ISCR Case No. 19-02141

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: )

)

) ISCR Case: 19-02141

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: A.H. Henderson, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se August 26, 2021

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Statement of Case On April 24, 2018, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86). On October 22, 2019, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing security concerns under Guidelines F, Financial Considerations and G, Alcohol Consumption. (Item 1.) The action was taken 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 Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AG), effective June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR on November 8, 2019. He admitted all of the allegations, and requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing. (Item 1.) On March 23, 2021, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case. A complete copy of the File of Relevant

Material (FORM), containing nine Items, was mailed to Applicant on March 23, 2021, and received by him on April 23, 2021. The FORM notified Applicant that he had an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. Applicant responded to the FORM on or about April 26, 2021. He did not object to Items 1 through 9. Applicant also submitted a one paragraph, handwritten response to the FORM, to which Department Counsel had no objection. DOHA assigned the case to me on July 19, 2021. Items 1 through 9 are admitted into evidence. Applicant’s response to the FORM (Response) is also admitted.

Applicant is 46 years old. He is not married, but has two children. (Item 2 at pages 7, 19 and 23.) Guideline F - Financial Considerations 1.a. and 1.b. Applicant admits that he owes over $74,000 in past-due student loans. 1.c. Applicant admits that he owes a past-due debt of $2,905 to Creditor C. 1.d. Applicant admits that he owes a past-due debt of $284 to Creditor D. 1.e. Applicant admits that he owes a past-due debt of $256 to Creditor E. Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption 2.a. Applicant has a long history of alcohol abuse. He admits that he was arrested for and pled guilty to Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in 1997, in 2002, in 2008, and in 2015.

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire

process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context 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. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture. Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” A person applying for national security eligibility seeks to enter 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 national security eligibility. 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 or sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of EO 10865, “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination 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.)

Guideline F - Financial Considerations The security concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are set out in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part: 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. . . . AG ¶ 19 describes three conditions that could raise security concerns and may be disqualifying in this case: (a) inability to satisfy debts; (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations Applicant has over $78,000 in past-due student loans and other debts. These facts establish prima facie support for the foregoing disqualifying conditions, and shift the burden to Applicant to mitigate those concerns. The guideline includes two conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate the security concerns arising from Applicant’s alleged financial difficulties: (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances. None of these apply. Applicant’s financial difficulties are continuing, and his financial issues are clearly not under control. Financial Considerations is found against Applicant.

Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption The security concern relating to the guideline for Alcohol Consumption is set out in AG ¶ 21: Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness.

The guideline at AG ¶ 22 contains seven conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. One conditions clearly applies: (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. Applicant has four DUI convictions covering the period between 1997 and 2018, a period of 18 years.. The guideline at AG ¶ 23 contains four conditions that could mitigate security concerns. One condition may apply: (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 judgment. Applicant’s last DUI conviction was four years prior to the issuance of the SOR. When coupled with his three prior alcohol-related convictions, it is too soon to find that Applicant’s Alcohol Consumption is not of security concern. Guideline G is found against Applicant.

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 relevant 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. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant national security eligibility must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the applicable guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s judgment, eligibility, and suitability for a security clearance. He has not met his burden to mitigate the security concerns arising under the guidelines for financial considerations and alcohol consumption.

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a through1.e: Against Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant

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 national security eligibility and a security clearance. National security eligibility is denied. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge