ISCR Case No. 25-01539

t for Security Clearance ) _____________________________________ ) Appearances For Govern

ent: John B. Renehan, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se 07/27/2026 Decision CEFOLA, Richard A. Administrative Judge: Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns under Guideline E (Pers

nal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions on April 30, 2024 (Questionnaire). On March 25, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The action was taken under Executive Order 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) effective within DoD after June 8, 2017. On April 24, 2026, Applicant responded to the SOR in writing (Answer) and requested that this case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. In his Answer, he admitted to SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b. He admitted to SOR ¶ 1.c, with explanation, and denied SOR ¶ 1.d. Applicant did not respond to SOR ¶ 2.a, which must be interpreted as a denial. In addition, Applicant denied SOR ¶¶ 3.a – 3.c. On June 11, 2026, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s writt

n case in a File of Relevant Material (FORM). A complete copy of the FORM, consisting of Government’s Exhibits (GE) 1 to 7, and the Government’s arguments in support of the SOR, was received by the Applicant on June 12, 2026. He was afforded 30 days to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns, but did not respond. The case was assigned to me on July 20, 2026, and all exhibits were admitted without objection. Findings of Fact Applicant is 41 years old. He has worked for a defense contractor since 2024 as a quality inspector and applied for a security clearance in connection with this employment. He married in November 2019 and separated in December 2020. He and his wife filed for divorce in March 2022, but the case remains pending. He has two minor children and has lived with a cohabitant since March 2021. He has completed some college coursework. (GE 3 at 5, 11, 17-18, 29; GE 5 at 3-5, 9) SOR Paragraph 1 (Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because of excessive alcohol consumption. The following findings of fact pertain: 1.a. Driving Under the Influence (DUI) – February 14, 2021: Applicant admitted the allegation as drafted in the SOR but omitted this incident from his Questionnaire. He subsequently failed to disclose it to a defense investigator during an interview on June 12, 2024, until confronted. He explained having driven home from dinner, where he had consumed “one mixed drink and five beers.” He described feeling “buzzed, but not fully intoxicated.” At approximately 12:30am, Applicant was observed by a sheriff’s deputy to be driving erratically, including crossing the center lane divider. During the ensuing traffic stop, Applicant was observed to have a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. He struggled with the field sobriety test and was found to have a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .233 following a breathalyzer evaluation. He was subsequently arrested and later charged with DUI (second offense). The charges were dismissed on March 22, 2021, however, when the breath technician failed to appear in court on behalf of the state. (Answer; GE 5 at 6, 17-23; GE 6 at 9-10) 2

1.b. DUI – February 1 7, 2010: Applicant admitted t he allegation as

drafted in the SOR but omitted this incident from his Questionnaire. He subsequently failed to disclose it to a defense investigator during an interview on June 12, 2024, until confronted. He explained that he drove home after “a night of drinking alcohol” and was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy. After failing a field sobriety test, he took a breathalyzer test and was determined to have a BAC above the legal limit. He was subsequently arrested and later charged with DUI. He was convicted and sentenced to a year of probation, six months of community service, and having a breathalyzer installed in his vehicle for one year. (Answer; GE 5 at 6-7; GE 6 at 7-9) 1.c. Excessive alco

ol consumption from 2006 - 2025: In his response to interrogatories certified on October 20, 2025, Applicant described drinking five vodka shots on w eekends, though sometimes he would drink six to seven shots, which would make him intoxicated. During an interview with a defense investigator on June 12, 2024, certified as accurate by Applicant on February 25, 2026, he described getting intoxicated on weekends, drinking 10 seltzer alcohol drinks and a pint of vodka. In his Answer, he qualified this to be an estimation and not an exact number. Applicant acknowledged “having consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication sporadically on weekends,” but denied that it occurred “every weekend” or even frequently. He noted, “it takes one liter of vodka to make him intoxicated,” and explained that when intoxicated he will “stagger, slur his speech, pass out/black out.” In his October 20, 2025, interrogatory responses, however, when queried about the date of his last blackout, he wrote, “none.” Applicant stated that he has never received any evaluation or treatment due to alcohol consumption and opined that he does not have a problem with alcohol. He intends to continue consuming alcohol in the future. (Answer; GE 4 at 4-5, 7; GE 5 at 7) 1.d. Weekly intoxication: See SOR ¶ 1.c discussion above. SOR Paragraph 2 (Guideline J: Criminal Conduct) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance due to certain criminal activity. The following findings of fact pertain: 2.a. Cross-allegations with subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b: See SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b discussion above. SOR Paragraph 3 (Guideline E: Personal Conduct) The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he had engaged in conduct that involved questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. The foll

wing findings of fact pertain: 3.a. False Statement ONE in 2024 Questionnaire: On April 30, 2024, Applicant submitted his Questionnaire wherein at Section 22 – Police record, he answered, “No,” 3

to questions asking if, in the last seven years: he had been issued a criminal citation; been arrested, charged, convicted, or sentenced of a crime; or been on probation. The instructions to this section direct applicants to “report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed.” Applicant denied the allegation as drafted in the SOR, explaining that he misunderstood the difference between the terms “charged” and “convicted.” As noted above in SOR ¶ 1.a, Applicant was arrested on February 14, 2021, and subsequently charged with DUI. During an interview with a defense investigator on June 12, 2024, certified as accurate by Applicant on February 25, 2026, he explained that the charges were dropped/abandoned. Likewise, in his Answer he noted that “all charges [were] dropped.” (Answer; GE 3 at 27; GE 5 at 5) 2.b. False Statement TWO in 2024 Questionnaire: On April 30, 2024, Applicant submitted his Questionnaire wherein at Section 22 – Police Record, he answered, “No,” to questions asking if he had EVER been charged with a felony or charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs. Applicant denied the allegation as drafted in the SOR, explaining again that he misunderstood the difference between the terms “charged” and “convicted.” As noted above in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b, Applicant was arrested on February 17, 2010, after which he was both charged and convicted of DUI. He was likewise arrested on February 14, 2021, after which he was charged with DUI. During an interview with a defense investigator on June 12, 2024, certified as accurate by Applicant on February 25, 2026, he explained that the charges were dropped/abandoned. Likewise, in his Answer he noted that “all charges [were] dropped.” (Answer; GE 3 at 27; GE 5 at 5) 2.c. False Statement in interrogatory response: On October 20, 2025, Applicant submitted responses to interrogatories wherein he was asked, “Has your use of alcohol ever… resulted in intervention by law enforcement…?” Applicant answered “Yes,” then elaborated “DUI 2008.” Applicant denied the allegation as drafted in the SOR, explaining again that he omitted reference to his 2021 DUI arrest because he misunderstood the difference between the terms “charged” and “convicted.” He went on to explain that “it was my understanding, however incorrect at the time, that since my case was completely dismissed, and all charges dropped, that it meant the same as not being convicted, and did not need to be included.” (Answer; GE 4 at 7) Whole Person and Mitigating Evidence Applicant submitted no comments or explanations in his Answer as whole person evidence in mitigation of the security concerns alleged in the SOR. The comments and explanations Applicant included in his Questionnaire, discussions with the DoD investigator, and interrogatories, however, were reviewed in their entirety. Policies When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 4

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

ecision. 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 national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires, “Any 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, “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 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 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 decision

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, “Any 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 determ

nation 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.) Analysis SOR Paragraph 1 (Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption) The security concerns relating to the guideline for alcohol consumption are set out in AG ¶ 21, which re