KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is a 53-year-old sanitation technician employed by a federal contractor.  He had
17 delinquent debts totaling over $17,500.  Some debts date back over five years.  After the SOR
was issued, he commenced repayment but only provided proof of two debts that were paid.  He
deliberately gave false answers to two questions on his security clearance application.  He failed to
mitigate the security concerns about financial considerations and personal conduct.  Clearance is
denied.
CASENO: 06-24836.h1
DATE: 08/31/2007
DATE:  August 31, 2007
In re:
-------------------
SSN:  ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24836
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
J.  Theodore Hammer, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is a 53-year-old sanitation technician employed by a federal contractor.  He had
17 delinquent debts totaling over $17,500.  Some debts date back over five years.  After the SOR
was issued, he commenced repayment but only provided proof of two debts that were paid.  He
deliberately gave false answers to two questions on his security clearance application.  He failed to
mitigate the security concerns about financial considerations and personal conduct.  Clearance is
denied.
Item 1 (Security Clearance Application (SF 86)(e-QIP version), dated May 18, 2006).1
Id. at 1, 5.2
Id. at 10.3
Id. at 11-16.4
Id. at 5.5
Id. at 17.6
Id. at 21-22.7
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 18, 2006, Applicant submitted a Security Clearance Application (SF 86).   The1
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security clearance
for Applicant.  As required by Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within
Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6,
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, as amended, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on February 12, 2007, 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 (Guidelines) on December 30, 2005.  DoD implemented them on September 1, 2006.
Pending official amendment/reissue of DoD Directive 5220.6, the Guidelines are to be used in all
cases when the SOR is dated on or after September 1, 2006.  Because the SOR was issued after
September 1, 2006, DoD policy requires that this case proceed under the revised guidelines. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on April 9, 2007, and requested a decision without
a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted a file of relevant material (FORM) in support of the
government’s case, a copy of which was received by Applicant on June 5, 2007.  Applicant was
afforded the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or
mitigation by July 5, 2007.  He filed no response.  The case was assigned to me on August 15, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the allegations contained in the SOR, but provided explanations for the
alleged debts.  He admitted providing inaccurate answers on his security questionnaire but denied
it was intentional.  The admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact.  After a complete and
thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of same, I make the
following additional findings of fact: 
Applicant is a 53-year-old sanitation technician employed by a federal contractor.   He was2
married in February 1990, and separated in July 2005.   He has no children.   He is a high school3 4
graduate.   He served in the National Guard from 1972 to 1976.   This is his first application for a5 6
security clearance.7
SOR subparagraphs 1.a through 1.m; Items 5 and 6 (Credit Reports, dated May 31, 2006 and December 22, 2006,8
respectively).
 Item 3 (Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, dated February 12, 2007) at 7-8.9
Item 3, supra, note 9, at 5-6.10
Item 1, supra, note 1, at 22.11
Item 3, supra, note 9, at 3-4.12
4
Applicant had 14 delinquent debts totaling over $17,500.   Many of the debts became8
delinquent before mid-2002, and remained delinquent up to the date of the FORM.  In his answer,
he claimed that he had satisfied six of the debts but provided proof as to only two.   As of March 12,9
2007, he employed the services of a credit counseling agency to assist in consolidating his debts,
counseling him, and providing assistance in managing his finances.  Even most of the consolidated
debts will not be completely repaid until 2010.   There is no evidence that his debts were caused by10
factors beyond his control.  Instead, they result from poor money management.  He claimed that one
of the debts was his wife’s obligation, but there is no documentation to substantiate the claim.  
Applicant falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP), executed by him on May 18, 2006, by answering “No” to the following
questions: “Section 28: Your Financial Delinquencies a.  In the last 7 years, have you been over
180 days delinquent on any debt(s)? and Section 28: Your Financial Delinquencies b.  Are you
currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?   He deliberately failed to list the information set11
forth in SOR subparagraphs 1.a through 1.m.  He claimed these were oversights and that he did not
deliberately try to deceive the government.12
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 guideline, the adjudicative
guidelines are divided into Disqualifying Conditions (DC) and Mitigating Conditions (MC), 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, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed
in the adjudicative process. Guideline ¶ 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
considers all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, in making a decision.  Guideline ¶ 2(c).
Specifically, an administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors
listed at Guideline ¶ 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)
“Substantial evidence [is] such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion13
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 record14  
evidence as a whole, both favorable and unfavorable, evaluates Applicant’s past and current circumstances in light of
pertinent provisions of the Directive, and decide[s] whether Applicant has met his burden of persuasion under Directive
¶ E3.1.15.”  ISCR Case No. 04-10340 at 2 (App. Bd. July 6, 2006).
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.”
Guideline ¶ 2(b).  In 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.”   The13
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 present “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.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The burden of disproving a mitigating condition
never shifts to the Government.14
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.  This relationship transcends normal duty
hours and endures throughout off-duty hours.  The Government reposes a high degree of trust and
confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information.  Decisions under this
Directive 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.
 
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.  Executive Order 10865, § 7. 
CONCLUSIONS
6
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
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: Guideline ¶ 19(a) “inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and Guideline ¶ 19(c) “a history of not meeting financial
obligations.” 
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 Guidelines ¶ 20(a), (b),
and (e) do not apply.  The debts continued to be delinquent until recently, there is no evidence of
factors beyond Applicant’s control that accounted for the delinquencies,  and there is no basis to
dispute most of the indebtedness.  However, Guidelines ¶ 20 (c) and (d) are at issue.  Applicant did
seek financial counseling, but only after the SOR was issued, and based on his prior record, the
likelihood of successful completion could be in doubt.  Because he does not have his finances under
control, the mitigating condition under Guideline ¶ 20 (b) is not totally applicable.  There is
insufficient proof of serious debt reduction to conclude that Applicant has initiated a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve the debts.  Therefore Guideline ¶ 20 (d) does
not apply.
Guideline E—Personal Conduct
Guidelines ¶ 15.15
7
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 (e-QIP version) had incorrect answers to questions, 28 (a) and15
(b).  However, Applicant denied that he intentionally falsified the answers by not listing his
delinquent debts.  He claimed these omissions were “oversights.”  Applicant knew he had a number
of delinquent debts when he submitted his e-QIP.  He did not adequately explain how an “oversight”
caused him to incorrectly answer these basic questions.
Guideline ¶ 17. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or
falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly
contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising
or instructing the individual specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made
aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and
truthfully;
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or
it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on
the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the
behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused
untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation, or duress;
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability;
8
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity has ceased or occurs under
circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or
willingness to comply with rules and regulations.
None of these conditions apply.  I conclude Guideline E against Applicant.
 
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 little progress resolving his debts.  He is 53 years old, sufficiently mature to be
fully responsible for his obligations.
I considered his age (53), his education, his employment, and what might motivate him to
be less than truthful.  Applicant supplied false answers on a security clearance application.  This is
problematic because candor with the government about a person’s negatives is the crux of a
trustworthiness determination.  If a person discloses the adverse information about himself, then he
may be trusted with confidential or classified information.  Although not alleged in the SOR, these
false statements are separate violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.  The totality of the record raises
reasonable and persistent 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: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For 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.n: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
9
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.
Christopher Graham
Administrative Judge