1 
       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 12-08463 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Matthew L. Davis, Esq. 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
CREAN, THOMAS M., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to mitigate all financial, 
alcohol, and criminal conduct security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified 
information is denied. 
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on June 18, 2016 (Government Exhibit (GX) 1), and March 29, 2012 (GX 3), to 
obtain a security clearance required for a position with a defense contractor. He was 
granted access to classified information after submission of the 2012 e-QIP. However, 
the Department of Defense (DOD) could not make the affirmative findings required to 
continue his eligibility for access to classified information after he submitted his 2016 e-
QIP. On June 28, 2017, DOD issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing 
security concerns for alcohol consumption (Guideline G), criminal conduct (Guideline J), 
and financial considerations (Guideline F). DOD amended the SOR on October 17, 
2017, to more clearly outline the allegations under Guidelines G and J. The action was 
taken under Executive Order 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 
12/17/2018
2 
 
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective in the Department of 
Defense on June 8, 2017. 
 
Applicant answered the original SOR on July 19, 2017. He admitted the four 
financial allegations under Guideline F. He answered the amended SOR on October 25, 
2018, admitting the two allegations of alcohol consumption under Guideline G and the 
one allegation of criminal conduct under Guideline J. Department Counsel was 
prepared to proceed on the original allegations on October 23, 2017, and the case was 
assigned to me April 13, 2018. DOD issued a notice of hearing on September 4, 2018, 
for a hearing on September 19, 2018. Unfortunately, Applicant’s mother passed away 
on the day of the hearing. A new notice of hearing was issued on September 19, 2018, 
for a hearing on November 1, 2018. I convened the hearing as rescheduled. 
Department Counsel introduced 17 documents which were admitted into the record 
without objection as Government Exhibits (GX) 1 to 17. Applicant introduced five 
documents admitted into the record without objection as Applicant Exhibit (AX) A to E. I 
kept the record open for Applicant to introduce additional documents. Applicant timely 
submitted six documents that I admitted without objection as AX F to K. (GX 18, e-mail, 
dated December 3, 2018) DOHA received a copy of the hearing transcript on November 
9, 2018. The record closed on December 3, 2018, upon receipt of all post-hearing 
documents.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the case file, I make the following findings of fact. 
Applicant is 62 years old. Applicant received a bachelor’s degree in May 2000, and took 
additional college courses from January 2003 until November 2005. He did not receive 
an additional degree. He married the first time in 1980, had one child, and divorced in 
1985. He married again in 1985 and had four children. Applicant and his wife separated 
briefly a number of times in their marriage and now have been separated since 2015. 
Applicant and his wife are trying to reconcile. He has four adult children from this 
marriage. Since separating from his wife, Applicant rented the basement of a town 
house where he and his special needs son reside. (Tr. 25-26, 35-38) 
 
 Applicant served on active duty in the Army from March 1975 until April 1995. He 
retired as a First Sergeant (E-8) with an honorable discharge. After leaving active duty, 
he served as a minister for three years until approximately 2000. In February 2002, he 
started working with his present defense contractor employer as a mechanic. He was 
continually promoted and has been a production supervisor for the last ten years. 
Applicant’s employer has been very supportive of him while he undergoes substance 
abuse rehabilitation, to care for his son, and the need to care for and bury his mother. 
(Tr. 26-27; 33-36; GX 1, e-QIP, dated June 18, 2016; GX 3, e-QIP, dated March 29, 
2012) 
 
The SOR alleges four financial security concerns under Guideline F; a Chapter 7 
bankruptcy filed in November 2016 with debts discharged in March 2017 (SOR 1.a); a 
Chapter 13 bankruptcy filed in July 2016 but dismissed in December 2016 (SOR 1.b); 
3 
 
federal income tax debt of approximately $45,773 for tax years 2009, and 2011 to 2015 
(SOR 1.c); and a failure to file in a timely fashion federal tax returns for tax years 2009 
through 2015 (SOR 1.d). Delinquent student loans are not alleged in the SOR as 
financial security concerns but are noted on credit reports (GX 4, dated May 9, 2017; 
GX 5, dated August 19, 2016; GX 6, dated September 2, 2014; and GX 7, dated April 3, 
2012). 
 
The SOR alleges under alcohol consumption (Guideline G) that Applicant in 
October 2011 discharged a firearm from a moving vehicle after consuming alcohol. He 
was sentenced to be incarcerated for 180 days with 165 days suspended. (SOR 2.a). 
The SOR also alleges that after consuming alcohol Applicant was arrested for 
recklessly handling a firearm, swearing in public and public intoxication. He was 
sentenced to probation for 12 months. (SOR 2.b) These offenses were also cross-
alleged as criminal conduct. (SOR 3.a) Applicant admitted all allegations. (Answer to 
SOR, dated October 25, 2018) 
 
Applicant lived beyond his means while on active duty. He used credit cards sent 
to him in the mail to bolster his ability to purchase whatever he wanted. After leaving 
active duty in 1995 and working as a minister, Applicant continued to have financial 
problems caused by lack of sufficient income and living beyond his means. In 1997, 
Applicant and his second wife filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in an attempt to save their 
house. They were unable to make the required payments to the bankruptcy trustee, so 
the bankruptcy was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Their debts at the time were 
discharged in the bankruptcy in 1997. His house was foreclosed in 2002. (Tr. 20-21, 35-
37; GX 8 and 9, Bankruptcy Documents, 1997; GX 10, Foreclosure documents, dated 
May 3, 2002; GX 11, Applicant’s Statement, dated May 16, 2002) 
 
Applicant and his wife continued to have financial issues. They moved so he 
could have a better job, but his wife could not find employment to provide sufficient 
income for the family. He could not afford to buy a house so he rented one. Applicant’s 
wife usually calculated, completed, and filed their tax returns. After a separation in 
approximately 2006 from his wife, Applicant did not file his federal income tax returns for 
six years from approximately 2009 until 2015 because he knew he would owe about 
$6,000 each year in taxes that he could not afford to pay. His wife continued to file 
separately. Starting in 2008, Applicant knew he would owe substantial federal taxes. He 
was overwhelmed by his problems and did not focus on what he needed to do and did 
not take care of his business. (Tr. 40-41, 73-75) 
 
In 2012, Applicant went to a tax service and an attorney to resolve his taxes to no 
avail. Starting in 2012, Applicant’s pay was garnished by the Internal Revenue Service 
(IRS). After the IRS pay garnishment, Applicant’s take-home pay was reduced to 
approximately $600 a month after garnishment. Applicant’s car was repossessed, and 
he and his family were evicted from the home they rented. Applicant and his wife 
separated permanently in 2015. In 2016, Applicant was able to have a tax preparer file 
his past-due tax returns. Applicant has continued to use this attorney to file his taxes. 
(Tr. 41-43) 
4 
 
Applicant also contacted an attorney, and Applicant and his wife filed another 
Chapter 13 bankruptcy that was later converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Their debts 
were again discharged in 2017. (Tr. 21-23, 43-45; GX 2, Bankruptcy Documents)   
 
Applicant was overwhelmed by his financial issues and the need to care for his 
special needs son. After the bankruptcy discharge, Applicant worked with a Certified 
Public Accountant (CPA) to resolve the federal tax debt that remained from the 
bankruptcy discharge. With the help of the CPA, Applicant was able to have his 
disabled son declared his dependent and his income restructured to minimize his tax 
liability. Instead of owing taxes, he received a tax refund that is applied to his tax debt. 
His mother, who was located in another state, became sick and Applicant had to travel 
to help care for her. His mother passed away in September 2018. (Tr. 23-25, 35-38) 
 
Applicant filed his past-due federal tax returns in 2016. (AX F, G, and H, IRS Tax 
Documents). He timely filed his 2016 and 2017 federal tax returns. (AX I and J, IRS Tax 
Documents) After all of the tax returns were filed, the IRS determined that Applicant 
owed approximately $35,000 in back taxes. In April 2018, Applicant agreed to a 
payment plan of $425 a month with the ISR to pay back taxes. His payment amount will 
increase in April 2019 to $595. No taxes were owed for tax years 2016 and 2017. He is 
current with the IRS payment plan for past-due taxes for tax years 2010 to 2015. (Tr. 
49-52, 72-74) 
 
Applicant drank alcohol from approximately 1990 to 2000. He started drinking 
because he was a young soldier and just wanted to drink alcohol. He stopped drinking 
alcohol in 2000 because he entered the ministry becoming a pastor and did not want to 
be seen consuming alcohol. He started drinking again in 2003 because he left the 
ministry and there was no accountability for behavior, he was still having financial 
problems, and he had lost his home. In 2010, his consumption of alcohol increased 
substantially for no reason except he and his wife were separated; his children had 
moved back into his house; and he had issues caring for his mother who was in another 
state. He was consuming from six to nine beers a day. He drank to deal with his 
problems and his stress. Applicant sought substance abuse counseling. In 2015, he 
started to consult with a psychologist who he still periodically sees.  He last consumed 
alcohol on September 22, 2018, the day before his mother’s funeral. The day before the 
hearing, he started a Veteran’s Affairs (VA) Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program 
(SARP) through his employer. He understands he has an issue with alcohol and needs 
treatment. He stated that he does not intend to consume alcohol in the future. (Tr. 51-
58, 75-78: AX A through D; VA Hospital staff assignments and schedule) 
 
In October 2011, Applicant was separated from his wife and dating another 
woman. He was consuming a few beers before the woman asked him to take her and 
her young daughter to run some errands. Since he had been drinking alcohol, he asked 
the woman to drive. Applicant brought a handgun with him because the jurisdiction 
where they were located allowed the open carrying of handguns. Applicant and the 
woman argued and Applicant became irritated. As they drove down a road, Applicant 
fired his gun out the window of the moving car. He apologized to the woman and gave 
5 
 
her his gun. But she drove to a store to call the police. Applicant did not consider 
himself intoxicated but he knew he was over the legal limit to drive. Applicant was 
convicted of two counts of brandishing a weapon, served seven days in jail, and placed 
on probation for six months. He completed the period of probation. He was monitored 
for substance abuse while on probation. All tests were negative. (Tr. 59-65, 79-8; GX 
12, Police Report; GX 13, Court Record; GX 16, Incident Report; GX 17, Criminal 
History Report) 
 
Applicant had another incident with a weapon in 2015. By September 2015, his 
mother, who had been living with him, moved back to her home because Applicant was 
unable to care for her. Applicant also had problems with his special needs son, and the 
IRS was questioning him about his failure to file tax returns. Applicant was angry and 
frustrated. He went outside and fired his gun into the air three times. On the day of the 
incident, Applicant consumed over a pint of alcohol. He was arrested and charged with 
reckless handling of a firearm and public intoxication. He was convicted and sentenced 
to twelve months of supervised probation. He wore an ankle bracelet from October 2015 
until October 2016. He did not consume alcohol and successfully completed probation. 
He no longer owes a firearm. However, he has continued to consume moderate 
amounts of alcohol since ending his probation in October 2016. (Tr. 65-70, 80-81; GX 
14, Police Report; GX 15, Court Record; GX 16, Incident Report; GX 17, Criminal 
History Report)  
 
Applicant presented a letter from a friend who is a psychologist and has known 
Applicant for over 25 years. The friend provided mentoring and counseling for Applicant. 
Applicant has been candid and transparent about the issues he has encountered 
including the death of his mother. He believes Applicant has taken the counseling he 
received to heart and is developing positive coping methods. He is resolving his 
financial issue and making restitution. He is taking strides to correct his past mistakes 
and entered substance abuse treatment. He is making efforts to reconcile with his wife. 
The friend recommends that he be granted eligibility for access to classified information.  
(AX E, Letter, dated October 31, 2018) 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the Administrative Guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 process. The administrative judge’s over-arching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶ 
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as 
the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, 
6 
 
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in 
making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on 
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences 
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
 
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 burden of persuasion to obtaining 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of 
classified information. 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 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. An individual 
who is financially irresponsible, may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in 
his obligations to protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in 
one aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects 
of life. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in 
illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. (AG ¶ 18).  
 
 A person’s relationship with his or her creditors is a private matter until evidence 
is uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to meet financial obligations. 
Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant with a 
history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk inconsistent 
with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is required to manage his or her 
finances in such a way as to meet financial obligations.  
7 
 
Applicant filed for bankruptcy in July 2016 and his debts were discharged in 
March 2017. Applicant admits that he has an income tax debt to the United States of 
approximately $35,000 because he did not file income tax returns for six years for tax 
year 2009 through 2015. This information is sufficient to raise security concerns under 
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19: 
 
 (a) inability to satisfy debts;  
 
 (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; 
 
 (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; 
 
(f) failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income 
tax returns or pay annual Federal., state, or local income taxes as 
required. 
 
 Applicant’s tax debt caused by his failure to timely file federal tax returns exhibits 
an inability and unwillingness to satisfy debts and meet financial obligations. Once the 
Government has established the adverse financial issue, the Applicant has the 
responsibility to refute or mitigate the issue. Based on the information provided by 
Applicant, I considered the following Financial Considerations 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 problems were largely 
beyond the person’s control (e.g. loss of employment, a business 
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or 
separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity 
theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 
 
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem from 
a legitimate and credible sources, such as a non-profit credit counselling 
service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved 
or is under control; and 
 
(d) the individual has initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax 
authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those 
arrangements.  
 
8 
 
 The mitigating conditions only partially apply. Applicant presented no evidence 
that he received financial counseling. However, an individual must establish that they 
completed a required financial counseling course for debts to be discharged in 
bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a permissible and legal method of resolving debt, but it does 
not show for security clearance purposes a good-faith effort to resolve debts. Applicant 
filed a bankruptcy action in 2016 and his debts were discharged in 2017. The available 
evidence shows that Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in July 2016 that was 
converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in November 2016. Applicant’s debts were 
discharged in March 2017. Applicant’s bankruptcy action in 2016/2017 does not equate 
to a security concern.  
 
 The information provided by Applicant shows that he has now filed the tax 
returns and his tax debt is being resolved. However, there is a more fundamental issue 
for security clearance purposes in not timely filing tax returns. Applicant admits he did 
not timely file his federal tax returns because he did not have the funds to pay the taxes. 
The lack of funds to pay taxes does not relieve a person from timely filing tax returns. 
Applicant’s lack of action to file the returns resulted in his financial problems being 
ongoing and recent, and not incurred under circumstances making recurrence unlikely.  
 
Applicant has shown his recent good-faith efforts to meet his tax and financial 
obligations by agreeing to a payment plan with the IRS. Good faith means acting in a 
way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty and 
obligation. Applicant must act responsibly given his circumstances, and show that he 
has a reasonable plan to resolve financial problems, and that he has taken significant 
action to implement that plan. Applicant’s plan must show a systematic method of 
handling financial obligations, and a meaningful track record of filing tax returns and 
resolving debts. A meaningful track record of tax return filing and resolving debt can be 
established by evidence of actually filing tax returns and establishing a plan to pay 
debts. A promise to file tax returns and pay debts is not a substitute for a track record of 
filing returns in a timely manner and acting in a financially responsible manner.  
 
Applicant provided sufficient evidence that he filed his federal tax returns for tax 
years 2009 through 2015 in 2016. All of these tax returns were filed late and not when 
due. Failure to timely file tax returns suggests that an applicant has a problem 
complying with well-established governmental rules and systems. It is well known that 
federal tax returns for a particular tax year are to be filed by April 15 of the following 
year. Voluntary compliance with government rules and systems is essential for 
protecting classified and sensitive information. A person who fails to fulfill his or her 
legal obligation to timely file tax returns does not demonstrate the high degree of good 
judgment and reliability required for a grant of access to classified or sensitive 
information. An applicant’s failure to timely file tax returns is a strong indication that the 
individual may not follow the rules and guidance concerning safeguarding classified and 
sensitive information.  
 
 Applicant is now paying his past-due taxes, so AG ¶ 20(g) applies. Even though 
Applicant has corrected the tax return problem and is paying his past-due taxes, there 
9 
 
must still be careful consideration of Applicant’s trustworthiness in view of his 
longstanding prior behavior evidencing irresponsibility by failing to timely file income tax 
returns. Applicant did not timely file his tax returns because he did not have the funds to 
pay the taxes due. There are procedures available to a taxpayer to file tax returns even 
if they do not have the funds available to pay the taxes. Applicant did not follow the 
established government rules and procedures and contact federal tax authorities for 
help to understand the actions he must take. He just simply failed to file the tax returns. 
By failing to timely file federal tax returns for at least six years, Applicant did not 
demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of persons 
granted access to classified or sensitive information  
 
 It is a requirement of good citizenship to timely file income tax returns. The fact 
that he did not timely file returns indicates that Applicant was not acting responsibly and 
reliably. Applicant did not provide sufficient assurance that his tax filing problems are 
resolved, under control, and will not recur in the future. His lack of reasonable and 
responsible actions towards his tax returns are a strong indication that he may not 
protect and safeguard classified or sensitive information. Under all these circumstances, 
Applicant failed to mitigate financial security concerns.  
 
Alcohol Consumption 
 
Excessive alcohol consumption is a security concern because it often leads to 
the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise 
questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. (AG ¶ 21)  
 
Applicant was arrested for two incidents of firing a weapon after consuming 
alcohol in dangerous circumstances within four years. Available evidence shows 
Applicant continues to consume alcohol. Applicant’s alcohol-related arrests, and his 
continued consumption of alcohol are sufficient to establish the following Alcohol 
Consumption Disqualifying Condition under AG ¶ 22(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 the frequency of the 
individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use 
disorder).  
 
 I considered the following Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 
23: 
 
(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 pattern of maladaptive alcohol 
use, provides evidence of action taken to overcome this problem, and has 
10 
 
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or 
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations; and 
 
(c) the individual is participating in counseling or treatment program, has 
no previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory 
progress in a treatment program. 
 
While there is no "bright line" rule for determining when conduct is recent or 
sufficient time has passed since the incidents, a determination whether past conduct 
affects an individual's present reliability and trustworthiness must be based on a careful 
evaluation of the totality of the evidence. If the evidence shows a significant period of 
time has passed without evidence of an alcohol issue, there must be an evaluation 
whether that period of time demonstrates changed circumstances or conduct sufficient 
to indicate a finding of reform or rehabilitation.  
 
 Applicant was convicted of two incidents of criminally firing a weapon after 
consuming alcohol in 2011 and 2015. Applicant stated that he entered a VA substance 
abuse program the day before the hearing. He also admitted that he continues to 
consume alcohol.  
 
 Applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to establish a pattern of 
abstinence and has not shown sufficient evidence of action taken to overcome his 
alcohol consumption problems. He did not present any evidence of participation in on-
going programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous. He admits that he has and continues to 
consume alcohol. Accordingly, Applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to show 
a change of circumstance. He has not established that he can now control his alcohol 
consumption impulses. The evidence does not show that Applicant has been reformed 
or rehabilitated. I find that Applicant has not mitigated security concerns for alcohol 
consumption. 
 
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 ¶ 30). Applicant’s admitted criminal 
convictions were verified by criminal justice reports. Applicant admits that alcohol 
consumption was a cause of his criminal activity gun offenses. These criminal acts raise 
the following Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Conductions under AG ¶ 31: 
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; and 
 
(b) allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether 
the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted.  
 
 I considered the following Criminal Conduct Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶ 32: 
 
11 
 
(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, remorse or 
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or 
constructive community involvement. 
  
 None of the mitigating conditions apply. Applicant has been involved in weapons-
related criminal activity in 2011 and 2015. These offenses did not happen under 
unusual circumstances, and the last offense happened only approximately three years 
ago. Since Applicant still is consuming alcohol, the offenses may likely recur. There was 
no pressure to commit any of the offenses, and they appear to be voluntary. The only 
evidence of rehabilitation is the potential passage of a few years and Applicant no 
longer having a gun. The evidence of criminal conduct adversely affects Applicant’s 
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness and leads to the conclusion that he cannot or 
will not comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Applicant has not presented sufficient 
information to mitigate criminal conduct security concerns.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s 
conduct and all the circumstances. The 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 and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a 
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. 
 
 I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered the opinion of 
Applicant’s friend that Applicant faced many challenges in recent years leading to his 
alcohol issues and financial problems. Applicant admitted his alcohol-related offenses 
and his delinquent debts. Applicant’s conduct in failing to timely file his income tax 
12 
 
returns coupled with two criminal incidents of the wrongful discharge of a firearm after 
consuming alcohol show irresponsible conduct and poor judgment. Overall, these facts 
leave me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s judgment, reliability, 
trustworthiness, and eligibility and suitability for access to classified information. For all 
these reasons, I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated alcohol consumption, 
criminal conduct and financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied. 
 
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 F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.b:   For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.c – 1.d:   Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline G:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 2.a – 2.b:   Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline J:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 3.a:    Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
TH0MAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge