KEYWORD: Financial Considerations; Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct 
DIGEST: Applicant has had a history of overdue debts that have not been resolved.  The
information that she provided to the Government in a Security Clearance Application (SCA) on
July 8, 2005, regarding her indebtedness, was materially incorrect and incomplete, but the
evidence has not established that Applicant knowingly provided false information. Mitigation has
not been shown. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-18164.h1
DATE: 9/14/2007
DATE: September 14, 2007 
In re:
-----------------------
SSN: ----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18164
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARTIN H. MOGUL
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Nichole Noel, Esq.,  Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Charles S. Parnell, Esq.
SYNOPSIS
2
  Applicant has had a history of overdue debts that have not been resolved.  The information
that she provided to the Government in a Security Clearance Application (SCA) on July 8, 2005,
regarding her indebtedness, was materially incorrect and incomplete, but the evidence has not
established that Applicant knowingly provided false information. Mitigation has not been shown.
Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 13, 2006 , the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 (as amended) and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated
January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) (Exhibit 1) to the Applicant, which detailed
reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant
and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be
denied or revoked.
In a signed and sworn statement, dated January 5, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR
allegations (RSOR) (Exhibit 2). She requested that her case be decided on the written record in lieu
of a hearing.
On May 30, 2007, Department Counsel prepared the Department's written case. A complete
copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, and she was given the
opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. A
response was due by July 11, 2007, but no response to the FORM was filed. The case was assigned
to this Administrative Judge on August 20, 2007.
Department Counsel offered eight documentary items (Exhibits 1-8), which have been
admitted without objection. Applicant offered no documentary evidence into the record. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
In the SOR, the Government alleges that a security risk may exist under Adjudicative
Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct) of the Directive. The SOR contains 7 allegations, 1.a., through 1.g., under Guideline F,
two allegations, 2.a. and 2.b., under Guideline E, and one allegation, 3.a., under Guideline J.
Applicant has admitted SOR allegations 1.a. and 1.g., and she has denied the other allegations. The
admitted allegations are incorporated herein as findings of fact. 
Since this matter is being decided without a hearing, my evaluation is necessarily limited to
the contents of the various documents that are found in the case file. After a complete and thorough
review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the FORM,  and the
admitted documents, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the following Additional
3
findings of fact: 
Applicant is 53 years old. She is employed by a defense contractor, and she seeks a DoD
security clearance in connection with her employment in the defense sector.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)
The SOR lists seven allegations of overdue debts, 1.a. through 1.g, under Adjudicative
Guideline F. These debts will be discussed in the order that they were listed in the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt to Creditor 1 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,199. In her
RSOR (Exhibit 2), Applicant admits this debt was incurred by her husband on a credit card for which
she was jointly liable. She contends that she was unaware of it before she received the SOR. In
Responses to Interrogatories, signed by Applicant on October 10, 2006, (Exhibit 6) Applicant denies
that this debt is hers, as she claims it is a disputed bill from her husband’s “old company.” This
contradicts her response to the SOR in two places. First she claims that she was unaware of the bill
until the SOR, but clearly she had notice of the bill at least since she received the interrogatories.
Also, on the interrogatories she denies that she was responsible for the debt, but on her RSOR, she
concedes liability for this debt.  
Finally, Applicant states that this debt  is no longer listed on her most current credit report,
and she also cites Colorado Revised Statute 13-80-103.5 to argue that the statute of limitations to
enforce this obligation has expired.  I find that insufficient evidence has been introduced to
determine if the statute is applicable in this case, and based on the above discussed inconsistencies
in her responses, I can not find that this debt has been resolved.
1.b. This overdue debt to Creditor 2 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,887.82.
Applicant denies this debt and contends that she has disputed this debt for years. Exhibit 7, a credit
report, dated January 4, 2006, shows that this debt was disputed by consumer, and that it has been
resolved. While it is not clear what the outcome of the debt is, I find that this debt has been resolved.
1.c. This overdue debt to Creditor 3 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $237. In her RSOR,
Applicant claims that she was unaware of this debt , but after she received the SOR, she paid the
debt. However, in her Responses to Interrogatories (Exhibit 6), which she executed a month before
she received the SOR, she claimed that she had already paid this debt. Based on this discrepancy and
the lack of any independent evidence to establish payment of this debt,   I can not find that this debt
has been resolved.
1.d. This overdue debt to Creditor 4 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $136.48. In her
RSOR, Applicant claims that she was unaware of this debt , but after she received the SOR, she paid
the debt.  In her Responses to Interrogatories (Exhibit 6), Applicant claimed that she had already paid
this debt, but she only included evidence of one payment of $45.49. I find that Applicant still owes
the remainder of the debt. 
4
1.e. This overdue debt to Creditor 5 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $78.43. In her
RSOR, Applicant claims that she was unaware of this debt , but after she received the SOR, she paid
the debt.  Based on the lack of any independent evidence to establish payment of this debt,   I can
not find that this debt has been resolved.
1.f. This overdue debt to Creditor 6 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $156. In her RSOR,
Applicant claims that she was unaware of this debt , but after she received the SOR, she paid the
debt.  Based on the lack of any independent evidence to establish payment of this debt,   I can not
find that this debt has been resolved.
1.g. This overdue debt to Creditor 7 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $4,852.02. In her
RSOR, Applicant admits this debt was incurred by her husband on a credit card for which she was
jointly liable. She contends that she was unaware of it before she received the SOR, In Responses
to Interrogatories (Exhibit 6) Applicant denies that this debt is hers, as she claims it is a disputed bill.
Again, she twice contradicts her response to the SOR. First she claims that she was unaware of the
bill until the SOR, but clearly she had notice of the bill at least since she received the interrogatories.
Also, on the interrogatories she denies that she was responsible for the debt, but on her RSOR, she
concedes liability for this debt. 
 
Finally, Applicant cites Colorado Revised Statute 13-80-103.5 to argue that the statute of
limitations to enforce this obligation has expired.  I find that insufficient evidence has been
introduced to determine if the statute is applicable in this case, and based on the above discussed
inconsistencies in her responses, I can not find that this debt has been resolved.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct) 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because
when Applicant completed a signed, sworn Security Clearance Application (SCA) on July 8, 2005,
she furnished untruthful information to the Government (Exhibit 5). 
2.a. Question #38 asks,  “In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any
debt(s)?” Applicant answered “No” to this question. At the time she completed the SCA, Applicant
had been over 180 days delinquent on the debts listed on the SOR, as discussed above, and she
should have answered “Yes” to this question and included the debts listed in the SOR that were
overdue.
2.b. Question #39 asks,  “Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?”
Applicant answered, “No” to this question and again listed no debts. At the time she completed the
SCA, Applicant was still delinquent on the debts listed on the SOR, and she should have included
all of these debts. 
In her RSOR, Applicant claims that she was not aware that any of these debts were overdue
at the time she competed the SCA, and that she did not deliberately provide false information to the
Government. In the FORM, Department Counsel states that a credit report, provided by Applicant
with her Responses to Interrogatories, lists all of the debts on the SOR. However, the Government
has not provided the evidence to establish that Applicant had this credit report or other information
5
that these debts were owed, at the time she completed the SCA.
Paragraph 3  (Guideline J - Criminal Conduct)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because
she has engaged in criminal conduct as she furnished information on a SCA to the Government in
2005 that was not complete and truthful. This act is a violation of Federal Law, Title 18, United
States Code Section 1001. However, since it has not been proven that Applicant knowingly and
wilfully provided false information to the Government,  Title 18, United States Code Section 1001,
does not apply in this case.
 
POLICIES
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum. Accordingly, the Department of
Defense, in Enclosure 2 of the 1992 Directive, has set forth policy factors which must be given
"binding" consideration in making security clearance determinations. These factors should be
followed in every case according to the pertinent guideline. However, the factors are neither
automatically determinative of the decision in any case, nor can they supersede the Administrative
Judge's reliance on his own common sense, as well as his knowledge of the law, human nature and
the ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision. Because each security clearance case presents
its own unique facts and circumstances, it cannot be assumed that these factors exhaust the realm
of human experience, or apply equally in every case.
As set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 16-17, "In evaluating the relevance of
an individual's conduct, the [Administrative Judge] should consider the following factors [General
Factors]:
a. The nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation
c. The frequency and recency of the conduct
d. The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct
e. The voluntariness of participation
f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior changes
g. The motivation for the conduct
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress
i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
The eligibility guidelines established in the DoD Directive identify personal characteristics
and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question of whether it is "clearly consistent
with the national interest" to grant an Applicant's request for access to classified information.
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to civilian
workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information twenty-four hours a day.
The Government is therefore appropriately concerned where available information indicates that an
Applicant for clearance may be involved in acts of alcohol abuse and criminal conduct that
demonstrates poor judgement, untrustworthiness or unreliability on the Applicant's part.
6
The DoD Directive states, "Each adjudication is to be an overall common sense
determination based upon consideration and assessment of all available information, both favorable
and unfavorable, with particular emphasis placed on the seriousness, recency, frequency, and
motivation for the individual's conduct; the extent to which conduct was negligent, willful,
voluntary, or undertaken with the knowledge of the circumstances or consequences involved; and,
to the extent that it can be estimated, the probability that conduct will or will not continue in the
future." 
The Administrative Judge can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have a
reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The Judge cannot draw inferences or
conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature. Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, "Any determination under this order...shall be
a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the
loyalty of the applicant concerned."
Burden of Proof
Initially, the Government must prove controverted facts alleged in the Statement of Reasons.
If the Government meets that burden, the burden of persuasion then shifts to the applicant to
establish his security suitability through evidence of refutation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient
to demonstrate that, despite the existence of disqualifying conduct, it is nevertheless clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the security clearance.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. Where facts proven by the Government raise
doubts about an applicant's judgment, reliability or trustworthiness, the applicant has a heavy burden
of persuasion to demonstrate that he or she is nonetheless security worthy. As noted by the United
States Supreme Court in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988), "the clearly
consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the
side of denials."
CONCLUSIONS
It is the Government's responsibility to present substantial evidence to support the finding
of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant's conduct and the continued holding of a
security clearance. If such a case has been established, the burden then shifts to the Applicant to go
forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation which is sufficient to overcome or
outweigh the Government's case. The Applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her a security clearance. This the
7
Applicant has not done.
Having considered the evidence of record in light of the appropriate legal precepts and
factors, I conclude the following with respect to Guidelines F, E, and J: 
(Guideline F - Financial Considerations)
The Government has established its case under Guideline F. The record evidence clearly
establishes Applicant's long history of indebtedness, and there is no evidence that Applicant has
resolved these overdue debts.
Regarding the Disqualifying Conditions (DC) under Guideline F in the Adjudicative
Guidelines, I conclude both DC 19 (a) and (c) apply, because of Appellant’s “history of not meeting
financial obligations” and her apparent “unwillingness to satisfy her debts.” 
In considering the Mitigating Conditions (MC) 20, I do not find that any of the MCs  apply
I, therefore, hold Guideline F against Applicant. 
Until Applicant makes a good-faith effort and can prove that she has resolved her overdue
debts, and she can establish a record of financial responsibility and stability, security concerns will
continue to exist under Guideline F. I resolve Guideline F against Applicant.
(Guideline E -Personal Conduct) 
With respect to Guideline E, the evidence establishes that Applicant provided incorrect
material information to the Government in response to two questions on the SCA that she executed
in 2005. Applicant was delinquent on the debts discussed above, and she should have answered
“Yes” to questions #38, and #39,  and included on her SCA all of the debts discussed above.
However, Applicant denies that she was aware of these overdue debts when she completed her SCA,
and there is no evidence to contradict her contention. 
In reviewing the DCs under Guideline E,  I conclude that no DC applies against Applicant.
I therefore, resolve Guideline E against Applicant.
(Guideline J - Criminal Conduct)
The Government has been unable to establish that Applicant engaged in criminal conduct,
as she did not knowingly furnished information to the Government that was incomplete and
untruthful. Therefore, no violation of Federal Law, Title 18, United States Code Section 1001 was
committed. 
Under Guideline J,  I conclude that no DC applies, and I resolve Guideline J for Applicant.
FORMAL FINDINGS
8
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For  Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against  Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against  Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e.: Against  Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.f.: Against   Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: For APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.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.
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge