ISCR Case No. 24-02340

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 24-02340 Appearances For Government: Tara Karoian, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 08/14/2025

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Statement of the Case On January 24, 2025, in accordance with DoD Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive), the Department of Defense issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The SOR further informed Applicant that, based on information available to the government, DoD adjudicators could not make the preliminary affirmative finding it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance.

Applicant answered the SOR on March 3, 2025, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. (Answer.) The case was assigned to me on April 10, 2025. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on April 14, 2025, scheduling the hearing for June 26, 2025. The hearing was convened as scheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 6, which were admitted into evidence. Applicant testified on his own behalf. The record was left open until July 25, 2025, for receipt of additional documentation. Applicant submitted nothing further in support of his testimony. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on July 8. 2025.

Applicant admitted to each of the allegations in the SOR. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is a 35-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been employed with the defense contractor since August of 2023. He previously held a security clearance until October 2022, and is seeking a security clearance for a new employer. He is divorced but remarried, and has two children and one stepchild. (TR at page 5 line 10 to page 6 line 6, at page 12 line 21 to page 15 line 22, and GX 1 at pages 5, 12, 23–24, 29–30, and 48.) Guideline F - Financial Considerations 1.a.~1.d. Applicant has a history of delinquent indebtedness. He admits the four, alleged past-due debts in the SOR totaling about $65,843. He explained that his “wife works in Social Media Marketing,” which “has taken a drastic dip” in income; and as a result, he became “the ultimate breadwinner for the family.” This, coupled with the aftermath of the Covid Pandemic, and “a career change” by Applicant, has caused their current financial difficulties. As a result, Applicant avers that they have filed for the protection of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in May of 2025, after the issuance of the notice of hearing, but a month prior to his hearing. The undersigned left the record open for Applicant to submit documentation in support of his bankruptcy averment. He has submitted nothing. (TR at page 30 line 12 to page 38 line 1.)

Guideline J - Criminal Conduct These will be discussed in chronological order: 2.c. In September of 2017, almost eight years ago, Applicant admits he was involved in a domestic dispute with his former spouse. Applicant was convicted of “Vandalism . . . and placed on 24 months of probation.” (TR at page 25 line 15 to page 30 line 3, and GX 3 at pages 4–5.) 2.b. In 2018, about seven years ago, Applicant admits he was charged with; and subsequently convicted of, Reckless Driving, by operating his motorcycle at a speed in excess of 100 mph. His vehicle was impounded, his driver’s license was suspended for “30 days,” and he was placed on probation for “a year.” (TR at page 22 line 13 to page 25 line 14.) 2.a. More recently, in December of 2023, less than two years ago, Applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). He pled “No Contest” to the charge, having consumed four alcohol drinks prior to his arrest. Applicant was convicted in October of 2024, and appears to still be on probation because of his conviction. (TR at page 16 line 7 to page 22 line 12, and GX 3 at page 6.)

When evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines 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. 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. Directive ¶ E3.1.15 states the “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 who applies for access to classified information 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 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. Section 7 of Executive Order (EO) 10865 provides that adverse 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).

Guideline F - Financial Considerations The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18: Failure to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds.

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. The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. Two are potentially applicable in this case: (a) inability to satisfy debts; and (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. Applicant has past-due debt totaling in excess of $65,000. The evidence is sufficient to raise these disqualifying conditions. AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 including: (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 per

son'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; and (d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. None of these apply. Although Applicant can attribute his financial difficulties to a significant loss of income, Applicant has not submitted anything to demonstrate that he is addressing his admitted past-due debts. Mitigation under AG ¶ 20 has not been established. Financial Considerations is found against Applicant.

Guideline J - Criminal Conduct The security concern relating to the guideline for Criminal Conduct is set out 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 guideline at AG ¶ 31 contains five disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. Three conditions apply, as discussed below: (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 (c) individual is currently on parole or probation. Applicant has been convicted of: Vandalism, Speeding and DUI. This evidence raises security concerns under these disqualifying conditions, thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. The guideline in AG ¶ 32 contains two conditions that could mitigate criminal conduct security concerns: (a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and (d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement.

Neither of these apply. Sufficient time has not passed since Applicant’s most recent DUI. Criminal Conduct 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. 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 facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines F and J in my whole-person analysis. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the Financial Considerations and Criminal Conduct security concerns.

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a~1.d: Against Applicant

________________________ Paragraph 2, Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 2.a~2.c:

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 for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge