KEYWORD: Financial, Criminal Conduct; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is 38 years old and has worked for a federal contractor since May 2005. He has
a long history of financial delinquencies and criminal conduct. He deliberately failed to disclose the
extent of his delinquent debts and criminal conduct. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns
raised under Guideline F, financial considerations, Guideline J, criminal conduct, and Guideline E,
personal conduct. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-16571
DATE: 05/23/2007
DATE:  May 23, 2007
In re:
-------------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-16571
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CAROL G. RICCIARDELLO
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive1
5220.6, dated January 2,1992, as amended and modified (Directive).
2
Applicant is 38 years old and has worked for a federal contractor since May 2005. He has a
long history of financial delinquencies and criminal conduct. He deliberately failed to disclose the
extent of his delinquent debts and criminal conduct. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns
raised under Guideline F, financial considerations, Guideline J, criminal conduct, and Guideline E,
personal conduct. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF CASE
On November 29, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating it was unable to find that it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance.  The SOR, which is in essence the1
administrative complaint, alleges security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations),
Guideline J (criminal conduct), and Guideline E (personal conduct).
In a sworn statement dated December 12, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations.
Applicant admitted all of the allegations except SOR 1.k and 3.a, which he denied. Applicant elected
to have his case decided on the written record. Department Counsel submitted the government’s file
of relevant material (FORM) on January 29, 2007. The FORM was mailed to Applicant on the same
day and received on February 12, 2007. Applicant was afforded an opportunity to file objections and
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did not provide a response. The
case was assigned to me on March 28, 2007. 
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
The SOR alleges in subparagraph 3.b that Applicant failed to disclose information about his
criminal offenses as set forth in “subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b.” It appears this allegation has a
typographical error and should read “subparagraphs 2.a and 2.b.” Applicant admitted the allegations
in SOR 1.a, 1.b, 2.a, and 2.b. The narrative of the allegations explains specifically what question on
the Security Clearance Application (SCA) Applicant failed to provide information. I find Applicant
was not misled and there was sufficient notice of the allegation. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant’s admissions to the allegations in the SOR, are incorporated herein. In addition,
after a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following
findings of fact:
Applicant is 38 years old and has worked for a federal contractor since May 2005. He was
married from 1988 to 1992. He divorced and remarried in 2001. He has one child and one stepchild.
Answer; GE 6.2
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).3
3
Applicant has approximately $42,266 in delinquent debts listed in the SOR that he admits he owes.
He denies the debt in SOR 1.k for $35. He stated in his answer that he paid the debt in SOR 1.a, a
state tax lien. He failed to provide documentation and the debt is still listed on his credit report.  He2
owes a debt to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for taxes due in 1996. He stated he paid $1,000
on December 8, 2006, and has a repayment plan with them. No documentation was provided to
support his position or payment. No other information about the status of the other delinquent debts
listed in the SOR or mitigating conditions was provided. 
On September 4, 2003, Applicant was charged with battery and domestic violence. He was
found guilty and paid a fine. 
On March 29, 2000, Applicant was charged with disturbing the peace. He paid a fine.
On December 23, 1993, Applicant was charged with assault and disorderly conduct. The
charges were dismissed. 
Applicant was charged on August 26, 1992, with domestic battery and violation of a domestic
violence order. The disposition was not recorded. 
On July 26, 1992 and November 1, 1991, Applicant was charged with domestic battery. He
paid a fine on each occasion. 
Applicant executed his SCA on August 31, 2005. In response to Question 23, which required
Applicant to disclose his police record for the past seven years, he deliberately failed to disclose the
charges against him on September 4, 2003 and March 29, 2000. 
In response to Question 28.a, which required Applicant to disclose if in the last seven years
he had been more than 180 days delinquent on any debts, he deliberately failed to disclose those
listed in SOR 1.b through 1.g and 1.h through 1.l. In response to Question 28.b, which required
disclosure of debts currently over 90 days delinquent, Applicant failed to disclose the same debts.
Applicant did not provide any explanation. 
Applicant denied the allegations in SOR 1.k and 3.a. The Government failed to provide any
evidence in support of these allegations.
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  As Commander in Chief, the President has3
“the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on national security and to determine
whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position . . . that will give that person
Id. at 527.4
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960). 5
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).6
Id.7
Id.; Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E2.2.2.8
Executive Order 10865 § 7.9
See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.10
4
access to such information.”  The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to4
grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to do so.”  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of5
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should6
err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should7
be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.  The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a8
determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the applicant has not9
met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a
clearance.10
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and
mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline. In evaluating the security worthiness of an
applicant, the administrative judge must also assess the adjudicative process factors listed in ¶ 6.3
of the Directive to be considered in evaluating a person’s eligibility to hold a security clearance.
Additionally, each security clearance decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision
based on the relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole-person concept, along with
the factors listed in the Directive. Specifically these are: (1) the nature and seriousness of the conduct
and surrounding circumstances; (2) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (3) the age of the
applicant; (4) the motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent,
willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequences; (5) the absence or presence
of rehabilitation; and (6) the probability that the circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in
the future. Although the presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against
clearance is not outcome determinative, the revised adjudicative guidelines should be followed
whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance.
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which would mitigate security concerns, pertaining to the adjudicative guidelines are set forth and
discussed in the conclusions below. 
CONCLUSIONS
5
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards.
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find the following adjudicative guidelines most
pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case:
Guideline F-Financial Considerations are a concern because failure or inability 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 information. An individual
who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage. Affluence
that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern. It may indicate
proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.
Guideline J-Criminal Conduct is a security concern because 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. 
Guideline E-Personal Conduct is a concern because conduct involving questionable
judgment, lack of candor, dishonest, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified
information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the
security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
Based on all the evidence, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) 19(a)
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and FC DC 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial
obligations), apply in this case. Applicant has numerous delinquent debts that date back to 1996. He
did not provide any documentation to substantiate a debt he claimed he paid or another that he
claimed he is repaying. He failed to provide any information regarding any of the other debts. 
I have considered all the Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC), and
especially considered FC MC 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts). In Applicant’s answer he stated he repaid one debt and started
a repayment plan on another. He failed to provide any substantiated documentation on these debts
or amplifying information on his many other debts. I find none of the mitigating conditions apply.
Based on all of the evidence, Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (CC DC) 31a (a
single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses) and CC DC 31(b) (allegation or admission of
criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formerly prosecuted or
convicted) apply. Applicant was charged with battery and domestic violence on at least three separate
occasions and disturbing the peace on one occasion. He paid fines in each case. He had other
criminal incidents that were dismissed or not recorded. The battery and domestic violence offenses
occurred in 1991, 1992, 1993, and 2003, spanning both of his marriages. 
I have considered all of the Criminal Conduct Mitigating Conditions. Applicant failed to
provide any information about any of the offenses he admitted committing. There is a serious pattern
of misconduct by Applicant. None of the mitigating conditions apply. 
6
I have considered Personal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions (PC DC) 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 security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness,
or award fiduciary responsibilities). Applicant admitted he deliberately failed to disclose
information on his SCA. Therefore, PC DC 16(a) applies. Applicant failed to provide any
explanation or other evidence by way of mitigation to the pertinent allegations. Hence, no mitigating
conditions apply. 
The Whole Person Analysis
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the security-clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person’s
life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. Indeed,
the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering the “whole
person” concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts, omissions,
motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis.
I considered all the evidence provided and also considered the “whole person” concept in
evaluating Applicant’s risk and vulnerability in protecting our national interests. I find Applicant has
failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by the financial considerations, criminal conduct, and
personal conduct concerns. Other than Applicant’s admissions and denials in his answer to the SOR,
no other information was provided in mitigation. Therefore, I am persuaded by the totality of the
evidence presented in this case, that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
Applicant a security clearance. Accordingly, Guideline F, Guideline J, and Guideline E are decided
against Applicant.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required
by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1 Financial Considerations (Guideline F) AGAINST  APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.-1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 Criminal Conduct (Guideline J) AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.-2.f: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3 Personal Conduct (Guideline J) AGAINST APPLICANT
7
Subparagraph 3.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 3.c: Against Applicant
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. Clearance is denied.
Carol. G. Ricciardello
Administrative Judge