KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is a 58-year-old armed security officer employed by a federal contractor.  She
had 18 unpaid debts and a state tax lien.  She gave two false answers on her security clearance
questionnaire.  Her financial exigency occurred because of a serious illness and resulting disability
of her daughter, aggravated by the repossession of her car and loss of her employment due to this
security clearance process.  She successfully mitigated the security concerns about Guideline F
(financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct).  Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-18503.h1
DATE: 06/13/2007
DATE:  June 13, 2007
In re:
-------------------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18503
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Daniel F.  Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is a 58-year-old armed security officer employed by a federal contractor.  She had
18 unpaid debts and a state tax lien.  She gave two false answers on her security clearance
questionnaire.  Her financial exigency occurred because of a serious illness and resulting disability
of her daughter, aggravated by the repossession of her car and loss of her employment due to this
security clearance process.  She successfully mitigated the security concerns about Guideline F
(financial considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct).  Clearance is granted.
Government Exhibit 1, Standard Form (SF) 86, Security Clearance Application, dated November 14, 2005.1
Tr. at 5.2
Id. at 19, 21.3
Id. at 19-20.4
Id. at 20.5
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 14, 2005, Applicant submitted an electronic Security Clearance Application
(SF 86).   The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a1
security clearance for Applicant.  As required by Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended and modified, and Department
of Defense Directive 5220.6 ¶ E3.1.2 Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended, modified, and revised, DOHA issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) on September 18, 2006, detailing the basis for its decision – security
concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
of the Directive.  The President issued revised adjudicative guidelines (RAG) on December 30, 2005.
DoD implemented them effective September 1, 2006.  Pending official amendment/reissue of DoD
Directive 5220.6, the RAG are to be used in all cases when the SOR is issued on or after September
1, 2006.  Because the SOR was issued after September 1, 2006, DOHA policy requires that this case
proceed under the new guidelines.  Applicant answered the SOR in writing on November 14, 2006,
and elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge.  The case was assigned to me on
December 18, 2006.  The Notice of Hearing, dated January 26, 2007, was issued to convene a
hearing on February 14, 2007,   to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest2
to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  The government offered five exhibits,
marked as exhibits 1-5, received without objection.  Applicant offered no exhibits.  DOHA received
the hearing transcript (Tr.) on February 23, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant denied all of the allegations contained in SOR except subparagraph 1.s.  Her
admission is incorporated herein as a finding of fact.  I make the following additional findings of
fact.
Applicant is a 58-year-old armed security officer employed by a federal contractor.   She has3
been divorced since 1985, has three emancipated children, and is a high school graduate.   This is4
her first application for a security clearance.5
Applicant accumulated $35,383 of unpaid debt, which included $13,787 for a deficiency on
a repossessed automobile, and another debt of $11,569 which she does not recognize as her
SOR6
Tr.  at 32.7
Id. at 33.8
Preeclampsia is a disorder that occurs only during pregnancy and the postpartum period and affects both the mother and9
the unborn baby. Affecting at least 5-8% of all pregnancies, it is a rapidly progressive condition characterized by high
blood pressure and the presence of protein in the urine. Swelling, sudden weight gain, headaches and changes in vision
are important symptoms; however, some women with rapidly advancing disease report few symptoms.  Preeclampsia
Foundation (http://www.preeclampsia.org/, October 31, 2006) at http://www.preeclampsia.org/about.asp. 
Id. at 34. 10
Id. at 11-15.11
Id. at 16.12
Government Exhibit 4 (Docket Report, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, dated December 6, 2006) at 1, 4-6;  Government13
Exhibit 5 (Docket Report, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, dated February 14, 2007) at 1, 4-5.
4
obligation.   She also had a state tax lien of $2,854.  She indicated she would be contacting the6
taxing authority to make repayment arrangements.   The total delinquent debts were $38,237.7
Many of the debts were incurred because of a daughter’s serious illness.  After delivering a
baby, on January 14, 2004, Applicant’s daughter lapsed into a coma lasting from January 16, 2004,
to August 2006,  as a result of preeclampsia.   Also, her kidneys and liver shut down and her weight8 9
dropped from 145 pounds to 79 pounds after the baby was born.  Eighteen doctors provided care.
Applicant was working 16, to sometimes 18 hours a day in one city, then driving back to her
hometown to check on her daughter and granddaughter (a distance of about 130 miles each way).
She had no family that could provide financial assistance.  During this time her car was repossessed.
After her daughter recovered, she helped provide living quarters for her daughter and granddaughter.
She made sure that her granddaughter had day care.  Her daughter now requires an occupational
physical therapist because of a stroke that put her into a coma and caused her left side to be
paralyzed.   Applicant did what she thought was right and paid the bills she felt were most10
important.  As a result of a denial of her security clearance, she lost her job.11
On November 14, 2006, she filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.  She attended her
discharge hearing on December 20, 2006.   With the filing of her completion certificate for a12
required financial management course on February 7, 2007, Applicant was waiting to receive her
discharge order canceling the debts listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.r.13
Applicant falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP), executed by her on November 14, 2005.  Her response to question “27: Your
Financial Record b.  In the last 7 years, have you had your wages garnished or had any property
repossessed for any reason?”, she answered “No.”  She failed to list the repossession as set forth in
SOR subparagraph 1.g.  
On the same form, Applicant listed only two but not all debts in response to question “28.
Your financial delinquencies b.  Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?  She
Id. at 32.14
Guidelines ¶ 2(c).15
Guidelines ¶ 2(b).16
5
listed the debts set forth in SOR subparagraphs 1.o. and 1.p., but failed to disclose the delinquent
debts set forth in subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.n, 1.q., and 1.r.  Applicant claimed she could not
remember all of the debts and only listed the two that she could remember.14
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. Guidelines ¶ 2.  An administrative
judge’s over-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.15
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.”   In16
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.
“Substantial evidence [is] such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might  accept as adequate to support a
17
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 evidence18  
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). 
Executive Order 10865, § 7. 19
6
In the decision-making process, facts must be established by “substantial evidence.”   The17
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.18
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 that 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.
 
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.  19
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline F—Financial Considerations
Guideline ¶ 18 articulates the Government’s concern concerning financial problems.  “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
7
information.  An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal
acts to generate funds.” 
Two Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) could raise a
trustworthiness concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “inability or unwillingness to satisfy
debts,” and “a history of not meeting financial obligations.”  Guidelines ¶ 19(a) and (c).
Five Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) under Guidelines ¶ 20(a)-(e)
are potentially applicable: 
(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;
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death,
divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which
is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute
or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
Based on my evaluation of the record evidence as a whole, I conclude Guideline ¶ 20(a), (c),
and (e) do not apply.  The debts continued to be delinquent until recently, there is no evidence of
Applicant seeking counseling, and there is no basis to dispute most of the indebtedness.  However,
Guideline ¶ 20 (b) and (d) are applicable.  The financial problems resulted from the serious and
continuing illness and disability of her daughter and Applicant’s need to assist her child and
grandchild with adequate living facilities.  Compounding the problem was the repossession of her
car during a time when she was commuting 130 miles each way to work.  An additional hardship
was caused by the loss of her job because of the denial of her security clearance.
Applicant otherwise resolved her debts by filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.  With the
debts eliminated in bankruptcy, she is left only with the state tax lien of $2854.  She indicated she
would make payment arrangements with the taxing authority, and I believe she will repay this
obligation.
Guideline E—Personal Conduct
Guidelines ¶ 15.20
8
Under Guideline ¶ 15, “conduct involving...lack of candor [or] dishonesty...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....”  One personal conduct disqualifying condition is particularly relevant
and may be disqualifying in this case.  Guideline ¶ 16(a) provides, “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.”
The concern under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) is that conduct involving questionable
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations could indicate that the applicant may not properly safeguard sensitive
information.”   Applicant’s SF 86 had incorrect answers to questions 27 and 28.  However,20
Applicant denied that she intentionally falsified the answers by not including most of her delinquent
debts.  She claimed she did not remember them at the time she completed the application in
November 2005. However, based on my review of the record, including her truthful disclosure of
the automobile repossession, two delinquent debts, and her comment in the Remarks section that the
credit report showed other debts were paid, in addition to her strong denial of the falsification
allegation, I believe Applicant’s omissions were negligent and not intentional.  Hence, the evidence
does not establish deliberate falsification. 
Whole Person Analysis
In addition to the enumerated disqualifying and mitigating conditions, I have considered the
general adjudicative guidelines related to the whole person concept under Guideline ¶ 2(a).
Applicant has made progress resolving her debts and appears committed to paying the state tax lien.
She is 58 years old, sufficiently mature to be fully responsible for her obligations.
After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions and all of the facts and
circumstances, in the context of the whole person, I conclude she has mitigated the security concerns
pertaining to financial considerations and personal conduct.  I have no concerns about her reliability,
judgment, and honesty.  The totality of the circumstances and her actions in light of the hardships
she encountered lead me to conclude she is a person of character.  This record raises no reasonable
and persistent doubts about Applicant's ability to protect sensitive information and to exercise the
requisite good judgment and discretion expected of one in whom the government entrusts its
interests.  I find Guideline F and Guideline E for Applicant, and conclude it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue her security clearance.
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:
9
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  Clearance is granted.
Christopher Graham
Administrative Judge