Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01158 · CASE

Case record

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.

Decision Date4/14/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Government Counsel: Brian L. Farrell
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Guidelines Evaluated
- EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- HDrug Involvement & Substance Misuse · Against Applicant
- JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
Questions about ISCR ISCR Case No. 24-01158, answered from its own record: what was alleged, what the judge found, where it says so. Descriptive only; never advice.

Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only, not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 24-01158denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 24-01158

deniedApr 14, 2026· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 46-year-old male with an associate degree, faced security concerns under Guidelines E, F, H, and J due to a history of criminal conduct, drug involvement, and financial issues. The applicant admitted to multiple felony convictions and falsifying information on his security clearance application. The judge found no mitigating factors applicable, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple felony convictions, including drug possession and distribution.
The applicant falsified his e-QIP, failing to disclose significant criminal history.
The applicant has unresolved debts totaling approximately $11,000.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E3.1.14raisedPersonal Conduct
JraisedCriminal Conduct
HraisedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse
FraisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 12, 2024
Answer filedDec 11, 2024
Hearing heldMar 12, 2026
Decision dateApr 14, 2026

Cite For

Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline E for Falsification of Information
Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline J for a Pattern of Criminal Conduct
Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline H for Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, citing a pattern of dishonesty and lack of candor. The applicant admitted to multiple criminal offenses and falsifications on his security clearance application, which raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

1.a Applicant admits in October 1998, he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Simple Assault, Public Peace, Trespassing and Intimidation/Stalking. Applicant was sentenced to 12 months of probation.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Questionable Judgment General
Concealed issue: —
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.b Applicant admits in January 2013, he was arrested for Possession of Marijuana for Sale and Money Laundering. Applicant subsequently pled guilty to money laundering and sentenced to probation.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Questionable Judgment General
Concealed issue: —
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.c Applicant admits in September 2009, he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Possession of Marijuana. Applicant was sentenced to 10 years of probation.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Questionable Judgment General
Concealed issue: —
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.d Applicant admits in July 2008, one month later, he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Obstruction-Refusal to give True Name.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Questionable Judgment General
Concealed issue: —
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.e Applicant admits in June 2008, he was cited for Possession of Marijuana.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Questionable Judgment General
Concealed issue: —
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.f Applicant admits in September 1999, six months later, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Unlawful Possession of Crack Cocaine with Intent to Distribute, a felony. He avers that he was sentenced to prison for four years.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Questionable Judgment General
Concealed issue: —
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.g Applicant admits in March 1999, five months later, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Possession of a Weapon by a Felon. Applicant was sentenced to 12 months of probation.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Questionable Judgment General
Concealed issue: —
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.h Applicant admits in October 2015, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Possession of 450 Grams of Heroin. He avers that he was sentenced to prison for five years.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Questionable Judgment General
Concealed issue: —
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.i Applicant admits that he falsified his August 2023 Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), when he only divulged his 2009 marijuana conviction, in 'Section 22 – Police Record (EVER).' Applicant failed to disclose his March 1999 conviction for Possession of a Weapon by a Felon; his September 1999 conviction for Unlawful Possession of Crack Cocaine; his June 2008 citation for possession of marijuana; and his January 2013 charge of possession of marijuana for sale.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE
Concealed issue: Criminal Conduct
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16):
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —
1.j Applicant admits that he falsified his August 2023 e-QIP, when he answered, 'No,' to 'Section 23 – Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity In the last seven years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substance?' I find this to be a willful falsification. He used marijuana on average once or twice a week during that time frame.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE
Concealed issue: Drug Involvement
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16):
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits in October 1998, he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Simple Assault, Public Peace, Trespassing and Intimidation/Stalking. Applicant was sentenced to 12 months of probation.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits in January 2013, he was arrested for Possession of Marijuana for Sale and Money Laundering. Applicant subsequently pled guilty to money laundering and sentenced to probation.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits in September 2009, he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Possession of Marijuana. Applicant was sentenced to 10 years of probation.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant admits in July 2008, one month later, he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Obstruction-Refusal to give True Name.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant admits in June 2008, he was cited for Possession of Marijuana.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant admits in September 1999, six months later, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Unlawful Possession of Crack Cocaine with Intent to Distribute, a felony. He avers that he was sentenced to prison for four years.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant admits in March 1999, five months later, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Possession of a Weapon by a Felon. Applicant was sentenced to 12 months of probation.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant admits in October 2015, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Possession of 450 Grams of Heroin. He avers that he was sentenced to prison for five years.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant admits that he falsified his August 2023 Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), when he only divulged his 2009 marijuana conviction, in 'Section 22 – Police Record (EVER).' Applicant failed to disclose his March 1999 conviction for Possession of a Weapon by a Felon; his September 1999 conviction for Unlawful Possession of Crack Cocaine; his June 2008 citation for possession of marijuana; and his January 2013 charge of possession of marijuana for sale.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
1.j	Applicant admits that he falsified his August 2023 e-QIP, when he answered, 'No,' to 'Section 23 – Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity In the last seven years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substance?' I find this to be a willful falsification. He used marijuana on average once or twice a week during that time frame.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Drug Involvement	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had unresolved financial issues, specifically six past-due debts totaling approximately $11,000. The applicant admitted to these debts but failed to provide sufficient evidence of mitigation, leading to a decision against the applicant under Guideline F.

4.a Applicant admits six past-due debts totaling about $11,000.
$11,000
Finding: Against Applicant
Type: Unspecified Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —
4.b–4.f 5 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)
Finding: Against Applicant
Type:
Response:
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
4.a	Applicant admits six past-due debts totaling about $11,000. $11,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
4.b–4.f	5 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline H (Drug Involvement) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on allegations of drug involvement and substance misuse, noting a long history of illegal drug use and trafficking. The applicant admitted to using marijuana regularly and falsifying information regarding his drug use on his security clearance application. The decision ultimately denied the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance.

3.a In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admits that he falsified his August 2023 e-QIP, when he answered, “No,” to “Section 23 – Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity In the last seven years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substance?” I find this to be a willful falsification. He used marijuana on average once or twice a week during that time frame. Applicant’s use of marijuana, in fact, spanned a period of about 20 years, from 1994 to 2023. He was also involved in the sale of marijuana.
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Marijuana
Use level: Frequent
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25): —
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —
3.b Appellant’s drug involvement spanned a period of about 30 years, ending in 2023. He not only used illegal substances but was involved in their trafficking.
Finding: Against Applicant
Substance / event: Unspecified Drug Involvement
Use level: Unspecified
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶25): —
Mitigating applied (¶26): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Substance / event	Use level	Response	Disqualifying (¶25)	Mitigating applied (¶26)	Mitigation
3.a	In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admits that he falsified his August 2023 e-QIP, when he answered, “No,” to “Section 23 – Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity In the last seven years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substance?” I find this to be a willful falsification. He used marijuana on average once or twice a week during that time frame. Applicant’s use of marijuana, in fact, spanned a period of about 20 years, from 1994 to 2023. He was also involved in the sale of marijuana.	Against Applicant	Marijuana	Frequent	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	Appellant’s drug involvement spanned a period of about 30 years, ending in 2023. He not only used illegal substances but was involved in their trafficking.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Drug Involvement	Unspecified	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline H). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The administrative judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations, determining that the applicant's extensive criminal history raised significant security concerns. The applicant admitted to multiple convictions, including serious offenses, which the judge concluded undermined his reliability and trustworthiness.

2.a Applicant admits in October 1998, he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Simple Assault, Public Peace, Trespassing and Intimidation/Stalking. Applicant was sentenced to 12 months of probation.
Finding: Against Applicant
Offense: Assault or Battery
Criminal disposition: Convicted
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶31): —
Mitigating applied (¶32): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admits in October 1998, he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Simple Assault, Public Peace, Trespassing and Intimidation/Stalking. Applicant was sentenced to 12 months of probation.	Against Applicant	Assault or Battery	Convicted	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

ecision CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Statement of the Case On Sep

STATEMENT OF CASE

ember 12, 2024, 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 Guidelines E, J, and H. 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 December 11, 2024, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. (Answer.) On November 21, 2025, the Department of Defense amended the SOR by alleging additional facts that raise security concerns under Guideline F. The case was assigned to me on December 18, 2025. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on January 9, 2026, scheduling the hearing for March 12, 2026. The hearing was convened as scheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 7, which were admitted without 1

objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and called four witnesses to testify. Applicant offered no documentation. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on March 23, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant admitted all

FINDINGS OF FACT

the allegations in SOR. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is 46 years old. He is not married, but has an adult son, two minor daughters and an “adopted” minor daughter. Applicant has an associate degree. (TR at page 5 line 10 to page 6 line 13, at page 31 line 9 to page 36 line 25, and GX 1 at page 17.) Guideline E - Personal Conduct, Guideline J - Criminal Conduct & Guideline H - Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse (The SOR allegations are discussed i n chronological order.) 2

1.h. and 2.

a. Applicant admits in October 1998, he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Simple Assault, Public Peace, Trespassing and Intimidation/Stalking. Applicant was sentenced to 12 months of probation.

1.g. and 2.a. Applicant admits in March 1999, five months later, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Possession of a Weapon by a Felon. Applicant was sentenced to 12 months of probation. (TR at page 75 line 23 to page 76 line 17.)

1.f, 2.a. and 3.b. Applicant admits in September 1999, six months later, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled guilty to, Unlawful Possession of Crack Cocaine with Intent to Distribute, a felony. He avers that he was sentenced to prison for four years. (TR at page 43 line 9 to page 49 line 4, at page 76 line 19 to page 77 line 3, and GX 2 at page 11.)

1.e, 2.a. and 3.

b. Applicant admits in J une 2008, he was cited for Possession of Marijuana.

1.d. and 2.a. Applicant admits in J uly 2008, one month later, he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Obstruction-Refusal to give True Name. (TR at page 74 line 13 to page 75 line 22.)

1.c, 2.a. and 3.b. Applicant admits in September 2009, he was arrested for, and subsequently found guilty of, Possession of Marijuana. Applicant was sentenced to 10 years of probation. (TR at page 68 lines 3~12, at page 71 line 3 to page 76 line 23, and at page 29 line 10 to page 80 line 15.)

1.b, 2.a. and 3.b. Applicant admits in January 2013, he was arrested for Possession of Marijuana for Sale and Money Laundering. Applicant subsequently pled guilty to money laundering and sentenced to probation. (GX 2 at page 14.)

1.a, 2.a. and 3.b. Applicant admits in October 2015, he was arrested for, and subsequently pled g uilty to, Possession of 450 Grams of Heroin. He avers that he was sentenced to prison for five years. (TR at page 34 lines 7~10, at page 37 line 1 to page 43 line 8, at page 49 line 8 to page 53 line 13, at page 72 line 24 to page 73 line 10, and at page 80 line 16 to page 82 line 9.)

1.i. In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admits that he falsified his August 2023 Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), when he only divulged his 2009 marijuana conviction, in “Section 22 – Police Record (EVER).” Applicant failed to disclose his March 1999 conviction fo

POLICIES

Possession of a Weapon by a Felon (1.g. above); his September 1999 conviction for Unlawful Possession of Crack Cocaine (1.f. above); his June 2008 citation for possession of marijuana (1.e. above); and his January 2013 charge of possession of marijuana for sale (1.b.). However, at his hearing, Applicant vacillated as to these prior admissions. I find his vacillations not to be believable, and that Applicant willfully falsified his e-QIP. (TR at page 88 line 11 to page 90 line 22, and GX 1 at pages 27~29.)

1.j. and 3.a. In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admits that he falsified his August 2023 e-QIP, when he answered, “No,” to “Section 23 – Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity In the last seven years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substance?” I find this to be a willful falsification. He used marijuana on average once or twice a week during that time frame. Applicant’s use of marijuana, in fact, spanned a period of about 20 years, from 1994 to 2023. He was also involved in the sale of marijuana. (TR at page 70 line 17 to page 74 line 18, at page 86 line 16 to page 87 line 17, and GX 1 at pages 29~30.)

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

4.a.~4.f. In his Answer to the amended SOR, Applicant admits six past-due debts totaling about $11,000. These debts also ap

pear as “past due” on the Government’s most recent November 2025 credit report. At his hearing, however, Applicant again vacillated as to some of these prior admissions. I find his vacillations not to be believable, and that Applicant owes these past-due debts. (TR at page 90 line 22 to page 97 line 18, and GX 6 at pages 1~2.)

Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, 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 useful in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 3

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

ANALYSIS

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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. Directive ¶ E3.1.14 requires the Government must 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 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. 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). Analysis Guideline E - Personal Conduct The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions 4

about an i ndividual'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 investigative or adjudicative processes. The following will normally result in an unfavorable national security eligibility determination, security clearance action, or cancellation of further processing for national security eligibility: (a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms or releases, cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation, or polygraph examination, if authorized and required; and (b) refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination. The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 16. Three are potentially applicable in this case: (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; (d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information, 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. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: (1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of proprietary information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or government protected information; (2) any disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior; (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and 5

(4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other employer's time or resources; and (g) association with persons involved in criminal activity. Applicant falsified his August 2023 e-QIP. He was also not candid about his previously admitted allegations at his hearing. Applicant was involved in criminal activity, ranging from felony possession of a weapon to illegal drug possession and distribution. The evidence is sufficient to raise these disqualifying conditions. I find no mitigating conditions that are applicable. Personal Conduct 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. Two 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 in

ANALYSIS

ision. 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. Directive ¶ E3.1.14 requires the Government must 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 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 saf

ANALYSIS

guard 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). Analysis Guideline E - Personal Conduct The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions 4

about an i ndividual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful

ANALYSIS

and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. The following will normally result in an unfavorable national security eligibility determination, security clearance action, or cancellation of further processing for national security eligibility: (a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms or releases, cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation, or polygraph examination, if authorized and required; and (b) refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination. The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 16. Three are potentially applicable in this case: (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct invest

ANALYSIS

gations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; (d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information, 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. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: (1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of proprietary information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or government protected information; (2) any disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior; (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and 5

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

so not candid about his previously admitted allegations at his hearing. Applicant was involved in criminal activity, ranging from felony possession of a weapon to illegal drug possession and distribution. The evidence is sufficient to raise these disqualifying conditions. I find no mitigating conditions that are applicable. Personal Conduct 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. Two 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 in

FORMAL FINDINGS

ividual'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. Applicant has numerous convictions spanning a period of about 17 years, from October 1999 to October 2015. He spent a total of nine years in prison. Applicant was also involved in illegal drug activity spanning a period of about 30 years, from 1994 to 2023. This evidence clearly raises security concerns under these disqualifying conditions. Again, I find no mitigating conditions that are applicable. Criminal Conduct is found against Applicant. Guideline H - Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse The security concern relating to the guideline Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse is set forth at AG ¶ 24: The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances 6

CONCLUSION

that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychologica