ISCR Case No. 24-01678

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 24-01678 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Mark Lawton, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/15/2026 Decision GOLDSTEIN, J., Administrative Judge: This case involves unresolved security concerns raised under Guidelines I (Psychological Conditions), G (Alcohol Consumption), and E (Personal Conduct). Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case On January 16, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines I, G, and E. 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 Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), which became effective on June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR (Answer) in an undated submission and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on July 13, 2026. A complete copy of the file of relevant 1

material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, who was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. The FORM contained ten Government Exhibits (GE) which were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant received the FORM on July 20, 2026, and did not respond to the FORM within the 30-day time frame given to him. The case was assigned to me on September 9, 2026. Findings of Fact Applicant is a 43-year-old U.S. citizen. He is divorced and has no children. He is a high school graduate and has attended some college classes. He served in his state National Guard from 2011 to 2017. He was deployed in Afghanistan from 2012 to 2013. In 2017, he was discharged. His discharge was classified as General under Honorable Conditions. He currently seeks security clearance eligibility in connection with his employment. (Answer; GE 2) The concerns as stated in the SOR are as follows: Guideline I Under Guideline I, the SOR alleged that Applicant: attempted suicide in 2016 (¶ 1.a); received treatment for Bipolar Mood Disorder from April 2016 to March 2017 (¶ 1.b); was discharged from the Army National Guard in 2017 due to psychological conditions and alcohol-related incidents (¶ 1.c and cross-alleged under Guideline G, below); ceased taking his prescribed medications in 2023 without consulting his healthcare provider (¶ 1.d); was hospitalized for suicidal ideations in May 2024 while under the influence of alcohol (¶ 1.e and cross-alleged under Guideline G, below); and was evaluated in June 2024 by a license clinical psychologist who diagnosed him with Bipolar II Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder, mild and opined that his reliability, judgment, stability, and trustworthiness were compromised by his current psychiatric state (¶ 1.f and partially cross-alleged under Guideline G, below). In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted to all of the allegations under Guideline I and provided additional comments concerning the circumstances surrounding each of the allegations. Guideline G Under Guideline G, the SOR alleges that the Applicant: consumed alcohol, at times in excess and to the point of intoxication, from about 2016 to about December 2024 (¶ 2.a); was arrested in July 2016 and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) (¶ 2.b); was arrested in December 2016, charged with DUI, and court-ordered to obtain counseling, participated in a Substance Abuse Recovery Program, was diagnosed as alcohol dependent, and was advised to abstain from alcohol (¶ 2.c); information as alleged under Guideline I (¶ 2.d referencing paragraphs 1.c, 1.e, and 1.f, above); continued to consume alcohol notwithstanding his diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence (¶ 2.e); and continued to consume alcohol notwithstanding his treatment for Alcohol Use Disorder (¶ 2.f). In his Answer to the SOR, the Applicant admitted all of the allegations 2

under Guideline G and provided additional comments concerning the circumstances surrounding each of the allegations. Guideline E Under Guideline E, the SOR: incorporates and cross-alleges all of the allegations under Guidelines I and G, above (¶ 3.a); alleged that the Applicant was fired from his employment with Employer One in August 2022 due to poor performance resulting from his mental health issues (¶ 3.b); alleged that the Applicant was fired from his employment with Employer Two in about December 2019 due to a policy violation (¶ 3.c); alleged that the Applicant failed to report to his military chain of command that he had been charged with Sex Abuse, mild, in about April 2017 (¶ 3.d); and alleges that the Applicant failed to report to his military chain of command that he had been arrested and charged with DUI in July 2016 and in October 2016 (¶ 3.e). In his Answer to the SOR, the Applicant admitted the allegations under Guideline E contained in SOR paragraphs 3.a, 3.b, and 3.c, and provided additional comments concerning the circumstances surrounding each of the allegations. He denied the allegations under Guideline E, SOR ¶¶ 3.d and 3.e, noting that following a briefing on self-reporting incidents, he reported each of the incidents alleged in SOR ¶¶ 3.d and 3.e. These allegations are grouped and largely addressed chronologically. I note that the record contains numerous inconsistencies in dates and details of the alleged events, largely due to Applicant being an unreliable historian. The record reflects the following: Applicant reported he started using alcohol at the age of 19. His alcohol use was classified as “heavy” beginning in 2013 after returning from deployment. He reported that he drank four times per week, consuming two 12-ounce beers up to a fifth of vodka. (GE 6 at 255) In 2014, Applicant reported to his physician at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that he had been experiencing panic attacks and problems sleeping since returning from deployment in Afghanistan. He was referred for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). (GE 6 at 308-315) His mental health was exacerbated by the death of his father in about 2015. That same year (also reported as occurring in 2016-2017), Applicant was first diagnosed with Bipolar Mood Disorder. Psychiatric records from 2015 reflect he was demoted from E4 to E3 due to his failure to attend a weekend training session after having a panic attack. (GE 4 at 4, GE 6 at 287) In 2016, Applicant attempted suicide. (Answer) Applicant was arrested in July 2016 and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). He was pulled over for running a red light and was administered a road-side sobriety test. (GE 2, GE 5, GE 8) He was arrested a second time in October 2016 and was again charged with DUI. (GE 2, GE 5 at 14) He reported that both DUI cases were heard in October 2016. He pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while impaired and his sentence was deferred. The judge ordered him to complete 40 hours of community service, one year of probation, and install a breathalyzer in his car. (GE 5) In April 2017, Applicant was at a bar with friends. He was alleged to have sexually abused a woman in the bar. He was arrested and charged with sex abuse, a 3

misdemeanor. He was ultimately found not guilty of this charge after a trial was held. However, he failed to report the arrest and charge to his command. He admitted during his subject interview that his failure to report the charges of sexual assault and his DUIs to his command led to his discharge. (GE 2, GE 5 at 9-10, GE 8) Applicant was admitted to the VA outpatient Substance Abuse Recovery Program (SARP) for treatment from May 1, 2017, to July 5, 2017. He was diagnosed with alcohol use disorder-severe, and he was advised to abstain from future use of alcohol. He was prescribed Naltrexone to help stop alcohol cravings. Despite this, his treatment records reflect that he relapsed. He also claimed during his subject interview that he was not diagnosed with alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence. (GE 5, GE 6 at 183, 194, 209, 240, 258-259, GE 8) In November 2017, Applicant was released from the National Guard with a general discharge. During his subject interview, he claimed the discharge was related to battling PTSD and manic depression. In his Answer, he denied that his discharge was related to his failure to disclose his arrests to his command and insisted that he reported them. (Answer; GE 5 at 10) In June 2018, Applicant attempted suicide by attempting to overdose on medications. He disclosed to his treating physician that he continued to consume alcohol, despite completing SARP. (GE 6 at 163) In 2019, Applicant was fired by his employer (Employer One) due to a policy violation. (Answer) He explained: I never really understood the termination. My supervisor had made me understand that I could do some work from home like continuing education, or anything work related if work was not too busy. My co-workers and everyone were okay with it. Apparently, others at the top did not know about it. Without warning, I was let go. (GE 5) In about August 2022, Applicant’s employment with a second employer (Employer Two) was terminated. He explained: I was trying to save enough money to buy a house. I decided to g et a second job to be worked at night. I became very stressed, and was not getting any sleep. The depression started affecting me daily, and I was getting no sleep, and could not do the night drive. I was eventually let go bec

ause I could not perform. I bit on more than I could chew. (GE 5) In 2023, the Applicant ceased taking his prescribed medications without consulting his treating physician. He stopped taking his medications in June or July 2023 and returned for treatment in January or February 2024. (GE 4 at 3) In his Answer, he explained the medication he was on at the time made him tired and groggy in the morning, 4

but that his medication has changed since then. He stated: “I constantly take my daily medications now, and other medications prescribed to me by my Doctor.” (Answer) In April 2024, Applicant was again hospitalized for suicidal ideations, while under the influence of alcohol. He described the episode acknowledging, “I felt really, really shitty. I called 9-1-1 and was taken to the hospital. I wasn’t okay. I went to the hospital just to make sure, and they kept me there for three days.” He had been drinking whiskey on this occasion. (GE 4 at 3) He was diagnosed with alcohol intoxication; Hypomagnesemia; Bipolar II disorder, mild, depressed, with anxious distress; and rule out (r/o) post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (GE 7 at 2) The Applicant was evaluated by a Licensed Clinical Psychologist (Dr. Z) in June 2024 at the request of DCSA. Dr. Z noted that Applicant’s “self-report was not reliable.” (GE 4 at 4) He continued: I recommend the subject continue his current medication regimen and establish a more intensive psychotherapeutic treatment, such as cognitive behavioral therapy or social rhythm therapy for bipolar disorder, and therapy aimed at permanently remaining abs

tinent from substances not currently being medically monitored. It is my professional opinion, within reasonable certainty, that the subject's reliability, judgment, stability, and trustworthiness are compromised by his current psychiatric state. (GE 4) In his Answer, Applicant reported that he participated in 3-hour group-therapy sessions from Mondays to Thursdays and sees his psychiatrist every other month. (Answer) As of Applicant’s Answer, he continued to consume alcohol attempting to limit himself to wine instead of liquor, despite expressing the goal of “becom[ing] 100% sober.” (GE 5; Answer) Policies “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 5

The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan at 531. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” See ISCR Case No. 17-04166 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2019). It is “less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [a Judge’s] finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016).

Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01- 20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan at 531.

6

Analysis Guideline I, Psychological Conditions The security concerns about Psychological Conditions are set out in AG ¶ 27: Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a c oncern under this guideline. A duly qualified mental health professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist) employed by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government, should be consulted when evaluating potentially disqualifying and mitigating information under this guideline and an opinion, including prognosis, should be sought. No negative inference concerning the standards in this guideline may be raised solely on the basis of mental health counseling. AG ¶ 28 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable: (b) an o

pinion by

a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness; (c) voluntary or involuntary inpatient hospitalization; [and] (d) failure to follow a prescribed treatment plan related to a diagnosed psychological/psychiatric condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, including, but not limited to, failure to take prescribed medication or failure to attend required counseling sessions. Applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder. In the opinion of the psychologist that examined Applicant in 2024, he possesses a condition that may impair his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. His long history of mental health treatment includes in-patient hospitalizations for attempted suicide and suicidal ideation. His mental health journey has been a difficult one, and he has periods of non-compliance with his prescribed treatments. AG ¶¶ 28(b), 28(c), and 28(d) apply. AG ¶ 29 describes conditions that could mitigate the security concerns. The following mitigating condition is potentially applicable: (a) the identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan; (b) the individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently 7

receiving counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental health professional; (c) recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual's previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation; (d) the past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability; and (e) there is no indication of a current problem. Since 2014, Applicant has experienced mental-health problems relating to his diagnosed conditions of Bipolar II Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder. The Applicant has a long-standing psychological condition dating back to 2015 when he was initially diagnosed with Bipolar Mood Disorder. In 2016, he attempted suicide and was treated for bipolar mood disorder. He was discharged from the Army National Guard in 2017 due in part to his psychological conditions and failure to report arrests to his command. He also has been terminated from two other jobs. More recently, Applicant ceased taking his prescribed medications without consulting his psychiatrist in 2023 and suffered a setback in 2024 when he was hospitalized for suicidal ideations while under the influence of alcohol. Even though he has received treatment for both alcohol use disorder and Bipolar II disorder, he has been unable to consistently comply with his treatment plan, abstain from alcohol use, and take his medications as prescribed. He did not provide any documentation of his current prognosis from his treating provider and the licensed clinical psychologist he met with in 2024 reflected significant concerns with Applicant’s judgment. None of the above mitigating conditions apply. Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption The security concern under this guideline 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 evidence establishes the following disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 22: (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 alcohol use disorder; 8

(c) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;

(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use disorder; (e) the failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed; and (f) alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. Applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol twice in 2016. He has been diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder and has attended alcohol treatment. He was advised during SARP treatment that he should abstain from all use of alcohol and was prescribed medication to help him abstain. In 2024, his suicidal ideation was related to his consumption of whiskey. While he asserted that he limits his alcohol intake to wine and generally drinks less, he acknowledged that he should not drink at all and had the goal of attaining a status of “100% sober.” All of the above disqualifying conditions apply. I considered all of the mitigating conditions set out in AG ¶ 23. The following mitigating conditions are potentially relevant: (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 (c) the individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a treatment program. Applicant admitted he continues to consume alcohol, despite the strife it has caused in his life, the DUI arrests, the suicide attempts while intoxicated, and his alcohol- related diagnoses and treatment recommendations. He has had multiple relapses after treatment. While he participates in group therapy, has not yet attained abstinence and he has a history of relapse. He did not meet his burden to present evidence to support a conclusion that future alcohol-related incidents are unlikely to recur or that he now exercises the requisite judgment to hold clearance eligibility. AG ¶¶ 23(a), 23(b), and 23(c) are not established. 9

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 (e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a foreign intelligence entity or other individual or group. Such conduct includes: (1) engaging in activities which, if known, could affect the person's personal, professional, or community standing. Applicant was terminated by two separate employers. He also failed to report his two DUIs and his arrest for sexual abuse to his command while serving in the National Guard, thereby concealing information relevant to his eligibility to hold a security clearance, and exercising questionable judgment. His alleged conduct could affect his personal, professional, or community standing. AG ¶¶ 16(c) and 16 (e) apply to SOR ¶¶ 3.b through 3.e. Subparagraph 3.a cross alleged ¶¶ 1.a through 2.f. Those allegations were found sufficient for an adverse determination under the Guidelines for Psychological Conditions and Alcohol Consumption. As a result, I find SOR ¶ 3.a for Applicant. The following mitigating conditions, under AG ¶ 17, are potentially relevant: (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 10

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 be

havior 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. None of the mitigating factors in AG ¶ 17 provide full mitigation. Applicant has exercised questionable judgment for at least a ten-year timespan. Often, his alcohol consumption was an aggravating factor, along with his mental health. While he has obtained counseling, and participates in group therapy, he continues to exhibit questionable behavior. He recently attempted suicide after consuming a large amount of alcohol. He has a history of non-compliance with treatment recommendations including abstaining from alcohol and pharmacotherapy compliance. Applicant remains vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. Whole-Person Analysis Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. An administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the relevant circumstances. An 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. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines I, G, and E in my whole- person analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). Because Applicant requested a determination on the record without a hearing, I had no opportunity to question him or evaluate his credibility and sincerity based on demeanor. See ISCR Case No. 01-12350 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2003). After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guidelines I, G, and E and evaluating all the evidence in the 11

context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concern alleged. Formal Findings I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: Paragraph 1, Guideline I (Psychological Conditions): AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a – 1.f: Against Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption): AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.f: Against Applicant Paragraph 3, Guideline E (Personal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 3.a : Subparagraph 3.b – 3.e: For Applicant Against Applicant Conclusion I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. Jennifer Goldstein Administrative Judge 12