ISCR Case No. 25-01419

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

)

In the matter of: )

) ISCR Case No. 25-01419

)

) Applicant for Security Clearance ) ___________________________________ ) Appearances For Government: William H. Miller, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/30/2026 Decision ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns under Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct), G (Alcohol Consumption), E (Personal Conduct), B (Foreign Influence), and F (Financial Considerations). Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on January 16, 2025. On January 29, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines J, G, E, B, and F. Applicant answered the SOR on April 5, 2026, and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on May 29, 2026. A complete copy of the file of relevant 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. He received the FORM on July 7, 2026, and did not respond. The case was assigned to me on September 21, 2026. 1

The FORM consists of the SOR (Government Exhibit (GE) 1), Applicant’s answer to the SOR (GE 2), the documents submitted in support of the allegations in the SOR (GE 3-10); and an administrative notice request concerning Israel. GE 3 through 10 are admitted into evidence, without objection. Regarding Government’s request for administrative notice, I have taken notice of the country conditions in Israel, as well as that nation’s relationship with the United States as reported by official U.S. Government sources. These sources were included in the administrative notice request. Findings of Fact Applicant is 44 years old, has never married, has no children, and no prior military service. He has been employed with his government contractor employer sponsor since April 2013. (GE 3) Under Guideline J, the SOR alleges Applicant’s lengthy history of arrests and criminal charges dating back to 2009, which includes an alcohol-related incident as recent as August 2025 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a–1.e). The alcohol-related incidents were also cross-alleged under Guideline G (SOR ¶ 2.a). All the allegations under Guidelines J were cross alleged under Guideline E (SOR ¶ 3.a). He maintains a friendship with a citizen and resident of Israel, which was alleged under Guideline B (SOR ¶ 4.a). Lastly, he failed to timely file his federal income tax returns for tax years (TY) 2021 through 2023; has four unpaid judgments totaling approximately $74,175; and unpaid court fines totaling approximately $3,039, all of which have been alleged under Guideline F (SOR ¶¶ 5.a–5.k). He admitted all the allegations. (GE 2) Guidelines J, G, and E SOR ¶ 1.a: In August 2025, Applicant was arrested and charged with Driving While Under the Influence (DUI) and refusal to submit to a blood alcohol testing. It was his third DUI offense. Applicant vehicle crossed solid yellow lines and drove left of center, and at one point almost struck a pedestrian before officers initiated a traffic stop. Based upon Applicant’s driving behavior, his slow, thick and slurred speech, his glossy and bloodshot eyes, officers asked Applicant to step out of the vehicle so that he could conduct Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. He refused. Based on his demeanor and officer observations he was arrested. At the station he was asked to submit to a blood alcohol test, he refused. Officers obtained a warrant for a blood draw and a sample of Applicant’s blood was drawn and tested. Per court documents, Applicant’s blood ethanol concentration was 0.284 g/100 mL. Applicant’s last known upcoming court appearance was scheduled for February 9, 2026. If convicted, there was a mandatory 45-day minimum jail sentence. (GE 5) Applicant did not provide any updated information with his April 2026 SOR answer (GE 2), nor did he respond to the FORM. SOR ¶ 1.c: In April 2012, Applicant was arrested for a DUI (second offense) and refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test; driving on a suspended license; speeding; and 2

no insurance. His vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle accident during the incident. He was found guilty in absence. (GE 7 at 14-15) SOR ¶ 1.e: In October 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged with his first DUI. He pled guilty and was convicted. (GE 7 at 13) SOR ¶ 1.d: Applicant’s criminal record also includes a July 2011 charge and conviction for disorderly conduct and failure to comply with requests or commands from law enforcement. The incident occurred inside a casino. (GE 6 at 12; GE 4 at 3) SOR ¶ 1.b: In September 2012, a bench warrant was issued for Applicant’s arrest for contempt of court after he failed to appear. (GE 7 at 3) The record also reflects an unalleged conviction for driving while his license was suspended in June 2010. (GE 7 at 9-10) Applicant stated during his March 2025 subject interview that he has taken steps to ensure the behavior will not recur, by becoming more mature, more responsible, and being more aware of his surroundings. That said, he also stated that he does not believe he abuses alcohol or that he has a historical pattern of maladaptive alcohol use. In order to avoid future DUIs, he drinks less frequently and does not drink and drive. He has not engaged in alcohol rehabilitation, counseling, or education classes. He currently drinks beer at home on the weekends. (GE 4 at 4) Guideline B In his January 2025 SCA, Applicant answered, “Yes,” to the question asking about foreign contacts with whom he is “bound by affection, influence, common interests, and/or obligation.” He provided the name of a friend who is a citizen and resident of Israel with whom he has monthly contact via telephone, electronic communication, and in person. He stated the nature of the relationship was “Personal (Such as family ties, friendship, affection, common interests, etc.).” However, he noted that the date of last contact was May 2024. (GE 3 at 17-18) During his subject interview he confirmed the relationship and elaborated that the foreign contact is one of his friends to whom he feels a close degree of affiliation. (GE 4 at 1-2) Applicant’s disclosed countries of foreign travel do not include Israel. (GE 3 at 21-27) Guideline F In his October 2025 response to Government’s financial interrogatories, Applicant stated that his failure to file his income tax returns was a result of financial hardships and that he had been in contact with financial counseling services and begun the process of rectifying his tax filings and other obligations. His TYs 2021, 2022, and 2023 account transcripts all indicate that no tax return had been filed as of October 2025, and he stated that he was unable to obtain his TY 2024 account transcript. (GE 5 at 15-17) He did not provide any updates along with his April 2026 SOR answer (GE 2), nor did he respond to the FORM. The current status of his tax year 2021 through 2025 federal income tax return filings is unknown. 3

Applicant has unpaid court fines totaling approximately $3,039 stemming from his various convictions, that have been turned over to collections. (GE 7 at 3; GE 4 at 6) He also has four unpaid judgments totaling approximately $74,175, some of which that date back to 2010. (GE 8) Applicant’s largest debt is for a judgment totaling approximately $67,000. He obtained a loan from a state authority as relief in response to Hurricane Katrina. The loan was to be forgiven if specific conditions of the loan were maintained. Applicant did not maintain the required conditions and never paid back the loan. A judgment was obtained in June 2024. He plans to hire an attorney to reduce the judgment or establish a payment plan. (GE 4 at 4-5) At the time of his response to Government interrogatories in October 2025, Applicant’s monthly net income was approximately $7,600. Given his monthly approximate expenses of $6,300, he averaged an approximate monthly remainder of $1,300. (GE 5 at 9, 14) During his March 2025 subject interview, he characterized his current financial situation as more stable than in recent years, stating that to the best of his knowledge he has no past-due debt, has some savings, and is working on resolving his tax debt. (GE 4 at 5) Policies This case is adjudicated 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) implemented by the DOD on June 8, 2017. “[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 4

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, 484 U.S. at 531. “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. See 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, 484 U.S. at 531. Analysis Guideline J, Criminal Conduct The security concern for criminal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 30: “Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable under this guideline: AG ¶ 31(a): a pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on i ts own would be unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in combination cast doubt on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or 5

trustworthiness; and AG ¶ 31(b): evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted. Applicant has three DUI convictions and several other police contacts which resulted in either citations or arrests with eventual convictions. His admissions and the record evidence of his various arrests and charges establish disqualification under AG ¶¶ 31(a) and 31(b). The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 32(a): so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and AG ¶ 32(d): there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited t o, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement. Mitigation under AG ¶ 32 is not established. Applicant’s last known criminal conduct was in August 2025. Prior to that incident, he had at least four other police contacts which resulted in either citations or arrests with eventual convictions, as such AG ¶ 32(a) does not apply. Most of Applicant’s criminal conduct occurred while he was under the influence of alcohol. He has presented no evidence in mitigation outside of stating during his subject interview that the behavior will not recur, because he has become more mature, more responsible, and stays more aware of his surroundings. The record is devoid of substantive evidence to support application of AG ¶ 32(d). Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption The 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 following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable under this guideline: 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 6

AG ¶ 22(c): habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder. Applicant’s maladaptive alcohol use is evidenced by his involvement in at least three incidents in the past fifteen years where his excessive alcohol consumption resulted in poor and unsound judgment. His blood ethanol concentration at or near his last DUI arrest in August 2025 was 0.284 g/100 mL. His admissions and the record evidence of his conduct establish disqualification under AG ¶¶ 22(a) and 22(c). 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; 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 consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations; AG ¶ 23(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; and AG ¶ 23(d): the individual has successfully completed a treatment program along w

ith any required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. Mitigation under AG ¶ 23 is not established. Applicant’s maladaptive alcohol use is neither dated nor infrequent. He has been involved in at least three alcohol-related incidents that resulted in conviction in the past fifteen years, and his blood ethanol concentration at the time of his DUI arrest in August 2025 was 0.284 g/100 mL. Yet, he does not believe he abuses alcohol or that he has a historical pattern of maladaptive alcohol use. He has not engaged in alcohol rehabilitation, counseling, or education classes. He currently drinks beer at home on the weekends. He presented no evidence for consideration toward any of the mitigating conditions available under this Guideline. Guideline E, Personal Conduct The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 15: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions 7

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. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable under this guideline: 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; AG ¶ 16(d): credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information, 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 AG ¶ 16(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’s alleged conduct is explicitly covered and is sufficient for an adverse determination under Guidelines J and G. The record evidence presents credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas and is sufficient for an adverse determination under several other single guidelines. In the alternative, however, it also 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 Applicant may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. And it creates a vulnerability, because, if known, it could affect his professional standing. As such, disqualification under Guideline E is appropriate and established as well. (AG ¶ 16 (c); AG ¶ 16 (e)(1)) The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: 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 8

that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; AG ¶ 17(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 AG ¶ 17(e): the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. Mitigation is not established. AG ¶ 17(c) does not apply because the last alcohol- involved criminal incident is recent. AG ¶ 17(d) does not apply because the record lacks evidence of true accountability and other positive steps taken to ensure the inappropriate behavior will not recur. AG ¶ 17(e) does not apply because the record lacks evidence that Applicant has taken positive steps to ensure the conduct does not recur or to reduce his potential vulnerability. Guideline B, Foreign Influence The security concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 6: Foreign contacts and interests, including, but not limited to, business, financial, and property interests, are a national security concern if they result in divided allegiance. They may also be a national security concern if they create circumstances in which the individual may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way inconsistent with U.S. interests or otherwise made vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest. Assessment of foreign contacts and interests should consider the country in which the foreign contact or interest is located, including, but not limited to, considerations such as whether it is known to target U.S. citizens to obtain classified or sensitive information or is associated with a risk of terrorism. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable under this guideline: AG ¶ 7(a): contact, regardless of method, with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; and AG ¶ 7(b): connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual's obligation to protect classified or sensitive information or technology and the 9

individual's desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information or technology. In terms of assessing the security risks raised by a particular country, administrative judges must rely upon authoritative, official determinations from the Executive Branch on matters such as a country’s relationship with the U.S. or the history and nature of a foreign government. ISCR Case No. 00-0484 at 11 (App. Bd. Feb. 1, 2002). The Government’s Request for Administrative Notice, provides sufficient information to raise concerns regarding country conditions in Israel under this Guideline, to include risk of terrorist attacks and a rapidly changing and complex security situation. Applicant stated in his SCA that he maintains a friendship with an Israeli citizen and resident. During his subject interview, he elaborated that the relationship is a close one. This evidence is minimally sufficient to raise a prima facie security concern for disqualification under AG ¶ 7(a) and 7(b), as alleged in SOR ¶ 4.a, and therefore shifts the burden to Applicant to present evidence of rebuttal, extenuation, or mitigation. The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 8(a): the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the United States; and AG ¶ 8(b): there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual’s sense of loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, or allegiance to the group, government, or country is so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States, that the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest; and AG ¶ 8(c): contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign influence or exploitation. Applicant indicated that he is close with his Israeli friend and has continuing contact; but provided little information about the nature of his friendship compared to his ties to the United States or how he would resolve any conflict, should it present. The record is also unclear on how exactly Applicant has monthly “in person” contact with his Israeli friend. Applicant presented no evidence in support of any of the above mitigating conditions and therefore failed to meet his burden. Guideline F, Financial Considerations The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 18: 10

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. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. Applicant’s admissions and the evidence in the FORM establish the following disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a): inability to satisfy debts; AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations; and AG ¶ 19(f): failure to file . . . annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required. The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 20(a): the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; AG ¶ 20(b): the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the p

erson’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; AG ¶ 20(c): the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and AG ¶ 20(g): the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay the amount owed a nd is in compliance with those arrangements. 11

Applicant bears the burdens of production and persuasion in mitigation. Applicants are not held to a standard of perfection in their debt-resolution efforts, and they are not required to be debt-free. “Rather, all that is required is that an applicant act responsibly given his circumstances and develop a reasonable plan for repayment, accompanied by ‘concomitant conduct,’ that is, actions which evidence a serious intent to effectuate the plan.” ISCR Case No. 15-02903 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017). See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00987 at 3 n.5 (App. Bd. Aug. 14, 2014). Mitigation under AG ¶ 20 is not established. Applicant presented no evidence to support resolution of any of his delinquent debts, that he has since filed his past-due income tax returns, or other evidence that can be considered toward any of the mitigating conditions available under this Guideline. Whole-Person Concept Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. In applying the whole- person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 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 J, G, E, B, and F 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 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 J, G, E, B, and F and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns related to criminal conduct, alcohol consumption, personal conduct, foreign influence, and financial considerations. Formal Findings I make the following formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive: 12

Paragraph 1, Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a-1.e: Against Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline G: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 2.a: Against Applicant Paragraph 3, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 3.a: Against Applicant Paragraph 4, Guideline B: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 4.a: Against Applicant Paragraph 5, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 5.a-5.k: 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. Wilford H. Ross Administrative Judge 13