medical damages. (GEs 3-4.) 
 
Shortly after his high school graduation, Applicant lost his cousin to suicide in 2000. 
The death of his close cousin, who he considered to be his best friend, put him in “a very 
tough place.” (Tr. 40.) 
 
In May 2002, Applicant got into a fight in public. When the police arrived, they found 
a half of a marijuana cigarette in Applicant’s pocket. Applicant was arrested for simple 
assault and possession of marijuana, first offense, both misdemeanors. He pleaded nolo 
contendere to both charges in June 2002. For the simple assault, he was sentenced to one 
year in jail (suspended), placed on one year probation, and assessed $93.50 in court costs. 
4 
 
He was sentenced to six months of probation on the drug charge and ordered to pay an 
indemnity fee of $100. (GEs 1-4; Tr. 24.) 
 
In early November 2002, Applicant was stopped for speeding. The police officer 
found marijuana on him, in violation of his probation for the May 2002 offenses. He 
pleaded nolo contendere to possession of marijuana and was fined $200. He paid his fine 
and court costs in early December 2002. (GEs 1-4; Tr. 25.) 
 
 In mid-November 2002, Applicant was stopped for a license plate light infraction. 
The police found marijuana in his vehicle, and he was arrested for possession of 
marijuana, subsequent offense, a felony. He pleaded nolo contendere in early December 
2002, was adjudged guilty, and sentenced to two years in jail, suspended; placed on two 
years of probation; fined $1,000; and ordered to participate in a drug program and undergo 
drug testing. With a final payment in September 2006, he satisfied $2,093 in total fines and 
payments, but only after two bench warrants had been issued against him for nonpayment. 
(GEs 1-4; Tr. 25.) 
 
Applicant was arrested for misdemeanor DUI, first offense, in mid-December 2002 
after drinking to intoxication at a party. He pleaded nolo contendere the next day and was 
sentenced to one year in jail with 11 months suspended; placed on 11 months of probation; 
fined $100 and $680.50 in court costs; ordered to perform ten hours of community service. 
Applicant stayed in a holding unit during his 30 days in jail, and he satisfied his fine and 
costs with a final payment in July 2004. (GEs 1-4; AE B.) The experience of being in a 
holding cell with a variety of inmates motivated him to change his lifestyle. He ceased 
drinking excessively and fraternizing with peers who were negative influences. (AE B.) 
 
After he was released from jail, Applicant held inconsistent work in construction as a 
laborer or roofer. Each summer from 2004 to 2015, he held a part-time job as a member of 
a field crew for a local music festival foundation. He was staying temporarily with his 
mother and brother in their home in May 2004 when the police came to the home and 
searched the premises for drugs. They found some marijuana and anabolic steroids and 
arrested Applicant for felony possession of marijuana, second offense, and possession of 
anabolic steroids. Applicant pleaded not guilty, and the charges were eventually dismissed 
in late February 2005. Applicant’s brother testified in court that the drugs were his and did 
not belong to Applicant. (GEs 1-4; Tr. 29-32, 70.) 
 
After years of living from paycheck to paycheck and realizing that he had to do 
something positive with his life, Applicant enrolled in a local community college in 
September 2011. He transferred to his state university in January 2013. (GE 2; Tr. 33-34.) 
In 2014 or 2015, he began dating his current girlfriend. They had attended the same high 
school but had little contact after 2000 until they began dating. (Tr. 79, 84.) 
 
In July 2015, Applicant and his brother had a loud argument over a text his brother 
had sent to Applicant’s girlfriend. A neighbor contacted the police, and both Applicant and 
his brother were arrested for disorderly conduct-domestic. Applicant pleaded not guilty and 
the charge was dismissed in August 2015. (GEs 1-4; Tr. 45, 71-72.) 
5 
 
 
After finishing his last college examination of the semester in December 2015, 
Applicant went out to dinner with his girlfriend. Applicant consumed four beers at dinner. 
Applicant’s girlfriend testified that he was not drunk when she was with him that evening. 
(Tr. 83.) They left separately, and Applicant was stopped two blocks away from the pub 
and arrested for misdemeanor DUI, first offense. He pleaded not guilty at his arraignment. 
In February 2016, the charge was dismissed and his case was transferred to the state’s 
department of motor vehicles in return for his guilty plea to refusal to submit to a 
breathalyzer, a traffic violation. An Interlock device was installed on his vehicle for several 
months. (GEs 1-4; Tr. 34-36, 46, 65.) 
 
 Applicant viewed the 2015 DUI as a “reawakening” in that he realized if he 
continued to make similar mistakes, it would not matter if he had a college degree. He 
would have difficulty landing a good job and perhaps retaining his a job if an incident 
happened after he was employed. (Tr. 35.) He resolved to drink no more than three beers 
at a sitting and to not drive after drinking even one alcoholic beverage. (GE 2.) 
 
At age 35, Applicant earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. In 
application for a position with his defense contractor employer, Applicant completed and 
certified to the accuracy of a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) on 
August 5, 2016. He disclosed his arrest record, including his arrest for DUI in December 
2015, and the court-ordered counseling and drug testing for his 2002 marijuana offense. 
Under additional comments, Applicant explained that when he was younger, he had 
“engaged in getting into trouble, like smoking marijuana, getting into fights and drinking,” 
but that he had turned his life around and would not jeopardize this “opportunity of a life 
time.” (GE 1.) Applicant began working for his employer with an interim clearance in 
November 2016. (GE 2; Tr. 16-17.) 
 
On May 3, 2017, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Applicant discussed his arrest record, although in 
doing so, he did not volunteer that he had been jailed for his November 2002 felony 
marijuana offense. Regarding his December 2015 DUI, Applicant stated that he had 
learned his lesson and no longer drinks after drinking one beer. As for his marijuana use, 
Applicant denied any use of the drug since at least 2010. He could not recall the date of his 
last use. He ceased his marijuana use because he wanted to turn his life around, and he 
denied any intention to use marijuana in the future. He described his marijuana use as 
“minimal” after his 2015 DUI arrest—beer only and never more than three beers with 
dinner. He indicated that he drinks two or three times a month, but that he can go months 
without drinking. While acknowledging that he made poor decisions on occasions in the 
past when he consumed alcohol to excess, he could not recall when he last drank to 
intoxication. He expressed a plan to drink alcohol moderately in social settings. (GE 2.) 
 
Applicant takes his job seriously and has no intention of jeopardizing it. (Tr. 37.) He 
spends most of his free time with his girlfriend or working out. (AE B; Tr. 39.) 
 
6 
 
On February 19, 2018, Applicant underwent a substance abuse evaluation by a 
clinical psychologist. Inventories designed to assess stability of lifestyle suggested stability 
in Applicant’s commitment to be responsible regarding the use of alcohol. In the opinion of 
the psychologist, the history Applicant related and the inventories “support the current 
stability of his reformed lifestyle.” (AE B.)  
 
Character references 
 
 Applicant’s mother, uncle, brother, girlfriend, and one of his former teachers testified 
on his behalf. They all believe Applicant has turned his life around. Applicant’s mother was 
concerned about Applicant’s drinking when he was younger but not in recent years. He 
concentrated on his schoolwork when he was in college. (Tr. 56.) Applicant’s uncle attested 
to the close relationship that Applicant shared with his son before his son’s suicide in 2000. 
He observed that Applicant became less impulsive as the years passed. He currently sees 
Applicant once or twice a month and has no concerns about his drinking since the 2015 
DUI. (Tr. 60-62.) Applicant’s brother considers college to be primary factor in Applicant 
changing his life. He knows Applicant’s girlfriend and believes she is a good influence on 
his brother. (Tr. 69, 73.) 
 
 Applicant’s girlfriend has worked as a financial analyst for a branch of the U.S. 
military for the past 15 years. She has a secret clearance. (Tr. 79.) Convinced that 
Applicant is no longer the same person that he was in high school, she does not believe 
that Applicant would put his security clearance at risk. In her experience, Applicant has a 
couple of beers when he does drink. (Tr. 81-82.) Applicant’s former teacher initially met 
Applicant as a 7th grade student. More recently, he worked with Applicant at the local music 
festival from 2000 through 2014. Applicant was conscientious and dependable in that job. 
He is also of the opinion that Applicant has turned his life around. (Tr. 90-91.) 
 
 A retired police sergeant for the community where Applicant was raised is aware 
that Applicant got into trouble from time to time during his youth. Even then, Applicant was 
always polite in their interactions. He became reacquainted with Applicant over the last 
couple of years and was impressed by Applicant’s maturation and professional demeanor. 
He does not believe Applicant presents a security risk. (AE A.) 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, 
the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered 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, 
these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative 
7 
 
process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and 
commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(a), 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 national security 
eligibility will be resolved in favor of the 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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant 
has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security 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 
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. Section 7 of EO 10865 
provides that 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). 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline J: Criminal Conduct 
 
 The security concern about criminal conduct is articulated 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. 
 
 The criminal conduct concerns are established by Applicant’s February 2000 simple 
assault; his June 2000 simple assault and malicious mischief; his May 2002 simple assault 
and marijuana possession; his November 2002 marijuana possession; his November 2002 
felony marijuana possession; and his December 2002 DUI. Applicant pleaded nolo 
contendere to all those charges, and he received various sentences as noted above. Court 
records show that he was presented as a violator because his June 2000 assault was in 
violation of his probation for his February 2000 assault, even though the violation report 
was withdrawn after a hearing.  When he was arrested for marijuana possession in early 
8 
 
November 2002, he was on probation for his May 2002 marijuana possession and simple 
assault. He was on probation for his second marijuana offense in November 2002 when he 
was arrested for DUI in December 2002. Three disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 31 
apply because of his criminal conduct during his late teens and early 20s: 
 
(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; 
 
(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; and 
 
(d) violation or revocation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a 
court-mandated rehabilitation program. 
 
 Other charges filed against Applicant were dismissed, i.e., the December 1998 
felony to distribute marijuana; May 2004 felony possession of marijuana and possession of 
anabolic steroids; July 2015 domestic disorderly conduct; and December 2015 DUI. AG ¶ 
32(b) does not require a conviction, but Applicant denied any culpability in the December 
1998 and May 2004 felony drug charges, and the evidence fails to establish any 
wrongdoing by Applicant in those two instances. Applicant pleaded not guilty to the 1998 
felony drug distribution charge because he was only accompanying his friend and had no 
prior knowledge of any drug dealing. His brother accepted responsibility for the drugs found 
by the police in their home in May 2004. Mitigating condition AG ¶ 32(c), “no reliable 
evidence to support that the individual committed the offense,” has some applicability. The 
conduct that led to the domestic disorderly charge in July 2015 was a loud argument 
between Applicant and his brother without any fighting, which would normally raise little 
security concern. As for the December 2015 DUI, he pleaded not guilty to DUI at his 
arraignment. A plea of nolo contendere to a refusal charge in traffic court falls short of 
proving that he was intoxicated, although he admits that he had consumed four beers 
before driving. He exercised poor judgment within Guideline E, whether or not he was 
sufficiently intoxicated to sustain a criminal DUI charge. 
 
 In assessing the current security significance of Applicant’s recidivist criminal 
conduct during his late teens and early 20s, two mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 32 have 
some applicability: 
 
(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, 
9 
 
compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher 
education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement. 
 
 There is no evidence of assaultive behavior by Applicant since 2002 or illegal drug 
possession by Applicant since 2010, if not before then. When asked about his last use of 
marijuana during his OPM interview, Applicant indicated that he had not used marijuana 
since at least 2010. He has not been arrested for illegal possession since May 2004, and 
those drug charges were unfounded. Applicant’s case for mitigation under AG ¶ 32(a) 
because of the passage of time, and under AG ¶ 32(d) based on rehabilitation is 
undermined somewhat by his arrests in July 2015 and December 2015. While he was not 
convicted of the criminal charges, he was not entirely blameless. He refused to submit to a 
breathalyzer after his arrest for DUI without any explanation to dispute the reasonable 
inference that he feared he might be over the legal limit. 
 
 However, Applicant’s change to a drug-free lifestyle and his pursuit of a college 
education are strong evidence in rehabilitation that weigh favorably under AG ¶ 32(d). 
Regarding the possibility of a DUI recurring, Applicant’s mother and his girlfriend both 
testified that he drinks moderately. They are not concerned about his drinking. One of 
Applicant’s former teachers had an opportunity to work with Applicant for the festival 
foundation when Applicant was a college student. Applicant was a hard worker and 
dependable. It shows constructive community involvement on Applicant’s part consistent 
with his claim of reform. The assessment of the clinical psychologist who evaluated 
Applicant for substance abuse in February 2018 was consistent in finding him stable in his 
commitment to the responsible use of alcohol. The psychologist found no evidence that 
would suggest Applicant is not stable in his reformed lifestyle. I am persuaded that 
Applicant is not likely to jeopardize his career as an engineer by engaging in criminal 
conduct in the future. He considers his employment with a defense contractor the 
opportunity of a lifetime and has matured sufficiently to mitigate the criminal conduct 
security concerns. 
 
Guideline E: Personal Conduct 
 
 The security concern about personal conduct is articulated 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 investigations or 
adjudicative processes. 
 
 Applicant has been candid from the start about his criminal record. While there are 
no concerns about Applicant’s honesty or candor, his repeated criminal behavior triggers 
issues of questionable judgment under Guideline E. Disqualifying condition AG ¶ 16(c) is 
implicated in that Applicant’s assaults, marijuana possession, and DUI conduct may no 
longer warrant disqualification under Guideline J because of the passage of time, but they 
10 
 
may still reflect a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment or unwillingness to 
comply with rules and regulations. AG ¶ 16(c) states: 
 
(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, or 
other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard 
classified or sensitive information. 
 
 Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 have some applicability. They are: 
 
(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; 
 
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to 
change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, 
circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or 
other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; 
 
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability 
to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; 
 
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable 
reliability; and  
 
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwilling, has 
ceased, or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the 
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with 
rules and regulations. 
 
 AG ¶ 17(c) is partially established because the assaults and marijuana possession 
offenses happened so long ago and are attributable to his youth and immaturity at the time. 
Likewise, Applicant’s cessation of illegal drug involvement in 2010, if not before then, and 
his pursuit of higher education, are favorable changes in his behavior that make recurrence 
unlikely under AG ¶ 17(d). Regarding AG ¶ 17(e), Applicant is not seen as vulnerable to 
any undue pressure because of his past misconduct, given he has been forthright with the 
DOD about his arrest record. AG ¶ 17(f) applies to the December 1998 and May 2004 drug 
charges for which Applicant had no culpability. AG ¶ 17(g) is partially established in that 
Applicant no longer associates with the friends of his youth when most of his misconduct 
occurred. He still has a close relationship with his brother, and they used marijuana 
together when they were younger. Yet, there is no evidence that illegal drugs have any part 
in their current relations.  
 
11 
 
 Applicant demonstrated poor judgment in the domestic altercation with his brother in 
July 2015 and in driving after drinking four beers in December 2015. Nothing about the 
circumstances of those incidents or the passage of time warrants mitigation under AG ¶ 
17(c). Applicant argued over a text message sent by his brother and, in December 2015, 
Applicant drank when out to dinner with his girlfriend. However, these incidents do not 
appear to be characteristic of Applicant’s current lifestyle, which centers on his work and 
spending time with his girlfriend. Since his December 2015 arrest, Applicant has been 
careful to not drive if he drinks alcohol. He has decreased his consumption level to no 
more than three beers at a sitting. A clinical psychologist evaluated Applicant for substance 
abuse in February 2018. Inventories administered to Applicant support a determination that 
Applicant is stable in his commitment to the responsible use of alcohol. He has 
demonstrated sufficient reform for mitigation under AG ¶ 17(d). The personal conduct 
security concerns are mitigated. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
In the whole-person evaluation, the administrative judge must consider the totality of 
an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(d).1 Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under 
Guidelines J and E, but some warrant additional comment. 
  
 It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security 
clearance eligibility, there is a strong against the grant or renewal of a security clearance. 
See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990). Applicant would have 
presented a serious security risk some10 years ago. Likely due to his youth and immaturity, 
he was either unable or unwilling to comply with laws, rules, and regulations relating to 
assaultive behavior and substance use. In his favor, he recognized that his prospects for 
the future were dim if he lacked a career and continued to party on the weekends. Over the 
past seven years, he demonstrated his commitment to reform by pursuing his college 
degree, giving up illegal drugs, and disassociating himself from his old friends. His 2015 
arrests for disorderly conduct and DUI are not condoned, but to Applicant’s credit, they did 
not discourage Applicant from pursuing his goals of a college education and a good job. 
Applicant testified persuasively that he considers his defense-contractor employment to be 
the opportunity of a lifetime that he does not intend to jeopardize. His family members, his 
girlfriend, and a former teacher all attest to Applicant having turned his life around. Security 
clearance determinations are not intended to punish applicants for past wrongdoing. 
Rather, they involve an assessment of future risk. Based on all the information presented, 
including the opinion of a clinical psychologist that Applicant is committed to his reformed 
                                                 
1 The factors under AG ¶ 2(d) are as follows: 
 
(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. 
12 
 
lifestyle, I find there is little likelihood of recurrence of the criminal conduct and personal 
conduct security concerns. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for or against Applicant 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 J:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.j:  For Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 2.a:   For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to 
grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to 
classified information is granted. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge