KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant owed approximately $22,000 on 11 delinquent accounts.  She paid one debt and
brought current the student loans. The remaining nine debts have not been paid. Additionally,
Applicant failed to disclose she was more than 180 days past due on her debts when she completed
her Questionnaire for National Security Positions.  The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate
or extenuate the negative security implications based on financial considerations and personal
conduct. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-23637.h1
DATE: 09/28/2007
DATE:  September 28, 2007
In re:
----------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-23637
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CLAUDE R. HEINY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant owed approximately $22,000 on 11 delinquent accounts.  She paid one debt and
brought current the student loans. The remaining nine debts have not been paid. Additionally,
Applicant failed to disclose she was more than 180 days past due on her debts when she completed
her Questionnaire for National Security Positions.  The record evidence is insufficient to mitigate
or extenuate the negative security implications based on financial considerations and personal
conduct. Clearance is denied.
Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive),1
dated January 2, 1992, as amended.
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 15, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant stating that DOHA could not make the preliminary
affirmative finding  it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security1
clearance for her. The SOR set forth reasons why a security clearance could not be granted or
continued due to financial considerations and personal conduct security concerns.
On April 18, 2007, Applicant answered the SOR and elected to have the matter decided
without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the government’s case in a File of Relevant
Material (FORM), dated July 18, 2007.  Applicant was sent a copy of the FORM, along with notice
of her opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
potentially disqualifying conditions. Applicant’s response to the FORM was due 30 days after
receipt of a copy of the FORM. As of August 29, 2007, no response had been received. On
September 26, 2007, I was assigned the case. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR alleges security concerns for financial considerations and personal conduct.
Applicant admits being indebted with eight accounts placed for collection.  She states the tax lien
and two other debts have been paid.  She admits falsifying question 36 on her Questionnaire for
National Security Positions, Standard Form (SF) 86, concerning her tax lien, but states she forgot
about the lien.  She admits giving a false answer to question 38 concerning being more than 180
days delinquent on any debt. The admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a
thorough review of the record, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 47-year-old research analyst who has worked for a defense contractor since
March 1999, and is seeking to obtain a security clearance.  She is a single mother who is not
receiving financial support from her ex-husband and father of her three children. She was unaware
of the contents of her credit report until after she applied for her clearance. In November 2006,
Applicant’s daughter was involved in a car accident, resulting in unexpected medical bills. (Gov Ex
6) As of January 2007, Applicant’s monthly income was $3,600, her monthly expenses $2,700, and
debt repayment of $300, resulting in a monthly net remainder of $152. (Gov Ex 6)
The record contains four credit reports dated October 2005 (Gov Ex 7), November 2006
(Gov Ex 8), February 2007 (Gov Ex 9), and July 2007 (Gov Ex 7).  In November 1998, a $360 state
tax lien (SOR 1.a) was filed against Applicant.  Applicant asserts this debt was paid in 1998 or 1999.
The lien appears on all four credit reports.  She owes two telephone bills for $250 (SOR 1.b) and
$93 (SOR 1.c).  In October 2006, She had correspondence from the collection agency in which the
agency stated it was willing to accept payments on the debts. (Gov Ex 6)  There is no evidence
Applicant accepted the offer or made payments on the debts. 
Applicant had a $47 dishonored check (SOR 1.d), which has been paid. (Gov ex 7) She is
indebted to a collection agency for $948.  She admits the debt, but is unsure about the debt or the
4
initial creditor of the debt.  The debt was originally $513, but is now $971 (SOR 1.e).  (Gov Ex 7,
8, and 9) 
Applicant has a delinquent $9,410 credit card debt (SOR 1.f).  In December 2006, she
received correspondence about the debt (Gov Ex 6), but no evidence of payment has been made.
It appears on her credit reports at an initial amount of $8,316. (Gov Ex 7, 8 and 9).
Applicant owes $8,510 on a collection account (SOR 1.g), which has not been paid. (Gov
Ex 9) She owes $2,678 for student loans (SOR 1.h). In July 2006, she entered into an agreement to
pay $50 per month on the loans.  Payments for July 2006 through December 2006 are in the record.
(Gov Ex 6) The loans appear on her July 2007 credit report and are not listed as delinquent. (Gov
Ex 10)
Applicant owes $1,669 on a charged off credit card (SOR 1.i). (Gov Ex 7, 8) She is $241
delinquent on a store credit card (SOR 1.j) and a $295 cell phone account (SOR 1.k). Both accounts
were placed for collection and remain unpaid. (App Ex 7). 
In June 2005, Applicant completed her SF 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions.
Question 36 asked if any liens had been placed against her for failing to pay her taxes. She answered
“no” to the question even though a state tax lien was filed against her in November 1998.  She says
she forgot about the lien and would not have considered it as placed against her property.  She also
answered “no” to question 38, which asked if she had been more than 180 days delinquent on any
debts.  She gives no reason for her answer.
POLICIES
The Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified
Information, dated August 2006, sets forth Disqualifying Conditions (DC) and Mitigating
Conditions (MC) for each applicable guideline. Additionally, each decision must be a fair and
impartial commonsense decision based upon the relevant and material facts and circumstances, the
whole person concept, and the factors listed in Section 6.3 of the Directive. The adjudicative
guidelines are to be applied by administrative judges on a case-by-case basis with an eye toward
making determinations that are clearly consistent with the interests of national security. The
presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not determinative
of a conclusion for or against an applicant.  However, the adjudicative guidelines should be followed
whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance. Considering the evidence as a whole,
I conclude the relevant guidelines to be applied here are Guideline F, financial considerations, and
Guideline E, personal conduct.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The sole purpose of a security clearance decision is to decide if it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant. Initially, the
Government must establish, by substantial evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or
professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, an applicant from being
eligible for access to classified information. The burden of proof in a security clearance case is
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 (January 27, 1995) at pp. 7-8; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.152
5
something less than a preponderance of evidence, although the government is required to present
substantial evidence to meet its burden of proof.  Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but
less than a preponderance of the evidence. All that is required is proof of facts and circumstances
which indicate an applicant is at risk for mishandling classified information, or that an applicant
does not demonstrate the high degree of judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons
handling classified information.  Additionally, the government must prove controverted facts alleged
in the SOR.  Once the government has met its burden, the burden shifts to an applicant to present
evidence to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government's case.  Additionally, an applicant has the
ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision.2
As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528 (1988), “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” A person who has access to classified
information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the government based on trust and confidence.
The government, therefore, has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the
requisite judgment, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests. The
“clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt
about an applicant’s suitability for access to classified information in favor of protecting national
security.  Security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials. 
CONCLUSIONS
The Government has satisfied its initial burden of proof under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations. A person’s relationship with her creditors is a private matter until evidence is
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed upon terms.
Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant with a history of
serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a position of risk that is inconsistent with the holding
of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be debt free, but is required to manage her
finances so as to meet her financial obligations.
Financial considerations become a security concern when a person has significant delinquent
debts. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal or
unethical acts to generate funds to meet financial obligations. Additionally, an individual who is
financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligations to
protect classified information.  Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides
an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life. 
Applicant owes approximately $22,000 on nine delinquent debts.  Disqualifying Conditions
(DC) 19(a) “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” and 19(c) “a history of not meeting financial
obligations” apply. 
Applicant has paid a $77 debt for a dishonored check (SOR 1.d) and made $50 per month
payments on the student loan obligation (SOR 1.h) for six months.  Additionally, Applicant’s July
2007 credit report does not list her student loans as currently being past due or delinquent. I find for
Applicant as to these two debts. 
6
Mitigating Condition (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,” has very limited applicability.  Applicant asserts she is a single mother and not
receiving financial support from the children’s father. Additionally, her daughter was in a car
accident resulting in medical debts. The impact of these events on her finances is not further
described.  None of the debts in question are related to medical bills.  Applicant has failed to explain
how the events caused the financial problems. Without additional information, it is impossible to
find that the events caused the debts or that Applicant has acted responsibly under the circumstances.
 There is no evidence Applicant has sought financial counseling or demonstrated a positive
change in her financial management. The majority of the debts remain unpaid. There is no indication
the problem is being resolved or under control.  After monthly expenses, Applicant has only $152
for all unexpected or unlisted expenses which would include repayment on the nine debts.  MC 2(c)
“the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications
that the problem is being resolved or is under control,” does not apply. 
MC 20(d) “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts,” apply except to the dishonored check and student loan obligations.  For MC 20(d)
to apply there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and evidence of a good-
faith effort to repay.  A systematic, concrete method of handling her debts is needed, which is not
present here. Applicant has paid $377 on her debts since being questioned about her debts in January
2007. (Gov Ex 6) The majority of her debts remain unpaid. There is no plan for paying her
delinquent obligations. 
Regarding personal conduct, the concern is “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. 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.”  DC 16(a) “deliberate
omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material 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.
In June 2005, when completing her SF 86, she failed to list a tax lien.  She says she forgot
about it and had she remembered she would not have considered it as being placed against her
property.  Before a state tax lien is filed, Applicant receives a number of letters from the state, which
would have put her on notice of the lien.  Applicant states she believes the debt was paid in 1998
or 1999.  Frequently a state tax lien is paid by garnishment or interception of a subsequent tax year’s
refund. This may have been paid, but appears on all the credit reports in the record. The lien was
filed six and a half years before she completed her SF 86.  The filing of a tax lien is a significant
event, but the amount was only $360.  She could easily have forgotten about it.  I find for her as to
SOR 2.a.
However, Applicant also answered “no” when asked if she had ever been more than 180 days
delinquent during the previous seven years.  Due to the significant nature of her debts she should
have disclosed her delinquent debts on her SF 86.  Applicant failed to present a good explanation
7
why she did not answer the question correctly. None of the mitigating conditions apply to her false
answer.
In reaching my conclusions I have also considered: the nature, extent, and seriousness of the
conduct; Applicant’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the
conduct; Applicant’s voluntary and knowledgeable participation; the motivation for the conduct; the
frequency and recency of the conduct; presence or absence of rehabilitation; potential for pressure,
coercion, exploitation, or duress; and the probability that the circumstance or conduct will continue
or recur in the future. I find against Applicant as to financial considerations and personal conduct.
This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not
attain the state of true reform and rehabilitation necessary to justify the award of a security
clearance. The awarding of a security clearance is not a once in a life time occurrence, but is based
on applying the factors, both disqualifying and mitigating, to the evidence presented. Under the
Applicant’s current circumstances a clearance is not recommended, but should the Applicant be
afforded an opportunity to reapply for a security clearance in the future, having paid the delinquent
obligations, established compliance with a repayment plan, or otherwise addressed the obligations,
she may well demonstrate persuasive evidence of her security worthiness. However, a clearance at
this time is not warranted. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings as required by Section 3, Paragraph 7, of Enclosure 1 of the Directive are
hereby rendered as follows:
Paragraph 1 Financial Considerations: AGAINST FOR 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: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 Personal Conduct: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
DECISION
8
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.
Claude R. Heiny 
Administrative Judge