KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is a 47-year-old communications analyst employed by a defense contractor.  He
had over $36,000 in unpaid debts listed in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  He only provided proof
of payment of an $81 debt.  Despite being given an additional three weeks to submit documentary
evidence to corroborate his testimony, he provided nothing.  He falsified two questions on a security
clearance questionnaire.  He failed to mitigate the security concerns about financial considerations
and personal conduct.  Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-11004.h1
DATE: 04/30/2007
DATE: April 30, 2007
In re:
------------------------.
SSN:  -------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-11004
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Caroline Jeffreys, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is a 47-year-old communications analyst employed by a defense contractor.  He
had over $36,000 in unpaid debts listed in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  He only provided proof
of payment of an $81 debt.  Despite being given an additional three weeks to submit documentary
evidence to corroborate his testimony, he provided nothing.  He falsified two questions on a security
clearance questionnaire.  He failed to mitigate the security concerns about financial considerations
and personal conduct.  Clearance is denied.
Government Exhibit 1, Standard Form (SF) 86, Security Clearance Application, dated March 30, 2005.1
Tr. at 12, 14.2
Id. at 10.3
Id. 4
Id. at 11.5
Id. at 11-14.6
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 30, 2005, Applicant submitted a Security Clearance Application (SF 86). The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals1  
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to him,pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information 
Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended, modified,
and revised.  The SOR alleged security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of the Directive.  The SOR 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 him, and recommended referral
to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.  Applicant answered the
SOR in writing on September 15, 2006, and elected to have a hearing.  The case was assigned to me
on October 16, 2006.  The Notice of Hearing was issued on November 9, 2006.  I convened a hearing
on December 21, 2006.  The government offered three exhibits, marked as exhibits 1-3.  Applicant
offered  no exhibits.  I kept the record open until January 12, 2007, to allow Applicant the time to
file additional documents.  He filed nothing.  DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on January
4, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the allegations contained in the SOR subparagraphs 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., 1.f.,
1.g., 1.m., 1.o., 1.p., 2.a., and 2.b.  He denied the allegations in subparagraphs 1.d., 1.e., 1.h., 1.i.,
1.j., 1.k., and 1.l.  Through a scrivener’s error, the SOR contained no subparagraph 1.n.  The
admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact.  After a complete and thorough review of the
evidence, and upon due consideration of same, I make the following  findings of fact: 
Applicant is a 47-year-old communications analyst employed by a defense contractor.   He2
is divorced and has two children, both of whom are emancipated.   He is a high school graduate with3
almost enough college credits for an associate's degree.   He is a retired veteran of the United States4
Navy, serving from March 1980 to March 2003.   He retired with the rank of  Chief Petty Officer,5
and he has held a security clearance since 1980.  6
Financial Considerations
As of May 3, 2006, Applicant owed the following:
Id. at 16.7
Id.; Applicant provided no proof of payment.8
Id. at 17.9
Id. at 18; Applicant claimed it was his wife’s debt, but failed to provide copies of his divorce papers to confirm.10
Id. at 23; Applicant claimed he was current with his payments, but provided no proof.11
Id.; Applicant claimed he made payment arrangements, but provided no evidence thereof.12
Id.; Applicant claimed he made payment arrangements, but provided no evidence thereof.13
Id. at 24; Applicant thought it might be his ex-wife’s debt, but was unsure, and he provided no further evidence.14
Id. at 26; Applicant claimed this was a duplicate of SOR 1.b., but provided no evidence.15
Id.; Applicant claimed it was his wife’s debt, but failed to provide copies of his divorce papers to confirm.16
Id. at 27; Applicant claimed it was his wife’s debt, but failed to provide copies of his divorce papers to confirm.17
Id; Copy of money order payment attached to Applicant’s Answer to the SOR.18
Id. at 28; Applicant claimed he made payment arrangements, but provided no evidence thereof.19
4
SOR ¶ Debt Amount Current Status
1.a. Credit card $1,146 Unpaid7
1.b. Utilities $258 Unpaid8
1.c. Credit card $1,015 Unpaid9
1.d. Credit card $7,742 Unpaid10
1.e. Charged off; repossession $18,000 Unpaid11
1.f. Credit card $639 Unpaid12
1.g. Credit card $718 Unpaid13
1.h. Unknown $1,009 Unpaid14
1.i. Duplicate of 1.b. $258 Unpaid15
1.j. Credit card $2,158 Unpaid16
1.k. Credit card $1,942 Unpaid17
1.l. Cable TV $81 Paid18
1.m. Credit card $829 Unpaid19
Id. Applicant claimed he made payment arrangements, but provided no evidence thereof.20
Id. Applicant claimed he made payment arrangements, but provided no evidence thereof.21
Tr.at 34-35.22
Id. at 38.23
Id. at 38-39.24
Id. at 35-36.25
Id. at 40.26
Id. at 39.27
Id. at 39.28
Id. at 41.29
Government Exhibit 1 (Security Clearance Application (SF 86), dated March 30, 2005) at 9.30
5
1.o. Credit card $405 Unpaid20
1.p. Telephone $521 Unpaid21
These debts total $36,721.  The current status notes in the above table that are in bold indicate that
Applicant either claimed they were paid, were his ex-wife’s debts, or that he had made payment
arrangements.  The only debt for which he provided proof of payment was for an $81 cable TV bill.
In 19998, Applicant deployed overseas.  Shortly thereafter, he and his wife separated, and
she returned to the U.S.  His financial problems commenced during this time with the added costs
of maintaining two households until they were divorced in March 2002.   He paid $1,271 per month22
in temporary maintenance and child support until May 2000, then $800 per month until the divorce.
He paid $400 per month child support from September 2002 until October 2003, when his son turned
18.   His wife returned to court and he was ordered to pay an additional year of child support,23
because the state law required support until the child turned 19.   He pays no support now as his24
child is emancipated,  but he pays tuition for his son’s college expenses.   His son has had student25 26
loans available that helped keep his costs down.   He helps his daughter with her finances as he is27
able, because she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2003.   She draws disability payments.28 29
Personal Conduct
Applicant falsified material facts on a security clearance application, dated March 30, 2005.30
In response to the following, Question 38.  Your financial delinquencies - 180 days  In the last 7
Id. 31
Id. 32
Tr.  at 29.33
Id. at 29, 32.34
Guidelines ¶ 2. 35
Guidelines ¶ 2(c).36
6
years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)?, he answered “No.”  He did not
specify the debts listed in the above table.31
In response to the following, Question 39.  Your financial delinquencies - 90 days  Are
you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?, he answered “No,” knowing that he had the
debts listed in the above table.32
Applicant stated that he did not answer affirmatively because he was told that unless he could
list the company name, amount of the original debt, and what was due, he should not list it on the
SF 86.   When asked who had told him that, he replied: 33
I was at the naval base filling out my SF 86, and so I went to the HR people there and
that’s what they advised me to do.  After I prepared my SF 86, then I mailed it to my
security manager, and I had informed him at that time about the debt portion of it and
not putting in dates and creditors because I didn’t have all that information with me.
And my intention was not to falsify that document or be misleading on it, because I
know that during the background investigation, I know the one thing that they’re
going to do is pull a credit bureau report.34
POLICIES
In an evaluation of an applicant’s security suitability, an administrative judge must consider
the “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility For Access to Classified Information”
(Guidelines). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each Guidelines, the Guidelines are
divided into Disqualifying Conditions and Mitigating Conditions, which are used to determine an
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These Guidelines are not inflexible ironclad rules of law.  Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge should apply these Guidelines in
conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process.   An administrative judge’s over-35
arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision.  Because the entire process
is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept,” an
administrative judge should consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and
present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.36
Guidelines ¶ 2(b).37
“Substantial evidence [is] such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might  accept as adequate to support a
38
conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.”  ISCR Case No. 04-11463 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2006)
(citing Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1).  “This is something 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 (4  Cir. 1994).th
See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).  The Administrative Judge [considers] the record evidence39  
as a whole, both favorable and unfavorable, evaluate[s] Applicant’s past and current circumstances in light of pertinent
provisions of the Directive, and decide[s] whether Applicant ha[s] met his burden of persuasion under Directive ¶
E3.1.15.”  ISCR Case No. 04-10340 at 2 (App. Bd. July 6, 2006). 
7
Specifically, an administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors
listed at Guidelines ¶ 2(a): “(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)
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.”
Since the protection of the national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case is arrived at by applying the standard that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being
considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”   In37
reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based
on the evidence contained in the record.  Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on
mere speculation or conjecture.
In the decision-making process, facts must be established by “substantial evidence.”   The38
Government initially has the burden of producing evidence to establish a case which demonstrates,
in accordance with the Directive, that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
or continue an applicant’s access to classified information.  Once the Government has produced
substantial evidence of a disqualifying condition, the burden shifts to Applicant to produce evidence
and prove a mitigating condition.  Directive ¶ E3.1.15 provides, “The applicant is responsible for
presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by
applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and [applicant] has the ultimate burden of persuasion
as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”  The burden of disproving a mitigating condition
never shifts to the Government.39
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the government predicated upon trust and confidence.  It is a relationship that transcends normal duty
hours and endures throughout off-duty hours as well.  It is because of this special relationship the
government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those individuals to
whom it grants access to classified information.  Decisions under this Directive and the Guidelines
include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk an applicant may deliberately or
inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain
degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Executive Order 10865, § 7. 40
8
 
The scope of an administrative judge’s decision is limited.  Nothing in this decision should
be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied
determination as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism.  40
CONCLUSIONS
Financial Considerations
The government established its case under Guideline F.  Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) E2.A6.1.2.1. arises where there is (A history of not meeting
financial obligations.)  Similarly, FC DC E2.A6.1.2.3. applies where the information shows an
(Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.)  The available information demonstrates Applicant has
a history of not meeting his financial obligations.  He has been delinquent in payments on numerous
accounts.  
Various conditions can mitigate the security concerns arising from financial difficulties.  The
Directive sets out Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) E2.A6.1.3.3. (The
conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of
employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or
separation).  Applicant’s delinquent debts started accumulating during his overseas assignment and
separation from his wife.  He was divorced in March 2002.  These events were beyond his control.
This mitigating condition applies.  
FC MC E2.A6.1.3.4. (The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and
there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control) does not apply as
there is no evidence that Applicant sought financial counseling.
FC MC E2.A6.1.3.6. (The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve bad debts) is not applicable.  Applicant claimed he had paid a few debts and
had made arrangement with other creditors to make payments.  He also alleged that several debts
were his ex-wife’s.  He was given three weeks after the hearing to provide evidence of payments,
arrangements, divorce papers, cancelled checks, or other evidence of efforts to resolve debts.  He
filed nothing.  Almost five years have passed since his divorce, and the only debt for which he had
proof of payment was one for $81.  There is no evidence as to why he could pay nothing since his
divorce.  Supporting his son is not an unforeseen event.  While I empathize with his daughter’s
medical disability, he does not have a legal obligation to support her.  He does have legal obligations
to pay his debts.  There is virtually no evidence to corroborate his testimony about the payments he
made or the debts that may have been set apart to his former spouse.  Absent this evidence I cannot
find that this mitigating condition applies.  He has shown no genuine effort to reduce his delinquent
debts.  I conclude Guideline F against  Applicant.
Personal Conduct
Directive ¶ E.2.2.1.41
Id.42
Id.43
9
The government established its case under Guideline E.  Personal Conduct Disqualifying
Condition (PC DC) E2.A5.1.2.2. (The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant
and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar
form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status,
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities)
applies.  Applicant did not list any of his delinquent debts on two questions on his SF 86.  He
claimed he was told not to list anything if he could not list the name of the creditor company, amount
of the debt, and the amount remaining to be paid.  Applicant was a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy.
He knew or should have known what was required on an SF 86.  He was given an opportunity to
provide evidence of the claims of debts resolution that he testified that he had made.  He provided
nothing.  Applicant’s reasons for the falsification were not credible.  His testimony was not credible
because when asked and given the opportunity to clarify the record, he produced nothing.   
Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition (PC MC)  E2.A5.1.3.2. (The falsification was an
isolated incident, was not recent, and the individual has subsequently provided correct information
voluntarily) does not apply.  The SF 86 was signed on March 30, 2005.  It was recent, he did not
provide correct information when given an opportunity to clarify the record, and his testimony’s
credibility was undermined by his failure to provide evidence. 
Also inapplicable is PC MC E2.A5.1.3.4. (Omission of material facts was caused or
significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel, and the
previously omitted information was promptly and fully provided.)  Applicant was a Chief Petty
Officer in the Navy.  He knew what was right.  I do not believe his excuses for lying on his security
clearance.  I find his omissions were deliberate.  I base my conclusion on the fact that his testimony
lacks credibility.  I conclude Guideline E against Applicant.
Whole Person Analysis
“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”   “Available,41
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be
considered in reaching a determination.”   In addition to the disqualifying and mitigating conditions,42
I also considered the “whole person” concept in evaluating Applicant’s risk and vulnerability in
protecting our national interests.   I considered his age (47), his education, his naval career, the43
causes of his financial problems, and the reasons he gave for making false answers on his security
clearance application.  Applicant made no progress in reducing his debt.  His proof of paying only
.0022 (11/5000) of the debts listed in the SOR is not a good-faith effort at debt resolution.
Applicant’s two false answers on his security clearance application are  problematic because candor
with the government about a person’s negatives is the crux of a security suitability determination.
If a person discloses the adverse information about himself, then he may be trusted with classified
information.  Here, Applicant listed no debts.  Further, even though he testified about making
payment arrangements, or making payments, or claiming that some debts were his ex-wife’s, when
Through a scrivener’s error, there is no subparagraph 1.n.44
10
given the time to corroborate his testimony with written evidence, he produced nothing.  The totality
of the record  raises continuing doubts about Applicant's ability to protect classified information and
to exercise the requisite good judgment and discretion expected of one in whom the government
entrusts its interests.  I conclude it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
continue Applicant’s security clearance.
FORMAL FINDINGS
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, are:
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: Against Applicant44
Subparagraph 1.p: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  Clearance is denied.
11
Christopher Graham
Administrative Judge