KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant’s long-standing financial difficulties preclude a finding that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is
denied.
CASENO: 05-14618.h1
DATE: 04/26/2007
DATE: April 26, 2007
In Re:
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-14618
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOSEPH TESTAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Fahryn E. Hoffman, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s long-standing financial difficulties preclude a finding that it is clearly consistent
2
with the national interest to grant him access to classified information. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 12, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could
not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to
an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.
Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on June 8, 2006, and elected to have his case
determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel (DC) submitted the
Government's written case (FORM) on or about February 13, 2007. Applicant did not file a response
to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on April 9, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is a 32 year old employee of a defense contractor.
SOR Allegation 1a: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of
$2,509.00 as a result of a judgment entered against him in September 2003 (Exhibit 13).  In a March
2004 signed, sworn statement he gave to the Defense Security Service (DSS) (Exhibit 7), applicant
stated that within sixty days he will attempt to contact the creditor and verify the debt, and if it is a
“just debt” of his, he will make payment arrangements to satisfy it. Applicant has made no payments
to this creditor.
SOR Allegation 1b: This allegation, that applicant is indebted to “an undisclosed medical
service provider,” is found for applicant.
SOR Allegation 1c:  In a December 2003 signed, sworn statement he gave to the DSS
(Exhibit 6), applicant stated he did not know what the Mid Atlantic EM debt was, but since it is only
$113.00, he will contact them and satisfy the account after the holidays.  In his response to the SOR,
he stated that “this was a doctor bill for one of my children, and I have paid this debt and I am no
longer in debt to this place.” Since this debt is not listed on applicant’s most current credit report,
I find that applicant is no longer indebted to this creditor.
SOR Allegation 1d: In his December 2003 statement to DSS, applicant stated that he had
spoken to his wife about this debt and she informed him that “this is a card that she had gotten, and
 Applicant submitted some of his wife’s bankruptcy paperwork in response to the SOR.1
Although it appears this debt was included in his wife’s bankruptcy petition, it cannot be
determined from the paperwork what occurred in the bankruptcy court after the petition was
filed. The fact this debt was listed in his wife’s bankruptcy petition, standing alone, does not
prove applicant is no longer indebted to this creditor. 
 There are two SCAs in the FORM, neither of which was executed by applicant on2
September 9, 2003. However, since it is clear that these two SCAs formed the basis for these four
3
failed to pay.” He then stated, “she tells me that she is going to resolve the account but if she does
not then I will have to make arrangements to satisfy the account.” In his response to the SOR, he
denied he is indebted to First Premier Bank. He stated that this was a credit card that his wife applied
for in his name without his knowledge and she never paid the bill. He further stated that his wife had
filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and the debt was included in her bankruptcy. Based on the evidence
presented, I find that applicant is still indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of
$544.00.1
SOR Allegation 1e: Applicant is indebted to this creditor in the approximate amount of
$8,779.00 as a result of the 2003 involuntary repossession of a vehicle he owned. In his response to
the SOR, applicant denied he is indebted to this creditor because the creditor was listed in his wife’s
bankruptcy. As noted earlier, the fact a debt was listed in his wife’s bankruptcy petition, standing
alone, does not prove appellant is no longer indebted to the creditor.
SOR Allegation 1f: Applicant is indebted to the Department of Education in the approximate
amount of $7,944.00 for student loans on which he defaulted. An order to garnish his wages to
satisfy this debt was issued in July 2003. His wages are still being garnished by the creditor.
SOR Allegation 1g: This is the same debt as the debt alleged in SOR paragraph 1a.
SOR Allegation 1h: This judgment debt in favor of Sears from 1998 was satisfied by
applicant in 2000.
With respect to applicant’s current financial status, he began his response to the SOR  with
the following statement:
I admit that I do have some overdue expenses, but I do not feel that I am financially
overextended. I am the father of six kids and sometimes circumstances arise where
I cannot pay something on time or pay off something as I previously planned, but I
have never engaged in any illegal acts to gain funds, and I will not do any such acts.
I do the best that I can to work and pay what I can when I can.
SOR Allegations 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d:. The Government alleges that on a Security Clearance
Application (SCA) he executed on September 9, 2003,  applicant lied about his financial history in2
allegations, I considered them in reaching my decision. 
Applicant does not qualify for any Mitigating Conditions.3
4
response to four questions (Questions 35, 37, 38, and 39). Applicant denies he ever attempted to
deceive the Government. He insists that any incorrect information he provided was due to his
ignorance of the facts or his ignorance concerning how to properly complete the SCA. I have
carefully reviewed the SCA and applicant’s explanations, and I conclude he did not intentionally
falsify the SCA. The fact that he disclosed two wage garnishments in response to Question 34, and
a $2,500.00 debt that was delinquent for more than 3 years in response to Question 38, put the
Government on notice that he had severe financial problems, and is inconsistent with an attempt to
mislead the Government about his finances.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence establishes that applicant is still indebted to numerous creditors listed in the
SOR in a total amount in excess of $10,000.00. The evidence further establishes that these debts
have been past-due for years, and that applicant has taken no voluntary action to address them.
Applicant’s failure to honor his financial obligations reflects adversely on his judgment and
reliability, and suggests he cannot be relied upon to safeguard classified information. With respect
to the Financial Considerations guideline, Disqualifying Conditions E2.A6.1.2.1 (a history of not
meeting financial obligations) and E2.A6.1.2.3 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) are
applicable.
Once the Government established a prima facie case under Guideline F, the burden shifted
to applicant to show he has reformed. Applicant failed to meet his burden. Although he offered proof
that he satisfied the Sears debt, he offered no credible evidence that he (1) is willing to significantly
reduce the remainder of his past-due indebtedness anytime soon, (2) has the ability to significantly
reduce the remainder of his past-due indebtedness anytime soon, and (3) is unlikely to experience
additional financial difficulties. In fact, in his response to the SOR, he essentially admitted that he
still has trouble paying all of his bills on time. These facts establish that applicant is financially
overextended. As such, his situation fits squarely within the Financial Guideline Concern expressed
in the Directive (E2.A6.1.1.1 - An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to
engage in illegal acts to generate funds.) Based on the foregoing, I have no choice but to conclude
it is not now clearly consistent with the national interest for applicant to have access to classified
information.3
FORMAL FINDINGS
PARAGRAPH 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT
PARAGRAPH 2: FOR THE APPLICANT
5
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.
Joseph Testan
Administrative Judge