ISCR Case No. 25-00817

rity Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Cynthia Ruckno, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Lisa M. McCauley, Personal

epresentative 07/23/2026 Decision FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), E (Per

nal Conduct), and G (Alcohol Consumption). Applicant has mitigated the security concerns under Guideline G, but he has not mitigated the security concerns under Guidelines J and E. Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on October 30, 2024. On January 29, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines J, E, and G. The DCSA acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Securit

Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), which became effective on June 8, 2017. 1

Applicant answered the SOR on February 18, 2026, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on March 31, 2026, and the case was assigned to me on April 21, 2026. On April 29, 2026, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was scheduled to be conducted by video teleconference on May 27, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 10 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified and presented the testimony of one witness. I held the record open until June 12, 2026, to enable him to submit documentary evidence. He timely submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AX) A through D, which were admitted in evidence without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript on June 8, 2026. The record closed on June 12, 2026. Findings of Fact In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted all the allegations in the SOR. His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Applicant is a 38-year-old tradesperson employed by a defense contractor since October 2024. He attended high school but did not graduate. (Tr. 14) He has attended technical training and is certified as a fiber optic technician. (Tr. 16) He worked for non- government employers from at least June 2014 until he was hired by his current employer. He married in February 2016 and divorced in March 2018. He has lived with a cohabitant since October 2023. He has three children, ages 15, 12, and 8. He has never held a security clearance. The SOR alleges 13 instances of criminal conduct under Guideline J. The documentary evidence establishing these allegations is summarized below. The same conduct is cross-alleged in SOR ¶ 2.a as personal conduct under Guideline E. The conduct alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.h, and 1.k is cross-alleged as alcohol-related conduct under Guideline G. The evidence related to the allegations in the SOR is summarized below. SOR ¶ 1.a: In October 2007, Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), was convicted and sentenced to incarceration for 30 days, with 30 days suspended, and was ordered to attend an Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP). This allegation is established by the documentary evidence in the record and Applicant’s admission i n his answer to the SOR. (GX 8 at 2; GX 10 at 9) SOR ¶ 1.b: In March 2008, Applicant was charged with driving on revoked license. This charge was related to Applicant’s conviction of DUI, alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. He was convicted and sentenced to incarceration for six months, with five months and ten days suspended. (GX 8 at 2; GX 10 at 10) He testified that he worked on a “city farm” 2

in lieu of jail time. (Tr. 21) This allegation is established by the documentary evidence in the record and Applicant’s admission in his answer to the SOR. SOR ¶ 1.c: In April 2008, Applicant was charged with failure to appear. Applicant was convicted of

his offense. The record does not reflect the sentence that was imposed. This allegation is established by the documentary evidence in the record and Applicant’s admission in his answer to the SOR. (GX 8 at 2) SOR ¶ 1.d: April 2009, Applicant was convicted of driving under revocation or suspension of driver’s license. This allegation is established by the documentary evidence in the record and Applicant’s admission i n his answer to the SOR. (GX 9 at 3) SOR ¶ 1.e: May 2010, Applicant was charged with use or display of firearm in commission of a felony, credit-card fraud, robbery, and conspiracy to commit a felony. Applicant testified that he obtained a credit card that another person obtained during a robbery. Applicant did not participate in the robbery, but he used the stolen credit card one time. (Tr. 22-23) The charges were nolle prosequi. (GX 8 at 2; GX 10 at 11) The record does not reflect the reason for the nolle prosequi. However, Applicant’s admission in his answer to the SOR is sufficient to establish this allegation. SOR ¶ 1.f: September 2017, Applicant was charged with driving on a suspended license, third offense. There is no documentary evidence in the record supporting this allegation. However, Applicant’s admission in his answer to the SOR is sufficient to establish it. SOR ¶ 1.g: January 2018, Applicant was charged with driving under a suspended or revoked license. The documentary evidence in the record reflects that Applicant was convicted, but the evidence does not reflect the punishment that was imposed. (GX 9 at 3) This allegation is established by the documentary evidence i n the record and Applicant’s admission i n his answer to the SOR. SOR ¶ 1.h: August 2018, Applicant was arrested for driving while intoxicated, was convicted, was sentenced to incarceration for six months (suspended) and was ordered t o attend ASAP. This allegation is established by the evidence in the record and A pplicant’s admission in hi s answer to the S OR. As of the date of the SOR, Applicant had not completed ASAP alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a and this allegation. (GX 10 at 13) He testified that he finally completed the ASAP in April 2026, but he had not yet received a certificate of completion. (Tr. 45) After the hearing, he submitted the certificate of completion. (AX B) SOR ¶ 1.i: August 2018, Applicant was charged with failure appear in court. This allegation is established by the documentary evidence in the record and Applicant’s admission in his answer to the SOR. He was convicted and sentenced to incarceration for 80 days, with 60 days suspended. (GX 10 at 13) 3

SOR ¶ 1.j: December 2018, Applicant was charged with failure to report to jail. This allegation is established by the documentary evidence in the record and Applicant’s admission in his answer to the SOR. He was convicted and sentenced to incarceration for two days. (GX 10 at 15) SOR ¶ 1.k: August 2019, Applicant was arrested for being drunk in public and convicted. There is no documentary evidence of this arrest and convic

on in the record. However, it is established by Applicant’s admission i n his answer to the SOR. SOR ¶ 1.l: August 2019, Applicant was charged with destruction of private property and obstruction of justice. This allegation is partially established by the documentary evidence in the record and Applicant’s admission. The charge of destruction of private property was nolle prosequi. The incident occurred when A

pplicant was involved in an argument with his ex-wife and he threw a rock at a nearby automobile. (Tr. 29-30) He was found not guilty of obstruction of justice, but guilty of destruction of private property. (GX 10 at 14) SOR ¶ 1.m: September 2019, Applicant was charged with failure to appear in court. The charge was nolle prosequi. (GX 10 at 15) The record does not reflect the basis for the nolle prosequi, but Applicant’s admission is sufficient to establish that he was charged with failure to appear. SOR ¶ 2.a: Cross-alleges SOR ¶ 1.a through 1.m under Guideline E. SOR ¶ 2.b: From October 2018 until about October 2024, Applicant was either terminated or quit employment following notice of unsatisfactory performance by five employers named in the SOR. Applicant’s responses to questions in his SCA and his responses during security interviews reflect the following: Incident #1. In August 2024, Applicant quit a job af

ter being told he would be fired. In his SCA, he stated that his reason for quitting was “complications due to recent surgery.” (GX 1 at 13) When he was interviewed by a security investigator in December 2024, he admitted that he w

as unable to work 10-hour days after hip surgery and was warned that he would be fired if he did not “get his time back up.” He also told the investigator that he gave his employer two weeks’ notice of

his intent to quit and worked for his last two weeks of employment. (GX 2 at 4) Quitting a job because of physical inability to perform it does not raise a security concern. Applicant’s blanket admission of all the allegations in the SOR is insufficient to establish this incident. Incident #2. In Applicant’s SCA, he disclosed that in January 2023, he was fired “after disagreement with maintenance supervisor.” (GX 1 at 14) During the security interview in December 2024, he admitted that he was fired. (GX 2 at 4) This incident is sufficient to raise a security concern, and Applicant’s disclosure i n hi

s SCA and his admission in his answer to the SOR is sufficient to establish it. 4

Incident #3. In Applicant’s SCA, he d isclosed that in January 2021, he quit his job after being told he would be fired b ecause of “very serious family matters couldn’t get back and [sic] to work.” (GX 1 at 15) During the security interview in December 2024, he admitted that he was fired. He did not explain what “serious family matters” caused him to miss work. (GX 2 at 5) This incident is sufficient to raise a security concern, and Applicant’s disclosure in his SCA and his admission in his answer to the SOR are sufficient to establish it. Incident #4. In Applicant’s SCA, he disclosed that in April 2019, he was fired for “no call no show.” (GX 1 at 17) During the security interview in December 2024, he stated he did not know his reason for not calling hi

s supervisor about not coming to work, but that during this time he did not care if he went to work or not. (GX 3 at 5) This incident is sufficient to raise a security concern and Applicant’s disclosure in his SCA and his admission in his answer to the SOR are s ufficient to establish it. Incident #5. In October 2018, Applicant was fired. He explained that he was fired because “I became really sick could not attend to work. Due to the inability to perform my work duties.” (GX 2 at 5-6) There is no documentary evidence in the record contradicting his explanation. Quitting a job because of physical inability to perform it does not raise a security concern. Applicant’s blanket admission of SOR ¶ 2.b in his answer to the SOR is insufficient to establish this incident. SOR ¶ 3.a: cross-alleges SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.h, and 1.k under Guideline G. Applicant testified that he stopped drinking in November 2019. Before that date, he was consuming about a 12-pack of beer a day. (Tr. 32) He no longer associates with his drinking partners. Instead, he has focused on his family, begun attending church regularly, and spends his free time reading. (Tr. 32-35) He testified that his current job is the first that he has taken seriously. He testified that his current supervisors are “great,” and they have guided him and given him opportunities for greater responsibility. (Tr. 42) On cross-examination by Department Counsel about Applicant’s general background, he admitted that he had not filed his federal and state tax returns for three years. I cautioned Department Counsel that I would limit this line of questioning because failure to file tax returns was not alleged. I have considered Applicant’s admission for the limited purposes of assessing whether Applicant has demonstrated successful rehabilitation and as an element in my whole person analysis. See ISCR Case No. 03- 20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006). Applicant’s facility security officer testified on his behalf and acted as his personal representative during the hearing. She previously was a background investigator at a federal agency and has over ten years of experience with the security clearance process. She testified that she told Applicant that if he wanted to work for this employer, he needed to demonstrate his willingness to change his behavior. She has been working with Applicant for about six months, and she recognized that Applicant had a lot of work to do. She noticed that Applicant had not completed the ASAP, and she told him he needed to 5

record. However, it is established by Applicant’s admission i n his answer to the SOR. SOR ¶ 1.l: August 2019, Applicant was charged with destruction of private property and obstruction of justice. This allegation is partially established by the documentary evidence in the record and Applicant’s admission. The charge of destruction of private property was nolle prosequi. The incident occurred when A

pplicant was involved in an argument with his ex-wife and he threw a rock at a nearby automobile. (Tr. 29-30) He was found not guilty of obstruction of justice, but guilty of destruction of private property. (GX 10 at 14) SOR ¶ 1.m: September 2019, Applicant was charged with failure to appear in court. The charge was nolle prosequi. (GX 10 at 15) The record does not reflect the basis for the nolle prosequi, but Applicant’s admission is sufficient to establish that he was charged with failure to appear. SOR ¶ 2.a: Cross-alleges SOR ¶ 1.a through 1.m under Guideline E. SOR ¶ 2.b: From October 2018 until about October 2024, Applicant was either terminated or quit employment following notice of unsatisfactory performance by five employers named in the SOR. Applicant’s responses to questions in his SCA and his responses during security interviews reflect the following: Incident #1. In August 2024, Applicant quit a job af

ter being told he would be fired. In his SCA, he stated that his reason for quitting was “complications due to recent surgery.” (GX 1 at 13) When he was interviewed by a security investigator in December 2024, he admitted that

e w

as unable to work 10-hour days after hip surgery and was warned that he would be fired if he did not “get his time back up.” He also told the investigator that he gave his employer two weeks’ notice of

his intent to quit and worked for his last two weeks of employment. (GX 2 at 4) Quitting a job because of physical inability to perform it does not raise a security concern. Applicant’s blanket admission of all the allegations in the SOR is insufficient to establish this incident. Incident #2. In Applicant’s SCA, he disclosed that in January 2023, he was fired “after disagreement with maintenance supervisor.” (GX 1 at 14) During the security interview in December 2024, he admitted that he was fired. (GX 2 at 4) This incident is sufficient to raise a security concern, and Applicant’s disclosure i n hi

s SCA and his admission in his answer to the SOR is sufficient to establish it. 4

Incident #3. In Applicant’s SCA, he d isclosed that in January 2021, he quit his job after being told he would be fired b ecause of “very serious family matters couldn’t get back and [sic] to work.” (GX 1 at 15) During the security interview in December 2024, he admitted that he was fired. He did not explain what “serious family matters” caused him to miss work. (GX 2 at 5) This incident is sufficient to raise a security concern, and Applicant’s disclosure in his SCA and his admission in his answer to the SOR are sufficient to establish it. Incident #4. In Applicant’s SCA, he disclosed that in April 2019, he was fired for “no call no show.” (GX 1 at 17) During the security interview in December 2024, he stated he did not know his reason for not calling hi

s supervisor about not coming to work, but that during this time he did not care if he went to work or not. (GX 3 at 5) This incident is sufficient to raise a security concern and Applicant’s disclosure in his SCA and his admission in his answer to the SOR are s ufficient to establish it. Incident #5. In October 2018, Applicant was fired. He explained that he was

red because “I became really sick could not attend to work. Due to the inability to perform my work duties.” (GX 2 at 5-6) There is no documentary evidence in the record contradicting his explanation. Quitting a job because of physical inability to perform it does not raise a security concern. Applicant’s blanket admission of SOR ¶ 2.b in his answer to the SOR is insufficient to establish this incident. SOR ¶ 3.a: cross-alleges SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.h, and 1.k under Guideline G. Applicant testified that he stopped drinking in November 2019. Before that date, he was consuming about a 12-pack of beer a day. (Tr. 32) He no longer associates with his drinking partners. Instead, he has focused on his family, begun attending church regularly, and spends his free time reading. (Tr. 32-35) He testified that his current job is the first that he has taken seriously. He testified that his current supervisors are “great,” and they have guided him and given him opportunities

or greater responsibility. (Tr. 42) On cross-examination by Department Counsel about Applicant’s general background, he admitted that he had not filed his federal and state tax returns for three years. I cautioned Department Counsel that I would limit this line of questioning because failure to file tax returns was not alleged. I have considered Applicant’s admission for the limited purposes of assessing whether Applicant has demonstrated successful rehabilitation and as an element in my whole person analysis. See ISCR Case No. 03- 20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006). Applicant’s facility security officer testified on his behalf and acted as his personal representative during the hearing. She previously was a background investigator at a federal agency and has over ten years of experience with the security clearance process. She testified that she told Applicant that if he wanted to work for this employer, he needed to demonstrate his willingness to change his behavior. She has be

working with Applicant for about six months, and she recognized that Applicant had a lot of work to do. She noticed that Applicant had not completed the ASAP, and she told him he needed to 5