KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is a 65-year-old truck driver. He occasionally works for his ex-wife driving
trucks. He has more than $150,000 in unpaid tax liens to the IRS. He admitted he has not paid his
taxes in 15 years. He also has other unpaid delinquent debts that he denies, but has not contacted the
creditors or credit agencies to dispute. Applicant failed to list any of his delinquent debts on his
security clearance application. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised under
Guideline F, financial considerations, and Guideline E, personal conduct. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-24382.h1
DATE: 07/30/2007
DATE: July 30, 2007 
In re:
------------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24382
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CAROL G. RICCIARDELLO
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Candace Le'i, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Connie Clement
Personal Representative
SYNOPSIS
Tr. 33-35.1
2
Applicant is a 65-year-old truck driver. He occasionally works for his ex-wife driving trucks.
He has more than $150,000 in unpaid tax liens to the IRS. He admitted he has not paid his taxes in
15 years. He also has other unpaid delinquent debts that he denies, but has not contacted the creditors
or credit agencies to dispute. Applicant failed to list any of his delinquent debts on his security
clearance application. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised under Guideline F,
financial considerations, and Guideline E, personal conduct. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant. As required by Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 ¶ E3.1.2
(Jan. 2, 1992), as amended, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on February 9, 2007
detailing the basis for its decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (financial
considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct) of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG)
issued on December 29, 2005 and implemented by the Department of Defense effective September
1, 2006. Applicant answered the SOR in writing on February 28, 2007, and elected to have a hearing
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on June 1, 2007. I convened a hearing
on June 26, 2007, to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
continue a security clearance for Applicant. The Government offered nine exhibits that were marked
as GE 1-9 and admitted without objections. Applicant testified on his behalf and offered one exhibit
that was marked as AE A and was admitted without objection. The record was held open to allow
Applicant to submit additional exhibits. Applicant did not submit any other exhibits and the record
was closed. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on July 18, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is a 65-year-old truck driver who is occasionally employed. He has held a secret
security clearance since 1995. He stated he was the part-owner of a trucking company with his wife
until 2004, when they divorced and he gave her the whole company. She continues to own the
company and he occasionally takes jobs from her, but she does not pay him. Instead she pays his
utilities, trailer fees, and food.  He does not receive any other spending money from her. He receives1
approximately $900 from social security each month. He pays $100 to a disabled brother. He does
not provide support for anyone else. He served in the Marine Corps for five years and in 2004 began
receiving his medical services through the Veterans Administration. He has no other sources of
income. 
Applicant owes approximately $153,743 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in back taxes,
penalties and interest dating back to at least 1995. Tax liens were filed against him on September 20,
1995, and August 16, 2004. An additional tax lien was filed on March 25, 2004, on a tax debt for
$10,261. That lien was released on June 13, 2005. No explanation was provided as to why it was
GE 4.2
Tr. 31.3
Tr. 41.4
Id.5
Id.6
Tr. 52.7
Tr. 31-32.8
AE A.9
Id.10
Id.11
3
released.  Applicant admitted he has not paid taxes in fifteen years.  He also admitted that he did file2 3
taxes, but not every year.  He then stated his wife would take care of the taxes and he did not bother4
with them.  It is unclear for which years he was referring. He stated he never had the money to pay5
the taxes.  When he owned the trucking company his gross monthly income was approximately6
$4,000-5,000 a month. After he paid his monthly expenses he would have $600-700 left.  He did not7
withhold money from his pay for taxes during the tax year and then would be unable to pay the tax
debt when due. He has not worked full-time since 2004. 
Applicant does not believe he owes the amount alleged to the IRS. He also stated he
contacted the IRS once in 1992 because he was trying to negotiate a settlement for his taxes. The IRS
wanted him to pay $400 a month. He did not agree to the offer and he never contacted the IRS
again.  8
Applicant stated he hired an attorney approximately five to six years ago to help straighten
out his taxes. A vague nonspecific letter was provided by the attorney.  The letter stated that9
Applicant’s tax liability was reduced by the IRS because he had not taken applicable deductions and
he does not owe the amount that is alleged. The attorney claimed he filed amended returns for
Applicant and the IRS “declared the remaining rather small tax debts-uncollectible.”  No supporting10
documents were provided. He further stated 
I am not at all worried [Applicant] will not be able to meet any requirements to pay
reasonable monthly amounts on taxes owed should the IRS change its mind and
decide he should pay something at this time. His tax liabilities actually present no
burden to him-given the declaration that the IRS is not interested in collecting even
the rather small amounts left-and in any event the IRS would of course be glad to
arrange payments he could afford-they are required by law to do that.11
Again, nothing was provided to show that the IRS reduced and forgave all Applicant’s tax debts. His
attorney claimed in his letter that all of the tax liens were reduced and he believes the statute of
limitations had run on the debts. No supporting documents from the IRS were provided to show the
Tr. 23.12
GE 9; These additional debts are not considered for disqualifying purposes, but will be considered when13
analyzing the whole person, Applicant’s ability to repay the debts and his crediblity.
Tr. 36.14
Tr. 38.15
Tr. 2516
GE 1 at 10.17
Tr. 27.18
4
amounts were reduced and barred by the statute of limitations. He also claimed he represented
Applicant in tax court to have the amount reduced. No official court documentation was provided
to support this assertion.
In addition to tax debts, Applicant has approximately $10,377 in medical debts alleged as
delinquent. These debts were placed for collection in September 2004 and June 2001. Applicant
stated these are not his debts but belong to his ex-wife.  These debts were incurred while Applicant12
and his wife were still married. On Applicant’s most recent credit report it lists 16 new medical debts
that are delinquent.  Applicant denied he owed these debts, again stating they belonged to his ex-13
wife. He has not contacted the credit agency to dispute any of the debts, nor has he had his ex-wife
attempt to resolve them.  He did not contact any of the medical creditors to advise them he should14
not be billed for services or to arrange a payment plan. He did not provide any documentation to
show the debts do not belong to him. He admitted he did get services from one of the medical
creditors and paid $1,000 cash.  He has no medical insurance. He stated prior to going to the15
Veteran’s Administration for medical services, he paid his medical bills with cash.16
On Applicant’s security clearance application (SCA) dated March 24, 2006, he lists his
position at his place of employment from “5/1988 to present” as “owner-operator.”  This contradicts17
his testimony that he gave the truck business to his ex-wife when they divorced. When questioned
about whether he and his ex-wife still live together, he denied that they did. However, he lists his
address and lot number of his trailer as the same address and lot number of his ex-wife’s. 
Applicant answered “no” to questions 28a and 28b on his security clearance application,
inquiring if in the last seven years he had any debts over 180 days delinquent and whether he was
currently more than 90 days delinquent on any debts. Applicant’s explanation for why he failed to
list he had delinquent debts over 180 days and 90 days past due was because he confused the word
“debt” with the word “loan,” believing the question was inquiring if he was delinquent on a car or
truck loan and he was not, so he answered no. He stated he misunderstood the question.  I find18
Applicant’s testimony was not credible. 
POLICIES
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).19
Id. at 527.20
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960). 21
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).22
Id.23
Id.; Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E2.2.2.24
Executive Order 10865 § 7.25
See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.26
See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.27
See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3rd 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994).28
See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996)29
See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.30
5
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  As Commander in Chief, the President has19
“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
access to such information.”  The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee20
to 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 of21
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 should22
err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should23
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 a24
determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the applicant has not25
met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a
clearance.26
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal
or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being
eligible for access to classified information.  “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less27
than a preponderance.”  The Guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven28
conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.29
Once the government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the
burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  An applicant “has30
the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
ISCR Case No. 01-207000 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002)31
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see Guidelines ¶ 2(b).32
6
or continue his security clearance.”  “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must,31
on the side of denial.”32
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
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find the following adjudicative guidelines most
pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case:
Financial Considerations
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.
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 admittedly not paid his taxes in 15 years and even if
he were to be believed that he does not owe the amount alleged, he has not provided any
documentation to show he paid a reduced amount or the tax debts were forgiven. He owes medical
debts that he has not paid, and even if he were to be believed that these debts are for medical services
for his ex-wife, the debts were incurred while he was married to her. In addition, he has not
contacted the creditors to explain the debts or resolve them. Both disqualifying conditions apply.
I have considered all the Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC), and
especially considered FC MC 20(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), FC MC 20(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), FC MC 20(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), and FC MC 20(d) (the individual initiated
a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). Applicant failed to pay
Tr. 19.33
7
his taxes for fifteen years and continues to owe the IRS for back taxes, penalties and interest. He has
made no attempt to repay any of the debts. He did provide information that he sought assistance with
his tax problems, but nothing was offered to support he has made even a nominal payment to the IRS
or set up any payment plan. The debts are recent and because he did not plan for his tax debt each
year, his actions cast doubt on his judgment and reliability. He is aware there are medical debts that
were incurred while he was married, but denies responsibility for them, and has not taken any action
to contact the creditors or the credit agency reporting it. These debts were not the result of behavior
that was beyond his control. Applicant has chosen to ignore these debts. Despite contacting an
attorney, no substantive evidence was provided to show the problem is being resolved or under
control. Applicant has not made a good faith effort to repay his debts. I find none of the disqualifying
conditions apply. 
Guideline E—personal conduct
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, Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (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) applies. Applicant intentionally failed to list
debts he was aware he owed and were delinquent. Applicant was well aware of his tax debts and that
he had not paid his taxes in 15 years. Applicant’s explanation and testimony for why he failed to
divulge his delinquent debts was not credible. He stated he misunderstood the question and believed
he only had to divulge delinquent loan payments.  The questions are very clear. If Applicant was33
truly confused by the question about his delinquent debts, he certainly would have listed the tax liens
against him as required under Question 27c. Instead he answered “no” to that question. This
omission is considered in determining whether Applicant was just confused, or whether he
deliberately failed to list his financial problems. I find after observing his demeanor and testimony,
that he deliberately omitted and concealed this derogatory financial information.
I have considered all of the Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions (PC MC ) and especially
considered PC MC 17(a) (the individual made prompt, good faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts) and PC MC 17(e) (the
individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation
or duress). I find neither applies. Applicant’s testimony at his hearing was not credible and not
believable. No evidence was provided to show Applicant made a good faith effort to correct his
omission and falsification before being confronted. He failed to offer any positive steps he has taken
to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation or duress. I find neither of the
above mitigating conditions apply.
8
The Whole Person
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 his or her 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.
In addition to considering the specific disqualifying and mitigating conditions under the
guideline, I have also considered the adjudicative process factors listed in ¶ 2a (1)-(9) of the
Guidelines to be considered in evaluating a person’s eligibility to hold a security clearance.
Specifically these are: (1) the nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
and 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) the extent to
which participation was 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. Although the presence
or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not outcome determinative,
the Guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance.
I considered all the evidence provided and also considered the “whole person” concept in
evaluating Applicant’s security clearance concerns. I considered Applicant’s age, employment and
financial situation. I considered that Applicant did seek assistance from an attorney. I also considered
that Applicant has not taken any action to contact the creditors, dispute debts, make payments, or
provide documentation that he is not responsible or he is making nominal payments. In addition, I
considered Applicant’s testimony regarding his failure to divulge his debts on his SCA. He was not
believable. I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the security clearance concerns raised by
financial considerations under Guideline F, and personal conduct, under Guideline E. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
9
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.
Carol G. Ricciardello
Administrative Judge