KEYWORD: Financial; Alcohol; Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant’s accrual of 86,000 of delinquent debt and his security clearance omissions
create security concerns that he failed to mitigate at the hearing. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-24386.h1
DATE: 09/11/2007
DATE: September 11, 2007
In re:
----------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24386
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s accrual of 86,000 of delinquent debt and his security clearance omissions
create security concerns that he failed to mitigate at the hearing. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Applicant admits the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.b, but denies the amount alleged due.1
Tr. 36.2
Tr. 42.3
Tr. 37.4
2
On March 27, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) explaining why it was not clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant or continue a security clearance. This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated
February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended. He
answered the SOR on May 15, 2007, and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on June 28, 2007. On July 6, 2007, DOHA issued a notice of
hearing scheduling it for August 2, 2007. During the hearing, I received 10 government exhibits, 14
Applicant exhibits, and Applicant’s testimony. DOHA received the transcript on August 15, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
Applicant admitted all of the allegations in SOR except subparagraphs 1.n through 1.q, and
2.b.  The admissions are incorporated into the findings of fact. In addition, I make the following1
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 63-year-old married man. He earned a bachelor’s degree majoring in
mathematics in 1969 and a master’s degree in physics in 1974. He worked in the federal government
for 25 years until his retirement in 1993. Since then, he has been working on missile programs as an
operations research analyst for a defense contractor. He has held a security clearance for more than
30 years.
Since 1997, Applicant has accrued approximately 86,000 of delinquent debt. Two of the
delinquencies are utilities (1.a and 1.g) and the remainder are either owed on lines of credit or owed
to credit card companies.
Applicant collectively owes the utility companies approximately $200. He is “in the process
of communicating” with the creditor listed in subparagraph 1.a,  and has been corresponding with2
the creditor listed in subparagraph 1.g for approximately one year.  He has satisfied neither debt.3
Subparagraphs 1.b, 1.f, and 1.j comprise approximately $87,000 of the SOR debt.
Subparagraph 1.b has been delinquent for approximately 10 years.  Applicant alleges he only owes4
$25,000 toward the satisfaction of this delinquency rather than $62,000 as alleged. He offered no
documentary proof to verify his contention, nor any evidence that he has begun to make payments.
Exhibit 4 establishes that he owes the creditor $62,000. 
Tr. 41.5
Exhibit 3 at 4.6
Tr. 90.7
Tr. 98.8
Tr. 95.9
According to the original SOR allegation (subparagraph 2.b), Applicant pleaded guilty to the DUI charge. In10
his Answer, he denied this, asserting that he pleaded guilty to a reduced charge. The government moved to amend the
SOR to conform to his answer, Applicant consented, and I incorporated it into the Findings of Fact.
3
Subparagraph 1.f is a line of credit Applicant opened in 1997 which is approximately $7,450
delinquent. He contends he has been making payments toward its satisfaction for one year. He
provided no documentary support to verify this contention.  5
Applicant owes approximately $7,640 towards the satisfaction of the creditor listed in
subparagraph 1.j. By June 2005, the creditor had reported this delinquency as a loss.  Applicant has6
not satisfied or begun making payments on any of the remaining SOR debts.
Applicant met with an investigative agent in October 2005.  Among other things, she7
informed him of the government’s concerns regarding his finances. Seven months later, Applicant
began contacting creditors to resolve the delinquencies. 
Applicant has not sought the assistance of a credit counselor. For the past six years,8
Applicant has earned a gross income of approximately $90,000 per year.9
In January 1991, Applicant was charged with driving under the influence (DUI). In October
1991, the court fined him $500 and dismissed the charge.
In August 1995, Applicant was charged with assault causing bodily injury after a domestic
violence incident. The charge was later dismissed.
In April 1997, Applicant was charged with DUI. In March 2001, he pled guilty to a reduced
charge of obstruction of a public highway, was fined approximately $1,700 and ordered to attend
DUI school.  10
Applicant was charged in January 1999 with DUI. He pled guilty to three lesser traffic
offenses, and was fined $400.
In July 2000, Applicant was charged with assault causing bodily injury after a domestic
violence incident. The charge was later dismissed.
Applicant completed a security clearance Application in October 2004. He did not disclose
his criminal charges as required in response to Questions 24 and 26, and his financial delinquencies
in response to Questions 38 and 39. When asked to explain these omissions at the hearing, he stated
Tr. 82.11
4
that he “was a little cavalier” in completing the application, and did not read the questions carefully
enough.11
POLICIES
The adjudicative guidelines, as revised December 29, 2005, and implemented September 1,
2006, apply to the analysis of this case. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each
guideline, they 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).
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; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include
knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the age of the
applicant; (5) the extent to which the 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.
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 G - Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of
questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.
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. 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.
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.
See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.12
5
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 conclusions12
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
Applicant’s history of financial problems triggers the application of Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) 19(a): inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, FC DC 19(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/or other financial analysis.
I have considered all of the mitigating conditions and conclude none apply. Applicant
contends he is negotiating settlement amounts with some of the creditors, and contesting debts that
accrued as the result of identity theft, but offered scant corroborating evidence. Considering that his
highest debt (subparagraph 1.b) has been delinquent for more than 10 years, his contention that he
is resolving his debts, absent supporting evidence has little probative value. Applicant has failed to
mitigate the financial considerations security concern.
Alcohol Consumption
Applicant’s history of alcohol-related arrests triggers the application of Alcohol Consumption
Disqualifying Conditions (AC DC) 22(a): alcohol related incidents away from work, such as driving
while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents
of concern. His last arrest was more than eight and a half years ago, and there is no other record
evidence of alcohol abuse. Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition (AC MC) 23(a): So much
time has passed . . . that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment, applies. Applicant has mitigated the alcohol
consumption security concern.
Personal Conduct
6
Applicant’s SF-86 omissions trigger the issue of whether Personal Conduct (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. Given his level of education and
experience, Applicant’s explanation that he misread the questions is not credible. PC DC 16(a)
applies without mitigation. Also, I was troubled by Applicant’s assertion that he completed the
security clearance application in a cavalier manner. This demonstrates a disregard for the
investigative process that alone generates an unmitigated personal conduct security concern.
Criminal Conduct
Applicant’s security clearance application omissions represent falsifications under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001 for the reasons set forth in the Personal Conduct section above. Considered in tandem with
his history of arrests, Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 31(a): a single serious crime or
multiple lesser offenses, and 31(c): allegation of admission of criminal conduct, regardless of
whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted, apply without
mitigation.
Whole Person Concept
Applicant failed to take responsibility for the accrual of his financial delinquencies. Because
of the dishonesty demonstrated in completing the security clearance application, and the length of
time many of his debts have been delinquent, his promises to begin resolving them were not
persuasive. Evaluating this case in the context of the whole person concept, I conclude that Applicant
remains a security concern. Clearance is denied. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 – Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a -1.r: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 - Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a - 2.c: For Applicant
Paragraph 3 - Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a - 3.d Against Applicant
Paragraph 4 - Guideline J: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 4.a - 4.d Against Applicant
7
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