ISCR Case No. 24-01312

______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 24-01312 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Brittany White, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/14/2026 Decision KATAUSKAS, Philip J., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines F (financial considerations), G (alcohol consumption), and E (personal conduct). Applicant mitigated the concerns under Guideline G, but not the concerns under Guidelines F and E. Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on July 5, 2023. On September 26, 2024, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines F, 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 responded to the SOR (Answer) on or about October 7, 2024, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to 1

proceed on November 20, 2024, and the case was assigned to me on April 2, 2025. On June 4, 2025, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was scheduled to be conducted on July 28, 2025. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 10 and Applicant Exhibit (AE) A through F were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant did not call any witnesses. The record closed at the completion of the hearing. DOHA received the transcript on August 8, 2025. Processing of this case was delayed during the furlough of administrative judges from October 1 to November 12, 2025, due to a lapse in federal funding. Findings of Fact Applicant is 49 years old. He married in 2006, separated in about December 2020, and divorced in September 2021. He had two children with his ex-wife1 and adopted three children she had prior to the marriage. The two youngest children are now 18 and 19 years old, and as of the hearing date continued to reside with Applicant. As of the hearing date, he was engaged to be married. (GE 1; Tr. 23-26, 115) Applicant served in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve from 1997 to 1999. He earned a bachelor’s degree in 2017 and a master’s degree in 2019. Along with separating from his ex-wife in about December 2020, Applicant moved from State 1 to State 2, where he currently resides. In State 2, he was employed in a manufacturing-related role with Contractor A from about December 2020 to March 2023, after which he began employment with Contractor B, his current employer, as a program manager. He does not presently have security clearance eligibility. (GE 1; Tr. 9, 21-22) In responding to the SOR, Applicant made some admissions that are incorporated into my findings of fact. Under Guideline F, the SOR alleges Applicant is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent tax payments for tax years (TY) 2018-2021 (¶¶ 1.a- 1.d); and that he failed to timely file Federal (¶ 1.e) and S tate (¶ 1.f) income tax returns for TY 2022 and 2023. Applicant admitted the late filings in ¶¶ 1.e-1.f but denied the delinquencies in ¶¶ 1.a-1.d. Under Guideline G, the SOR alleges Applicant had alcohol-related incidents or charges in 2007 (Driving While Under the Influence (DUI), ¶ 2.a); 2012 (domestic violence, ¶ 2.b); 2015 (simple battery/family violence, ¶ 2.c); and 2022 (reporting to work under the influence of alcohol and making inappropriate physical contact with a coworker, ¶ 2.d). Applicant admitted the DUI in ¶ 2.a but denied the allegations in ¶¶ 2.b-2.d. Under Guideline E, the SOR alleges Applicant falsified tax-related information during a security interview (¶ 3.a), and falsified information about the work-related incident 1 As Applicant has been married only once, this decision will use “ex-wife” and “wife” interchangeably. 2

described in SOR ¶ 2.d in an interrogatory response (¶ 3.b). Applicant denied the falsifications. In addition, SOR ¶ 3.c cross-alleges the financial- and alcohol-related conduct from SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.f and 2.a-2.d. Guideline F, Financial Considerations As noted above, Applicant in his Answer denied being delinquent in federal income tax payments in the approximate amount of $17,300 for TY 2018 (SOR ¶ 1.a). He explained that, for TY 2018, his then wife, without his knowledge, filed a separate tax return and took the dependent deductions that he had taken on prior year returns, which they had filed jointly. So, for TY 2018, he filed separately, after his wife, and without the deductions. As a result, she received a large refund and he owed more in taxes. He said his ex-wife’s action made him a victim of fraud, and he felt that she should owe the money, not him. (Tr. 33) In his Answer, he added that he had contracted with a tax assistance service to negotiate with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). At the hearing, Applicant admitted that, given the circumstances, it was true that he owed the IRS about $17,300 for TY 2018. (Answer; Tr. 27-30) Regarding TY 2019-2021, Applicant in his Answer denied owing delinquent taxes, repeating for SOR ¶¶ 1.b-1.d the recitation about his ex-wife’s actions that he provided regarding SOR ¶ 1.a. At the hearing, he clarified that his ex-wife did not repeat her actions from TY 2018 in subsequent years and explained that he was “trying to figure out how to get [2018] taken care of.” (Tr. 30) He admitted that he owed the amounts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b-1.d for TY 2019-2021 and that he had not made any payments, but continued to claim that his ex-wife committed tax fraud.2 (Tr. 32-38) The evidence reflects the following about Applicant’s tax returns and delinquent payments: Tax Year Return due or received (latter) Filing Status Taxable Income Tax Due Per Return Tax Withheld during TY Account Balance & Date 2018 Apr. 15, 2019 Married Filing Separate $75,673 $12,588 $1,294 $17,391.51 Mar. 4, 2024 2019 Apr. 23, 2021 Head of Household $73,122 $4,526 $1,763 $4,278.23 Sep. 17, 2024 2020 May 22, 20233 Head of Household $118,607 $18, 673 $7,903 $17,885.96 Sep. 17, 2024 2 Applicant acknowledged, “the burden is on me to pay” the $5,049 owed for TY 2021, but he added, “I would still assert that she was committing tax fraud . . . .” (Tr. 36) 3 At the hearing, Department Counsel stated that Applicant’s TY 2020 and 2021 tax returns were filed on August 19, 2023. But the tax transcripts show that is the date the returns were processed, not the date they were due or received. 3

Tax Year Return due or received (latter) Filing Status Taxable Income Tax Due Per Return Tax Withheld during TY Account Balance & Date 2021 June 13, 2023 Head of Household $128,827 $22,987 $12,434 $5,049.70 Sep. 17, 2024 2022 No return filed4 Sep. 17, 2024 2023 No return filed Sep. 17, 2024 (GE 2 at 6-7; GE 3 at 18-25) As points of comparison, other relevant dates in this case are: • July 5, 2023 Applicant completed SCA • August 11, 2023 Applicant interviewed by a security investigator • September 26, 2024 SOR issued Applicant provided documentation regarding his contact with tax assistance services. His first contact, in August 2019, was declined by the company because his debt was too low to warrant their representation. (AE E; Tr. 29) One year later, in September 2020, he contracted for assistance with Tax Service One; he was given access to a client portal and was requested to complete a tax organizer form for TY 2019. In October 2020, Tax Service One sent him completed TY 2019 Federal and state tax returns and asked him to sign them and mail them to the IRS and state tax agency at the addresses provided. In November 2020, Tax Service One notified him that they were entering the negotiation stage, during which there would not be frequent updates, and that he needed to provide more information about certain expenses. In December 2020, Tax Service One reminded him of information they had requested. In February 2021, Tax Service One informed him that they would be negotiating with the IRS to get him the best resolution possible. Then there is a gap in documentation until three years later, when in January 2024 Tax Service One asked him to provide additional information through the online portal. (AE E) Applicant’s tax account transcripts appear to confirm Tax Service One’s role. They have the words “Appointed representative” associated with the date of October 1, 2020, and also note the representative was removed on May 3, 2022, but appointed (again) on May 5, 2022. (GE 2 at 7; GE 3 at 18-19, 21) Applicant testified that his experience with Tax Service One felt like a scam. At the start he paid about $3,000, and in about 2022 he paid an additional $5,000. He said Tax Service One called him two or three times over the years to offer an unspecified resolution for payments of $1,000 per month. He asked how long he would need to make the payments and never received a good answer. He said Tax Service One called him in about March or April 2025 and said they had been trying to reach him, a claim that he 4 Applicant’s TY 2022 tax account transcript contains the entry, “Tax return secured” associated with the date of April 17, 2024. The form does not explain the meaning of the entry. 4

rejected. Finally giving up on them, in April 2025 Applicant contracted with a different firm, Tax Service Two, retained through work-based legal assistance coverage. He submitted IRS forms documenting Tax Service Two’s role as his current representative along with his power of attorney. (Tr. 38-49; AE A, AE B) In his response to DOHA interrogatories, signed on September 17, 2024, Applicant noted that he had not filed all tax returns due through TY 2023. About federal returns, he wrote, “Still need to submit W2s & tax info into tax portal[;] will complete ASAP.” About state returns, he noted that his TY 2023 return was not filed and wrote, “Will upload 2022 W2s ASAP into tax portal for immediate filing.” As to delinquent tax payments, he did not provide state information but indicated his Federal delinquency as “2018-2022(?) approximately $60k total[.]” (GE 3 at 13) In his Answer, prepared on or about October 10, 2024, Applicant wrote that Tax Service One had also been r etained to file his tax returns, and that he uploaded all required forms and information to the portal. He added, “I did not know the taxes had not been filed for 2022 ( I was negligent for 2023),” and later also wrote that he did not find out his TY 2022 tax returns had not been filed until he received the SOR. (GE 3; Answer) On that point, at the hearing he testified that he did not realize his TY 2022 tax returns had not been filed until he was informed of that during the security investigation. (Tr. 47- 48, 50, 132) Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption In his Answer, Applicant admitted being charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol in December 2007 (SOR ¶ 2.a). He was drinking at a friend’s house, and his wife was present. They got into an argument, and to remove himself from the situation he drove away in his truck. He drove into an ice patch, slid off the road, and rolled a few times. He testified that he had a lot to drink and did not remember getting into the vehicle or driving it. He was on probation for one year and was required to attend alcohol classes. He said that he stopped drinking for about one year, until probation was over. He then resumed drinking for social reasons. (GE 3 at 6; Tr. 65-68) Applicant was charged with domestic violence in March 20125, and SOR ¶ 2.b alleged that he was “under the influence of alcohol when the incident that led to the charges occurred.” He denied the allegation, stating that the term “under the influence” should not include “[having] a beer or two, in the span of an hour or more . . . .” He explained that he was defending himself from his wife and that an officer told him he was charged because the other person called the police first. (Answer) Applicant spent two days in jail after his arrest, and later went to court, but the charges were dropped. (GE 3 at 6) 5 The incident took place in February 2011, but for consistency I will refer to it as the 2012 incident since the SOR refers to March 2012 as the date of the charge. 5

Following Applicant’s interview with a security investigator on August 11, 2023, the investigator included Applicant’s comments about this incident in the interview summary. The investigator wrote: Subject was out drinking with his wife when Subject confronted wife about cheating on him. When Subject returned home he had been locked out of the residence and forced his way in. Subject’s wife began hitting him so he grabbed her by the hoodie and threw her outside. Subject consciously participated in this to stop his wife from hitting him. Wife’s sister called the police. (GE 3 at 6) At the hearing, Applicant testified that the incident started at their house. He left home, walked to a bar up the street, and ordered a beer. He said he had not even finished the beer when he walked back home. That’s when he found himself locked out and forced his way inside, after which his wife began hitting him. (Tr. 71-74) In response to questions from Department Counsel about the number of physical altercations he had with his wife, Applicant said, “Honestly, it’s hard to count.” Prompted further, he estimated that, over the course of their marriage, he and his wife had about 10 to 12 physical altercations. (Tr. 77-76) Department Counsel confirmed with Applicant that his denial of SOR ¶ 2.b centered on the definition of “under the influence.” She explained: For the purposes of this proceeding and just sort of general, under the influence is if you’ve had anything to drink, or anything that would alter your state of mind because that’s what [under] the influence [is], right? So you weren’t driving, we’re not alleging that you couldn’t drive a car. But you had had something that altered your state of mind, even if it was just a little bit of beer. We have no way of knowing what your blood alcohol content was, but you do agree and admit that you drank some amount of alcohol before returning to your home in February of 2011? Applicant responded, “Yes.” (Tr. 77) In response to additional questions, Applicant explained that, after this incident, he moved out of the house for about two or three months. He didn’t want to move back, but his wife assured him that she would see a therapist for “her fits of rage or whatever she called them.” (Tr. 78) In February 2015, Applicant was charged with simple battery/family violence after another incident involving his wife (SOR ¶ 2.c). In the interview summary, the investigator described the incident as follows: Subject was out to dinner and drinks with friend from work. Wife confronted Subject about lying when Subject got home. Wife got in Subject’s face. 6

Subject pushed wife back. Wife then spit in Subject’s face. Wife went inside and began throwing Subject’s possessions outside. Subject went inside and grabbed his possessions. Wife started hitting Subject and he shoved her down the stairs. Subject then went to check on spouse and she began hitting him again. Subject then grabbed her by the hoodie and threw her outside. Subject then left house. Subject’s oldest son called police. Police called Subject and Subject returned to the residence to turn himself in. (GE 3 at 6-7) In his Answer, Applicant said that alcohol was not a factor in this incident. At the hearing, he recalled that he and a friend went to a Mexican restaurant after work. He said the restaurant was between where they worked and his house, and every few weeks they would go to the “margarita special” for dinner and a margarita. He agreed with Department Counsel that this was likely at 5:00 to 6:00 PM. He said they had one margarita and were at the restaurant for about one hour, as his friend’s wife wanted him to come home and cook dinner. They went next door to a grocery store to buy groceries. Exiting the grocery store, Applicant saw his wife walking across the parking lot, as she had driven to the restaurant to look for him. He explained that she saw him and his friend walking out of the grocery store, and she felt stupid and embarrassed because she allowed his friend’s wife to convince her that Applicant and his friend were lying about where they were. (Tr. 80- 88) Applicant testified that he drove home, following his wife. They began arguing in the front of the house, and his wife spat on him. She then ran into the house and started grabbing his clothes and throwing them outside. He went inside, snatched some clothes from her arms, and she started punching him in the face. He pushed her away, and she fell down about six steps to a small landing area. He went down the stairs to see if she was okay, but she stood up and started punching him again. So he grabbed her by her sweatshirt and forcibly walked her down the next set of stairs to go out the front door. (Tr. 90-95) The police report, GE 8, contains a narrative statement written by the police based on what Applicant’s wife told them. She told the police that she and Applicant were outside arguing about him coming home intoxicated. She said that Applicant pushed her in the face. She then told him he had to leave, and she went inside to get some of his clothing and throw it out the front door. From there, her story generally tracks what Applicant said at the hearing, except that she said she was pushed down several flights of stairs. Police noted her injuries as “several small scratches and cuts on the left side of victim’s left arm and shoulder,” and “red marks to the left of her hip.” The following day, the police interviewed Applicant. He told police how his wife had spat in his face and he stayed outside to “cool down,” until his wife threw his clothes out the front door. Applicant’s statement to the police is consistent with his testimony at the hearing. The police then met again with Applicant’s wife. She told them that she forgot to mention that she spit on Applicant, but she claimed she did so only after he pushed her. (GE 8) 7

Applicant also testified that his ex-wife wrote a note to his employer, to the effect that she had what Applicant described as “like a manic episode.” He said that after the incident his ex-wife talked to her doctors about her medication, as she had recent medication adjustments to treat mental conditions. (Tr. 93-94) Returning to the theme of alcohol, Department Counsel explained why the SOR said that Applicant was “under the influence of alcohol” related to the 2015 incident: And as I said before, drinking anything, having any mind-altering substance puts you under the influence. Now, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you couldn’t have driven and we’re not saying that you were drunk. But we are saying that you were under the influence. Do you understand? (Tr. 85-86) Applicant responded, “Okay.” I then asked Applicant whether, in his mind, he was under the influence of alcohol. He answered, “No, sir.” (Tr. 86) The last of four incidents alleged as alcohol related took place in April 2022 at Applicant’s workplace (SOR ¶ 2.d). The SOR alleged that Applicant reported to work under the influence of alcohol and made inappropriate physical contact with a coworker. In his Answer, Applicant denied the allegation, saying that the physical contact was not inappropriate. But in his Answer’s concluding statement, he acknowledged being intoxicated the evening before. Even though he did not drink before going to work or while at work, he was still feeling a bit hungover when he arrived. He said that the coworker was a close personal friend whom he greeted with a hug, as they always did. Another employee saw the hug and was offended. (Answer) Applicant mentioned the incident in his July 2023 SCA. He confirmed that he received a workplace discipline or warning, and wrote: [W]ritten warning in 04/2022 for showing up to work still affected from alcohol the night before. [W]ritten warning in 04/2022 for a co-worker feeling uncomfortable for hugging another co-worker. . . . (GE 1 at 13) After discussing the situation with Applicant, the investigator wrote the following in the interview summary: Subject received 2 written warnings in 04/2022 in response to the same incident. One written warning was issued for showing up to work still affected by alcohol and the other warning was issued for making a coworker feel uncomfortable. Subject got intoxicated the night before while visiting Father’s grave with sister. He then showed up to work the next morning for a training exercise still feeling intoxicated from the night before because he did not want to miss a meeting. Front desk reception smelled the alcohol on Subject when he arrived at work. Subject had been disagreeing with 8

leadership because of how certain projects were being handled and chose to confront and c omplain about the l eadership during this training. Subject then believed that he should leave voluntarily, as he left he hugged [Person A] who was a friendly coworker. [Person B], another coworker, saw this exchange between S

ubject and [Person A] and reported a complaint to management. [Person A] said that Subject’s actions did not bother her. (GE 3 at 4) At the hearing, Applicant testified that the night before, he and his sister were drinking in a cemetery at their father’s grave. He drank gin, and his brother-in-law drove him home. He admitted that he was intoxicated. (Tr. 100-102). Applicant was asked about the reporting process at his workplace. He said that he swiped in with a badge, and that morning stopped by the front desk, “just kind of BS’ing.” The front desk receptionist appears to be the person who reported smelling alcohol. (Tr. 102) He also acknowledged being frustrated ab

out work. The training he attended that day was a continuation of the prior day’s session. The c ompany’s sector management team wanted to empower mid-level managers to drill down into problems, to prevent those problems from cropping up later. Applicant was frustrated because he did not feel that the initiative had the support of site managers, who were not present. He said that he expressed his discontent at the m

eeting. He recalled feeling “a little groggy” and acknowledged there may have been some alcohol still in his system, but he clearly recalled the events of that morning. Person A, who was the coworker that Applicant hugged, submitted a letter stating that she was not harassed or made to feel uncomfortable by Applicant, and that she made this same report during the human resources investigation into the incident. (Tr. 102-105; AE C) Applicant addressed his personal history of alcohol consumption during his security interview. He mentioned drinking while he was in training with the Marine Corps Reserve at age 19; he obtained alcohol from older Marines. He told the investigator that, since 1997, he drinks on weekends with friends, having up to 3-4 drinks per occasion. He said that sometimes he drinks every weekend, but sometimes he goes months without drinking. The investigator wrote, “Subject has drank to intoxication. His definition of intoxication is incoherent. He drinks to this point once or twice a month and feels this way if he has more than 3 drinks. Subject’s behavior is annoying, silly, and emotional when under the influence. . . .” (GE 3 at 7) In his September 2024 response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant reported that his last drink was one gin & tonic the day before. He reported having one drink once or twice per week. He denied consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication but also reported last being intoxicated in August 2024. He denied having a problem with alcohol, writing that he could “take it or leave it.” He denied ever being diagnosed with alcohol use disorder or being advised by a medical professional or mental health provider to abstain from alcohol. (GE 3 at 14-16) 9

At the hearing, Applicant reiterated that he can go a couple of weeks or months without alcohol. But he will drink at some social events. For example, he said he drank a week or two before the hearing, when he had two beers with a friend who was getting ready to travel to a foreign country, and when he had a couple of drinks over a weekend- long wedding event. (Tr. 114-115) Applicant testified that, other than the 2022 incident, he has never reported to work after drinking or with a hangover. He last drank to intoxication in October 2024. This was with his sister, again remembering their father, but at her house. He explained that they used to go to the cemetery twice a year, driven by his brother-in-law, but that “[i]t doesn’t happen so much anymore.” (Tr. 117-120) Applicant testified that he and his fiancée stay busy with their families and may have a drink together a couple of times per month. She drinks socially but does not have any alcohol-related issues. (Tr. 121-122) Given the chance to explain the four incidents discussed in this section, Applicant said that they are isolated incidents. He emphasized that he works hard to exceed expectations at work and in his family life. He hoped that, at the hearing, he was able to add context and clarity to the events described in the SOR. (Tr. 124) Guideline E – Personal Conduct SOR ¶ 1.a alleged that Applicant falsified facts during his August 11, 2023 security interview, by telling the investigator that since 2019 all his tax returns were filed on time and he did not have delinquent taxes for those years. As context, when the investigator spoke with Applicant, the investigator already had the information from Applicant’s SCA. In the SCA, Applicant had denied failing to file or pay taxes within the past seven years. But in response to a later question, he wrote, “Using: [Tax Service One] to assist in working with the IRS for tax debt,” and “I have paid for all the legal fees required to secure legal representation for the IRS.” (GE 1 at 41) The investigator wrote in the interview summary: Regarding Subject’s listed financial assistance with [Tax Service One], this began as a result of his wife filing separate taxes in 2019 for 2018 taxes and claiming his children without informing him. This caused Subject to owe $12,000 for his taxes. Since then all Subject’s taxes have been filed on time and is not currently delinquent on any taxes. No payment plan is currently set up as the Subject waits for [Tax Service One] to reach an agreement with the IRS. . . . (GE 3 at 7-8) As part of the September 2024 interrogatories, Applicant had the opportunity to review and correct the interview summary. He made no changes. (GE 3 at 3-12) 10

Applicant denied giving false information to the investigator, saying that he answered honestly and with as much transparency as he could recall. In his Answer, Applicant wrote that he was under the impression that he was caught up with his taxes. Recalling when he first learned that his 2022 taxes had not been filed, his Answer said it was when the SOR was issued in September 2024; but at the hearing he testified that it was during the August 2023 security interview. (Tr. 132-133) At the hearing, Applicant testified about his discussions with the investigator: I added this clarity to the investigator. And I wasn’t quite sure, like, I kept asking them questions to figure out in what context did they mean it. . . . So because the context I meant it was, you know, I didn’t feel that I was responsible considering I am not the one who filed falsely. . . . However, if it isn’t just the – if you’re looking at it at the straight and narrow, is it in your name and do you owe these, then yes. . . . And that was what I was trying to get them to understand. (Tr. 128-29) Challenged by Department Counsel that even though his ex-wife was the reason he owed the money, his answer to the investigator was not “the honest answer,” Applicant insisted that he was not trying to be dishonest. Instead, he was “trying to understand the full context of the question.” (Tr. 129) Moving to the next SOR allegation, SOR ¶ 1.b alleged that Applicant falsified facts in his September 17, 2024 response to interrogatories related to alcohol and work: In those Interrogatories, you were asked if you had ever been under the influence of alcohol while at work. You responded, ‘No.’ You thereby deliberately failed to disclose that information set forth in subparagraph 2.d . . . . As context, the interrogatories sent to Applicant contained three sections. Section A asked Applicant to review, correct as needed, and verify the summary of his interview. (GE 3 at 12) This was followed immediately by Section B, covering financial questions, and then Section C, covering alcohol-related questions. Applicant certified all three sections on September 17, 2024. (GE 3 at 12, 17) Section C, question 4, asked: “Have you ever been under the influence of alcohol while at work? If so, approximately how many times has this happened, and what is the approximate date of the last occurrence?” Applicant answered, “No.” (GE 3 at 15) In his Answer, Applicant wrote that he had mentioned the work incident in his SCA and discussed it with the investigator. He added, “My understanding of the interrogatories was to list any instances ‘in addition to what had already been documented and 11

disclosed,’ of which there were none. It would make no sense for me to fail to disclose something I had previously disclosed . . . .” (Answer) At the hearing, in response to my questions, Applicant confirmed his belief that the interrogatory sought information beyond that which he had discussed with the investigator. “Yeah, I thought he meant in addition to. And since we had already discussed that April incident, I didn’t understand why he would be asking me to include that again when we had just discussed it.” (Tr. 131) Other evidence Applicant submitted two character reference letters. One letter, from a person who worked with him at his former employer and current employer, noted his professional demeanor and that he is a respectful colleague. (AE C) The other letter, from Applicant’s current manager, noted his professionalism, ethical behavior, and commitment to personal and professional obligations. He praised Applicant’s reliability and honesty and supports Applicant receiving a security clearance. (AE D) 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. 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. 12

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. Analysis Guideline F, Financial Considerations The security concern for Guideline F is set out in AG ¶ 18: Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. 13

Applicant’s admissions and the evidence presented at the hearing raise the following disqualifying condition: AG ¶ 19(f): failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required. The burden therefore shifts to Applicant to mitigate the security concerns. The condition that could mitigate the security concern is: AG ¶ 20(g): the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements. Discussion of disqualifying and mitigating conditions. Regarding filing of tax returns and tax debts, the DOHA Appeal Board has said: Failure to file tax returns suggests that an applicant has a problem with complying with well-established governmental rules and systems. Voluntary compliance with such rules and systems is essential for protecting classified information. As we have noted in the past, a clearance adjudication is not directed at collecting debts. By the same token, neither is it directed toward inducing an applicant to file tax returns. Rather, it is a proceeding aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment and reliability. A person who fails repeatedly to fulfill his or her legal obligations does not demonstrate the high degree of good judgment and reliability required of those granted access to classified information. ISCR Case No. 14-04437 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 15, 2016) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Even if an applicant eventually files all tax returns that are due, the administrative judge is obligated to consider the facts and circumstances surrounding the failure to timely meet tax obligations. See ISCR Case No. 23-00254 at 3 (App. Bd. Sept. 9, 2024) As of the hearing date, Applicant had not filed federal tax returns for TY 2022 or 2023. In addition, his tax returns for several prior years were not timely filed. His Federal tax returns for TY 2020 and 2021 were filed in May and June of 2023, respectively, and his tax return for TY 2019 was filed in April 2021. Further, regarding tax debts, even aside from taxes owed for TY 2018, when his wife filed separately and took the dependent deductions, Applicant accrued further tax debts in TY 2019, 2020, and 2021, due to having withholdings below the level required to pay his tax obligations and not setting aside funds to pay the difference. 14

Applicant has not made arrangements with the IRS to file his unfiled tax returns or to pay the delinquent taxes owed. Although he worked with Tax Service One from 2020 to 2025, he failed to timely submit tax information into their portal and did not monitor their actions to ensure progress in establishing payment arrangements. AG ¶ 20(g) is not established. Applicant failed to demonstrate that he took sufficient timely, prudent, responsible, and good-faith actions related to his taxes. His behavior over multiple years leaves unresolved questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. See ISCR Case No. 23-02412 at 3 (App. Bd. Sept. 9, 2025). Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption The security concern for Guideline G 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.” Applicant’s admissions and the evidence presented at the hearing support the following disqualifying conditions: 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; and AG ¶ 22(b): alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, drinking on the job, or jeopardizing the welfare and safety of others, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder. Discussion of the disqualifying conditions will be included with discussion of the mitigating conditions, below. With the above disqualifying conditions established, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate Guideline G security concerns. The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 23(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; and AG ¶ 23(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 15

consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. Discussion of disqualifying and mitigating conditions. In his Answer, Applicant admitted that he should not have been driving w

hen he received the DUI in 2007 (SOR ¶ 2.a). AG ¶ 22(a) applies to SOR ¶ 2.a. Applicant denied SOR ¶¶ 2.b-2.d. Analysis of these allegations requires an assessment of whether Department Counsel has met the burden to establish controverted facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.14. It also requires assessment of whether the incidents qualify as “alcohol-related incidents” under AG ¶¶ 22(a) and 22(b). For the 2022 incident at Applicant’s workplace (SOR ¶ 2.d), Applicant’s denial focused on his claim that the physical contact involving him and a coworker was not inappropriate. He did not mention alcohol until later in his Answer, when he wrote that he was intoxicated the night before and came to work feeling a bit hungover. He confirmed at the hearing that he probably still had alcohol in his system when he came to work. Accordingly, regardless of how the physical contact is categorized, there is substantial evidence that Applicant reported for work or duty in an impaired condition. AG ¶ 22(b) applies to SOR ¶ 2.d. For the incidents involving Applicant and his wife in 2012 and 2015, SOR ¶¶ 2.b and 2.c allege that “[Applicant was] under the influence of alcohol when the incident . . . occurred.” Applicant denied that he was under the influence and that alcohol was a factor. For the 2012 incident, there is no police report. In Applicant’s security interview summary, the investigator wrote that Applicant was out drinking with his wife when Applicant confronted her about cheating on him, and that when he returned home he had been locked out of the residence. At the hearing, Applicant clarified that the argument started at the house, but then he left and walked to a bar nearby. His wife did not accompany him. He had one beer – he did not even finish it – and he walked home. That is when he forced his way into the home and the physical altercation ensued. The two renditions are similar in key respects, and I conclude that where they diverge, Applicant’s hearing testimony gives a more complete account of what transpired. I found his description of the events to be credible, including that he had only one beer (or less) before returning home. For the 2015 incident, the police report reflects that Applicant’s wife told police that she and Applicant were outside the house arguing over him coming home intoxicated. She said that Applicant became upset and pushed her in the face with his hand. About the same incident, the investigator wrote that Applicant was out for dinner and drinks with a friend from work, and after he arrived home his wife confronted him about lying. 16

Applicant’s testimony at the hearing was consistent with the other evidence in key respects but provided additional details that are significant in a Guideline G analysis. He confirmed that he was out with a friend from work, as every couple of weeks they would get together for dinner and a margarita. They were at the restaurant for about one hour and each had one margarita. His friend’s wife wanted his friend to come home to cook dinner, so Applicant and his friend went to the grocery store next door. At the same time, Applicant’s wife became suspicious that he was not at the location he said that he would be. So she drove to the restaurant. When she saw Applicant and his friend walking out of the grocery store, she was embarrassed because she had allowed his friend’s wife to convince her that Applicant and his friend were lying about their location. Applicant testified that the argument began not because he came home intoxicated, as his wife had told the police, but because his wife thought he was lying about his location. He explained that, after they both drove home, the argument started outside. His wife spit on him and then went into the house to grab his clothes and throw them outside, after which the physical altercation took place. For both the 2012 and 2015 incidents, Department Counsel tried to prove the controverted SOR allegations by asserting that “under the influence” equates to consuming any amount of alcohol, however slight. Related to the 2012 incident, before which Applicant acknowledged having one beer, Department Counsel said: For the purposes of this proceeding and just sort of general, under the influence is if you’ve had anything to drink, or anything that would alter your state of mind because that’s what [sic] the influence, right? So you weren’t driving, we’re not alleging that you couldn’t drive a car. But you had something that altered your state of mind, even if it was just a little bit of beer. (Tr. 77) And related to the 2015 incident, before which Applicant acknowledged having one margarita, Department Counsel said: And as I said before, drinking anything, having any mind altering substance puts you under the influence. Now, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you couldn’t have driven and we’re not saying that you were drunk. But we are saying that you were under the influence. Do you understand? (Tr. 85) Applicant’s verbal response, consisting of the single word, “Okay,” did not convince me that he agreed with Department Counsel’s point. And when I asked him whether he thought that he was under the influence, he said that he was not. (Tr. 86) Department Counsel did not offer support for the expansive definition of “under the influence,” nor did she explain how consuming one drink automatically makes any subsequent event an “alcohol-related incident” under AG ¶ 22(a). Consistent with Appeal Board precedent, the administrative judge is to interpret and apply the AGs consistent 17

with their plain language. See ISCR Case No. 03-00741 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 15, 2005) (“An Administrative Judge must apply pertinent provisions of the Adjudicative Guidelines, and cannot construe or interpret them in a manner contrary to their plain language.”) The phrase “alcohol-related incident” calls for some logical connection or linkage between alcohol and the subsequent incident. As with other determinations made by the administrative judge, this one should be based on consideration of all the evidence in the record. I conclude that, during the 2012 and 2015 domestic incidents involving Applicant and his wife, he was not under the influence of alcohol. In addition, the incidents were not “alcohol-related incidents” under AG ¶ 22(a). Applicant and his wife had a history of physical altercations during their marriage. Many of them did not involve alcohol whatsoever. And the evidence does not support that the incidents were either initiated or worsened due to Applicant’s use of alcohol. Further, even if I had found that the limited amount of alcohol consumed by Applicant made the incidents alcohol related, I would afford very little weight to them in evaluating AG ¶ 22(a) and the overall severity of the Guideline G security concerns.6 Turning now to mitigation, Applicant had one DUI that happened 19 years ago and one occasion of coming into work hung over that happened 4 years ago. Based on the passage of time and the infrequency of concerning behavior, I conclude that these incidents no longer cast doubt on Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. AG ¶ 23(a) applies. In addition, Applicant acknowledged that he drank too much before his DUI in 2007. In his Answer, he stated that he rarely drinks to the point of intoxication, drinks mostly at social events, and usually limits himself to one or two drinks. As he explained in his testimony, he and his sister have, at times, drank to intoxication while remembering their deceased father, but he noted that does not happen so much any

more. (Tr. 117- 119) Applicant has never received treatment recommendations concerning alcohol consumption, but the evidence is sufficient to show a pattern of modified consumption following the 2007 DUI. AG ¶ 23(b) applies, but with less weight than AG ¶ 23(a). Guideline E, Personal Conduct The security concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 15: “Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules 6 “Just as the conclusion that a particular piece of evidence is admissible does not answer the question what weight the particular piece of evidence is entitled to be given, the conclusion that a particular Adjudicative Guideline disqualifying or mitigating condition applies does not answer what weight that particular disqualifying or mitigating condition is entitled to be given.” ISCR Case No. 03-00741 at 3 (App. Bd. Nov. 15, 2005). 18

and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. . . .” Applicant’s admissions and the evidence presented at the hearing raise the following potentially disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 16(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; AG ¶ 16(b): deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical or mental health professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination, or other official government representative; and AG ¶ 16(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. Discussion of the disqualifying conditions is conducted along with discussion of the mitigating conditions, below. The mitigating conditions that may be applicable are: AG ¶ 17(a): the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and AG ¶ 17(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 unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. Discussion of the disqualifying and mitigating conditions. In cases involving falsification or omission, the Government must produce substantial evidence that the falsification or omission was deliberate. ISCR Case No. 07-16511 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 4, 2009). In evaluating the evidence regarding the deliberate nature, the administrative judge must examine the statement or omission in light of the record as a whole. See ISCR 19

Case No. 19-03939 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 21, 2023). Proof of intent often relies on circumstantial evidence. ISCR Case No. 24-00121 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 5, 2025). SOR ¶ 3.a. Despite Applicant’s denial, several pieces of evidence combine to provide substantial evidence t hat he deliberately misled the investigator by saying that all of his tax returns since 2019 had been filed on time and was not delinquent on payments. To start, Applicant, working with Tax Service One, filed his federal tax returns for TY 2020 and 2021 in May and June of 2023, respectively. These tax returns were filed one and two years late, and included amounts owed to the IRS based on insufficient withholdings. But only one month later, in his SCA, certified on July 5, 2023, Applicant responded “no” to a question asking if he had failed to file or

pay taxes in the past seven years. Despite the “no” answer, he noted in response to a subsequent question on the SCA that he was using Tax Service One to assist with an IRS tax debt. Not surprisingly, the investigator raised this issue during Applicant’s security interview, which took place the next month, on August 11, 2023. The content of Applicant’s responses led the investigator to write: Regarding Subject’s listed financial assistance with [Tax Service One], this began as a result of his wife filing separate taxes in 2019 for 2018 taxes and claiming his children without informing him. This caused Subject to owe $12,000 for his back taxes. Since then all Subject’s taxes have been filed on time and is not currently delinquent on any taxes. No payment plan is currently set up as the Subject waits for [Tax Service One] to reach an agreement with the IRS. . . . ( GE 3 at 8) (emphasis added) Further, correspondence between Applicant and Tax Service One related to Applicant’s 2019 tax return shows that the filing process involved specific actions taken by Applicant: after Tax Service One prepared a tax return, it was provided to Applicant for him to date, sign, and mail to the IRS. (AE E) In other words, Tax Service One prepared Applicant’s tax returns; it did not file them on his behalf or without his knowledge. A reasonable person could readily conclude that when Applicant completed his SCA and participated in his security interview, he would have known that his returns for TY 2020 and 2021 had just recently been filed, well past the due dates; that he owed money for those years; and that his filing for TY 2022 was not yet completed. And even if Applicant was trying, as he testified, to get the investigator to understand that he did not consider himself responsible for any delinquencies, that would not explain why the investigator wrote such a clear statement that Applicant’s subsequent tax returns had been filed on time. Taken together, and considered against Applicant’s testimony, this circumstantial evidence provides substantial evidence supporting the allegation that Applicant deliberately gave false or misleading information to the investigator. AG ¶ 16(b) applies to SOR ¶ 3.a. 20

Considering the mitigating conditions, neither AG ¶¶ 17(a) or 17(c) is established. Applicant did not make an effort to correct the falsification until he submitted his interrogatories in September 2024. This does not qualify as a prompt, good-faith effort to correct the falsification. In addition, only three years have passed since the interview, and his falsification or concealment, which I conclude was intended to minimize the extent of his tax problems, cannot be deemed as minor. Applicant’s action continues to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. SOR ¶ 3.b. The record does not contain substantial evidence that Applicant deliberately falsified his interrogatory response when he responded “no” to the question of whether he has ever been under the influence of alcohol while at work. Applicant reviewed the entire interrogatory packet on the same day. If he went in order, he first would have read the summary of his security interview. During that interview, he admitted the April 2022 incident in which he reported to work still affected by alcohol, and h e gave a full and truthful account to the investigator. Later in the interrogatories, Applicant would have encountered the question asking whether he had ever been under the influence of alcohol at work. Although an accurate answer would have been “yes,” he responded “no.” In his Answer and at the hearing, he explained that he thought the question called for any instances in addition to what he had already disclosed. Given the circumstances, Applicant’s interpretation is understandable, and I conclude the allegation is not supported by substantial evidence of a deliberate falsification. There was no intent to deceive or mislead. AG ¶ 16(a) does not apply to SOR ¶ 3.b. SOR ¶ 3.c. SOR ¶ 3.c cross-alleged into Guideline E the information previously alleged under Guideline F (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.f) and Guideline G (SOR ¶¶ 2.a-2.d). As discussed earlier in this decision, the information was sufficient for an adverse determination under Guideline F. Accordingly, by its own wording, AG ¶ 16(c) does not apply. 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; 21

(8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines F, G, and E in my whole- person analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). I considered Applicant’s testimony that he was not well served by Tax Service One, as the company seemed more interested in receiving his payments than in resolving his IRS debt. I also considered that he has engaged with a different company, Tax Service Two, to reach a resolution and file overdue tax returns. And I considered the two character statements that praise Applicant’s professionalism, reliability, and honesty. Nevertheless, I find more persuasive the evidence supporting denial of Applicant’s security clearance, as detailed in the financial considerations and personal conduct sections above. It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against granting a security clearance. See Dorfmont, 913 F.2d at 1401. “[A] favorable clearance decision means that the record discloses no basis for doubt about an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.” ISCR Case No. 18-02085 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 3, 2020) (citing ISCR Case No. 12-00270 at 3 (App. Bd. Jan. 17, 2014)). I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, the AGs, and the Appeal Board’s jurisprudence, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. Applicant mitigated alcohol consumption security concerns but did not mitigate financial considerations or personal conduct security concerns. This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the state of reform necessary for security clearance eligibility in the future. With continued efforts to resolve his tax debts, timely filing of tax returns, and focus on full disclosure during the investigation process, in the future he may well be able to demonstrate persuasive evidence of his security clearance worthiness. Formal Findings I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a-1.f: Against Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 2.a-2.d: For Applicant 22

_____________________________ Paragraph 3, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 3.a: Subparagraphs 3.b-3.c:

Against Applicant For 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. Philip J. Katauskas Administrative Judge 23