ISCR Case No. 25-01414

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-01414 Appearances For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 06/10/2026 Decision CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Statement of the Case On January 14, 2025, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA). On January 20, 2026, 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 G, and J. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 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 amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on February 23, 2026, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on April 6, 2026. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on April 13, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled on May 4, 2026. The

Government offered Government Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 7, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and offered Applicant Exhibits (AppXs) A through H, which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on May 14, 2026. The record was left open until June 4, 2026, for the receipt of additional evidence. On June 2, 2026, and June 7, 2026, AppXs I and J, respectively, were submitted, and admitted without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant admitted all 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 a 25-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been employed with the defense contractor since May of 2023. He is single and has no children. Applicant is respected in the workplace, as attested to by his Technical Leader, and by a former coworker who is also his current girlfriend. (TR at page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 17, at page 14 lines 10~24, GX 1 at page 5, and AppXs G and H.) Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption & Guideline J: Criminal Conduct (The allegations are discussed chronologically)

1.b. and 2.a. Applicant admits that in January 2024, more than two years ago, he was in a domestic dispute with a former girlfriend. He avers that he found she was “cheating on hi m.” Applicant, who was under the influence of alcohol, prevented her from leaving their apartment. Shoving and kicking between both parties ensued. His, then, girlfriend called the police, and Applicant was arrested and charged with False Imprisonment, Harassment Strikes Shoves Kicks, and Domestic Violence. He was eventually placed in an alcohol-diversion program, which commenced after his second alcohol-related arrest, discussed below. (TR at page 15 line 15 to page 23 line 16, at page 36 line 10~25, at page 37 line 23 to page 38 line 19, GXs 3~5, and AppXs C and E.)

1.a. and 2.a. Applicant admits that in September 2024, more than 20 months ago, he was, in part, arrested for and subsequently pled guilty to, Obstructing a Peace Officer and Driving While Ability Impaired. Applicant was sitting in a parking lot, alone in his current girlfriend’s car, consuming alcohol, and initially refused to let the arresting officer into the automobile. As a result of this conviction, and coupled with his January 2024 arrest, Applicant was placed on probation and placed in an alcohol-diversion program. On May 26, 2026, that probation was terminated in Applicant’s favor, i.e., he is no longer on probation, as evidenced by documentation. Applicant also has over 20 months of sobriety. (TR at page 23 line 17 to page 36 line 9, at page 37 lines 1~22, GX 6 and 7, and AppXs B, C, I and J.)

I found the Applicant to be sincere and contrite in his testimony. 2

Policies 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.) 3

Analysis 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. Two conditions may apply: (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 al cohol use di sorder; and (c) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder. Applicant had two alcohol-related incidents in 2024. These facts establish prima facie support for the foregoing disqualifying conditions and shift the burden to Applicant to mitigate those concerns. The guideline at AG ¶ 23 contains four conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Three conditions 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; (b) the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations; and (d) the individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. 4

Applicant last consumed alcohol more than 20 months ago. He has successfully completed an alcohol-diversion program. Alcohol Consumption is found for Applicant. Guideline J: Criminal Conduct AG ¶ 30 sets forth the security concerns pertaining to 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 ¶ 31 describes two conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: (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 person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted. Applicant had two alcohol-related arrests in 2024, one resulting in a conviction. The evidence establishes the above two disqualifying conditions. AG ¶ 32 provides two conditions that could mitigate the above security concerns raised in this case: (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. Sufficient time has passed since Applicant’s two incidents of criminal conduct in 2024. Their cause was alcohol consumption, which Applicant no longer practices. He has also successfully completed his probation. The evidence establishes mitigation under the above conditions. Criminal Conduct is found for Applicant. 5

Whole-Person Concept Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s national security eligibility 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 facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline G, and J in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under those guidelines, but some warrant additional comment. Applicant is respected in the workplace, as is reflected in a letters from his Technical Leader, and from a former workmate.1 He performs well at his job. Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant mitigated the Alcohol Consumption and Criminal Conduct security concerns. Formal Findings

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 G: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b: For Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant 6

________________________ Conclusion In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge 7