KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: Between approximately 1998 and 2004, Applicant accrued $15,000 of delinquent bills.
Nearly all remain outstanding, and he has yet to make a serious, concerted effort to begin satisfying
them. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-17793.h1
DATE: 07/18/2007
DATE:  July 18, 2007
In re:
-------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-17793
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Between approximately 1998 and 2004, Applicant accrued $15,000 of delinquent bills.
Nearly all remain outstanding, and he has yet to make a serious, concerted effort to begin satisfying
them. Clearance is denied.
The SOR is erroneously dated January 27, 2006. Department Counsel disclosed the mistake to Applicant. Also,1
Applicant confirmed that he received the revised guidelines (Tr. 4).
Exhibit 3, Memo from Site Commander to Commanding General, Regarding Applicant’s Discharge, dated2
October 18, 1993.
Exhibit A, Reference Letter, dated April 20, 2007.3
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 27, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance.  This action was taken under Executive Order1
10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2,1992, as
amended and modified (Directive). Applicant answered it on February 27, 2007, and requested a
hearing. 
The case was assigned to me on April 2, 2007. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on April
6, 2007 for April 26, 2007. The hearing was held as scheduled, and I received six government
exhibits, one Applicant exhibits, and Applicant’s testimony. At the hearing’s conclusion, I left the
record open through May 7, 2007 for Applicant to submit additional exhibits. That day, he submitted
two additional exhibits. Department Counsel did not object to their admissibility. I admitted them
as Applicant’s Exhibits B and C. DOHA received the transcript on May 14, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
Applicant admitted all of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the SOR. They are
incorporated as findings of fact.
Applicant is a 38-year-old married man with two children, ages 16 and 14 from a prior
marriage. He has a high school diploma, and has earned one year of college credits. He served in the
U.S. Marines from 1988 to 1993. Because his performance in the Marines was unsatisfactory, he
received a general discharge under honorable conditions.2
Since 1998, Applicant has worked in the contract mapping field. He has worked for the same
employer since 1998. According to his employer’s facility security officer, he is “a trustworthy
employee who can be counted on to uphold the rules and guidelines that come with holding a
security clearance.”3
In the late 1990's, Applicant’s first marriage began deteriorating, resulting in a divorce in
2000. He has remained in protracted litigation with his ex-wife since thenover visitation and custody
issues. Over the years, Applicant has spent more than $4,000 in attorney fees. Currently, he has
physical custody of one of his children.
Tr. 24.4
Tr. 25.5
Exhibit 2, Interrogatories, dated November 16, 2006.6
Tr. 26.7
Tr. 23.8
Answer at 2.9
3
Applicant remarried in 2001. In the fall of 2003, his wife injured herself, and was unable to
work for seven months.  Approximately five months later, Applicant was laid off for two months.4 5
They were dependent on both incomes to make ends meet.
By June 2005, Applicant had accrued $15,000 in delinquent debt. He met with a Defense
Security Service (DSS) agent in February 2006 to discuss, among other things, his financial
delinquencies. Approximately nine months later, the government propounded interrogatories
specifically listing each delinquency, and requesting him to provide proof of any efforts toward
resolving them.  At that time, his progress toward resolving them was minimal.6
Currently, the amount of Applicant’s delinquent debt remains unchanged. Of the 25 bills that
he owes, 14 are for less than $150. With the exception of the delinquency listed in subparagraph 1.m,
he has neither satisfied nor made plans to satisfy any of them. 
At the hearing, Applicant attributed his failure to make “an organized effort”  to resolve his7
debts to ongoing problems with his ex-wife.  He pays the creditors to whom he owes delinquent
debts “when they get a hold of [him].”8
Applicant did not list any of his debts in response to Question 38 (Your Financial
Delinquencies - 180 Days - In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any
debt?), and Question 39 (Your Financial Delinquencies - 90 days - Are you currently over 90 days
past due on any debt(s)) of his security clearance application (SF 86). He thought he was only
supposed to list any recurrent monthly bills that were delinquent.  He disclosed a wage garnishment,9
a repossession, and two unpaid judgments, as required in response to other SF 86 questions. Also,
in response to Question 43 (General Remarks Do you have any additional remarks to enter in your
application?), he discussed his financial problems at length.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive, sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be considered in
the evaluation of security suitability. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline,
the adjudicative guidelines are divided into those that may be considered in deciding whether to deny
or revoke an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information (disqualifying conditions)
and those that may be considered in deciding whether to grant an individual’s eligibility for access
to classified information (mitigating conditions). These guidelines were revised on December 29,
See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.10
4
2005, and the revisions were implemented for all statement of reasons issued after September 1,
2006.
Because the entire process is a scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person
concept,” all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, should be considered in making a meaningful decision. 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.
The following adjudicative guidelines are raised:
Guideline F - Financial Considerations: 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.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of
candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information.
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct: 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.
Conditions pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying, as well as those which could mitigate security concerns, are set forth and discussed
in the conclusions below.
Since the protection of national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case must be reached by applying the standard that the issuance of the clearance is “clearly
consistent with the national interest.”  In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions10
that are based on the evidence contained in the record.
The government is responsible for presenting evidence to establish facts in the SOR that have
been controverted. The applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by the government, and has the ultimate burden
of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
CONCLUSIONS
Financial Considerations
5
Applicant’s longstanding financial difficulties trigger the application of Financial
Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) 19 (a): inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,
FC DC c (a history of not meeting financial obligations), and FC DC 19 (e): consistent spending
beyond one’s means, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash
flow, high debt-to-income ratio and other financial analysis. I have considered all of the mitigating
conditions and conclude none apply. Applicant has been aware his delinquencies posed a security
concern since meeting with a DSS agent in June 2005; however, he has made no plans to satisfy
them. 
Applicant’s contention that he lacks the income to satisfy the delinquencies has limited
probative value. Many of these debts have been delinquent for more than six years. Moreover, many
are small bills less than $150.
Applicant’s contention that circumstances beyond his control are responsible for his
continued financial indebtedness has similarly limited probative value. The 2000 divorce, his current
wife’s 2003 disability, and his 2004 unemployment substantially contributed to the accrual of his
financial delinquencies. However, he has neither made plans to pay the remaining debts, nor
demonstrated the inclination to begin paying them. Applicant has failed to mitigate the financial
considerations security concern.
Personal Conduct
Applicant’s responses to Questions 38, and 39 of his 2005 SF 86 raise the issue of whether
Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 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,
applies. Applicant was fully forthcoming about his financial problems in response to other financial
questions on the SF 86. He elaborated further about his troubled finances in the “general remarks”
section of the SF 86. Under these circumstances, his contention that he did not intentionally omit
financial information from Questions 38 and 39 was credible. PC DC 16 (a) does not apply, and
there are no personal conduct security concerns.
Criminal Conduct
For the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s responses to Questions 38 and 39 do not
constitute falsifications under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
Whole Person Concept
Applicant has made minimal effort to satisfy his delinquencies. Under these circumstances
the likelihood that his financial problems will continue remains unacceptably high. Evaluating these
facts in the context of the whole person concept, I conclude he has not mitigated the security
concern.
6
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 – Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n -1.y: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 - Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph2.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
Paragraph 3 - Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: For 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.
Marc E. Curry
Administrative Judge