ISCR Case No. 24-02464

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 24-02464 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Erin P. Thompson, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 02/17/2026

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), E (Personal Conduct), and F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On February 19, 2025, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines J, E, and F. Applicant responded to the SOR on July 21, 2025, and requested a decision based on the written record in lieu of a hearing. The Government’s written case was submitted on August 19, 2025. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, who was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Applicant received the FORM on August 25, 2025. Applicant elected not to respond to the Government’s FORM. The period for his response lapsed on October 9, 2025. The case was assigned to me on December 23, 2025. The Government exhibits included in the FORM are admitted in evidence without objection.

Applicant is a 45-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has worked for his current employer as an electronics technician 2 since January of 2024. He served on active duty in the United States Navy between January 2000 and January 2004 and received an honorable discharge. In 2013 he received his associate degree. Applicant is divorced and has five children. Applicant is indebted to his state’s child support authorities in the approximate amount of $60,455 for child support arrears. He first applied for a security clearance while on active duty in the United States Navy in 2003. (Items 2, 3, and 9) Prior to working for his current employer, Applicant worked for another defense contractor from July 2013 until his termination in February 2023. During that time, he was suspended from work and referred to the Employee Assistance Program for counseling. In February of 2016, Applicant was involved in two incidents of workplace violence. Both involved fighting on company property and contributing to a hostile work environment by using inappropriate language to coworkers. (Items 3 and 8) Between December of 2018 and January of 2023, Applicant was charged with numerous and various criminal offenses to include the following: • In approximately December 2018, Assaulting his ex-wife after he sent a text threatening to kill her; • In approximately March 2019, Assault and battery – Family member. Applicant pled no contest, and the adjudication was deferred for two years; • In approximately November 2020, Applicant was charged with Driving While Intoxicated and was convicted of Reckless Driving; • In approximately October 2022, Disturbing the Peace; and • In approximately January 2023, Contempt of Court and Disobey Process. Applicant was convicted of Contempt of Court and required to serve 14 days in jail (Items 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7) In his Answer, Applicant admitted to all the Allegations contained under all three Guidelines. (Item 2)

This case is adjudicated 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 adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on June 8, 2017.

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 to be used 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense 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, 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.” 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 the 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of 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 J, Criminal Conduct The security concern for criminal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 30: Criminal activity creates doubt about an Applicant’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 ¶ 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. The following is potentially applicable: (a) a pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in combination cast doubt on the individual's judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness; and (b) evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted. Between December of 2018 and January of 2023, Applicant was charged with numerous and various criminal offenses and was convicted of at least two of them. The above disqualifying condition is applicable. Conditions that could mitigate criminal conduct security concerns are provided under AG ¶ 32. The following are potentially applicable: (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. Applicant admitted to a series of criminal charges to include threatening to kill his ex-wife and assaulting a family member. I cannot find that criminal conduct is unlikely to recur. His criminal conduct continues to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. None of the mitigating conditions are applicable. Criminal conduct security concerns are not mitigated.

Guideline E, Personal Conduct The security concern for personal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15, as follows: 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 information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process. AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable: (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, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information; and (d) disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior Applicant was terminated from his employment with Newport News Shipbuilding in February 2023. In February of 2016, Applicant was involved in two incidents of workplace violence. Both involved fighting on company property and contributing to a hostile work environment by using inappropriate language to coworkers. Applicant was also arrested and plead no contest to a charge of Assault and battery – Family. AG ¶ 16(c) and 16(d) are applicable. AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate personal conduct security concerns. The following are potentially applicable: (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; and

(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. I am unable to find that Applicant’s problematic conduct is unlikely to recur. His conduct continues to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. None of the mitigating conditions, individually or collectively, are sufficiently applicable to overcome concerns about Applicant’s poor judgment and problematic conduct. Guideline F, Financial Considerations The security concern 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. The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. The following are potentially applicable in this case: (a) inability to satisfy debts; and (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. Applicant admitted that he is indebted to his state’s child support authorities in the approximate amount of $60,455 for child support arrears. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) are applicable. Conditions that could mitigate the financial considerations security concerns are provided under AG ¶ 20. The following are potentially applicable: (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business

downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; (c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and (d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. There is insufficient evidence for a determination that Applicant’s financial problems will be resolved within a reasonable period. I am unable to find that he acted responsibly under the circumstances or that he has made a good-faith effort to pay his arrears. None of the mitigating conditions are applicable. I find that financial considerations security concerns remain and continues to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

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 the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines J, E, and F in my whole-person analysis. I also considered Appellant’s military service and honorable discharge.

___________________ Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant did not mitigate the security concern under Guidelines J, E, and F.

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: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.a -1.e: Against Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline E: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 2.a and 2.b: Against Applicant Paragraph 3, Guideline F: Against Applicant Subparagraph 3.a: Against Applicant

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. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge