DATE: September 24, 2007
In Re:
-----------------------
SSN: ---------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-26286
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARTIN H. MOGUL
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
John Hernandez, Esq.
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has had a history of financial difficulties. He has paid off or is paying the majority
of his debts, and he has a plan to resolve any remaining overdue debt, that is not in dispute. His
financial situation is stable and current. Applicant reasonably believed that the financial information
that he provided to the Government, on a Security Clearance Application (SCA), regarding his
finances,  was materially correct.  Mitigation has been shown. Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 3, 2007 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive
2
Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to 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 clearance should be denied or revoked.
In a signed and sworn statement, dated July 14, 2007, Applicant responded in writing to the
SOR allegations (RSOR), and he requested a clearance decision based on a hearing record.
The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on August 22, 2007. A Notice of Hearing
was issued to the parties on September 4, 2007, and the hearing was held on September 17, 2007.
At the hearing, Department Counsel offered eight documentary exhibits (Exhibits 1-7) and
no witnesses were called. Applicant appeared with counsel, submitted 11 documentary exhibits
(Exhibits A through K) and offered his own testimony. All documentary evidence was entered into
evidence without objection. The transcript (Tr) was received on September 24, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
In the SOR, the Government alleges that a security risk may exist under Adjudicative
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Directive. The
SOR contains seven allegations, 1.a. through 1.g., under Guideline F, and two allegations, 2.a. and
2.b., under Guideline E. In his Response to the SOR (RSOR), Applicant admitted SOR allegations
1.b. through 1.e. and 1.g., with explanations, and he denied allegations 1.a., 1.f., 2.a., and 2.b. The
admitted allegations are incorporated herein as Findings of Fact.
 
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's
Answer to the SOR, the admitted documents, and the live testimony and upon due consideration of
that evidence, I make the following additional Findings of Fact: 
Applicant is 57 years old. He is currently engaged to be  married, and he has two daughter
and two sons. He was born in Mexico, and English is his second language. Applicant is employed
by a defense contractor, and he seeks to retain a DoD security clearance in connection with his
employment in the defense sector. 
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)
The SOR lists six debts that Applicant allegedly owed as of December 27, 2006, 1.a. through
1.g., under Adjudicative Guideline F.  The debts will be discussed in the order that they were listed
in the SOR: 
1.a. This debt to Creditor 1 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $590, for a judgement
entered against him. Applicant testified that this debt arose because a former landlord claimed
Applicant  still owed him money. Applicant agreed that he went to court for this debt, but he testified
credibly that it was his understanding that the judge ruled that the money that the landlord had
3
retained as a security deposit would resolve any claimed debts. Applicant believed the judge
dismissed the case, and he claimed that he never received any further documents from the court to
inform him that he owed any additional money to the landlord. Applicant further testified that if it
was shown that he owed this debt, he would pay it, but he did not believe there was an overdue debt
to this creditor.
1.b. through 1.e.  These debts are all to Creditor 2, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for tax
years 1994, 1995, 1998, and 1999 is in the amounts of $1,592.87, 11,500.64, 272.65, and $495,
respectively.  Applicant testified that he always filed and paid his taxes in a timely manner but
contended that when he was audited by the IRS, he never received the notice, as he was a long
distance truck driver traveling throughout  the U.S., and he simply did not get his mail. He also
claimed that he did not get notice of the back taxes that he owed.  
Applicant further testified that for the last two years, since  he became aware of the debt to
the IRS, he has been in contact with them, attempting to resolve this debt. He stated that his overdue
debt to the IRS had totaled $30,000, but it  has now been reduced to $11,500, through the IRS lien
and by his filing amended taxes for tax years 2004 and 2006 (Exhibits A and B) . Applicant also
recently filed an amended tax return for year 2005, and he anticipates an additional $2,400 being
applied to the debt (Exhibit C). 
Finally, Applicant has entered into an agreement with the IRS, in which he would make
payments of $226 a month to the IRS. Thus far he has made two payments of $226. 
1.f. This debt to Creditor 3 is in the amount of $1,684. Applicant testified that this debt was
incurred as a result of a dental treatment that he received from a work related injury. He was
informed, and it is still his belief, that this debt should have been resolved through workers
compensation insurance. He is attempting, with the help of his attorney, to have this debt resolved
as  a workers compensation debt.
1.g. This debt to Creditor 4 is listed in the SOR in the amounts of $221. At the hearing,
Applicant testified that this debt arose because he cosigned the contract for his daughter’s phone. He
has been attempting to resolve the debt, but when he contacted the collection agency which had been
attempting to collect on this debt, he was informed that they no longer were responsible for this debt.
However, he was not told who is now attempting to collect this debt. He testified that when he could
ascertain who owned this debt, he would make prompt restitution. 
Since Applicant  incurred these debts, he has been and remains current on all his other debts,
and he has demonstrated a stable and mature outlook about his finances.
Applicant also submitted 4 letters of reference from individuals, who know him. All of them
spoke extremely highly of him as honest, hard working and dependable (Exhibit K). 
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
The Government alleges that when Applicant completed an SCA,  executed on October 7,
2005,  (Exhibit 1), he did not furnish truthful, complete answers. 
4
2.a. Question #27 c.  asks,  “In the last 7 years, have you had a lien placed against your
property for failing to pay taxes or other debts?” Applicant responded “No” to this question. The
Government alleges that Applicant should have included all of the debts, listed on the SOR as 1.b.
through 1.e., above, as they were all debts for which  the IRS did place a lien on Applicant’s wages.
Applicant testified credibly that he believed the question only concerned real property, and
since he did not own any property, he believed that  he answered the question correctly. As discussed
above, English is the second language of this Applicant, and I am persuaded that his incorrect
response to this question was as a result of a misunderstanding, not an attempt to mislead the
Government.
2.b. Question #27 d. asks,  “In the last 7 years, have you had any judgements against you that
have not been paid?” Applicant responded “No” to this question. The Government alleges that
Applicant should have included the judgement,  listed on the SOR as 1.a. 
As discussed in subparagraph 1.a., above, Applicant believed this debt was resolved and no
judgement was placed against him. The evidence has not clearly established that a judgement was
entered against Applicant , but it any case, I find that Applicant had a good faith belief that there was
no judgement, so his response to this question was not an attempt to mislead the Government.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines that must be carefully
considered in evaluating an individual's security eligibility and making the overall common sense
determination required. The Administrative Judge must take into account the conditions raising or
mitigating security concerns in each area applicable to the facts and circumstances presented.
Although the presence or absence of a particular condition for or against clearance is not
determinative, the specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be
measured against this policy guidance, as the guidelines reflect consideration of those factors of
seriousness, recency, motivation, etc. 
The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept. All available, reliable
information about the person, past and present, is to be taken into account in reaching a decision as
to whether a person is an acceptable security risk.
Each adjudicative decision must also include an assessment of: (1) the nature, extent, and
seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, and the extent of
knowledgeable participation; (3) how recent and frequent the behavior was; (4) the individual's age
and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or
absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent 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 (See Directive, Section E2.2.1. of Enclosure 2). 
BURDEN OF PROOF
5
            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 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. Assessment of Applicant's
fitness for access to classified information requires evaluation of the whole person, and consideration
of such factors as the recency and frequency of the disqualifying conduct, the likelihood of
recurrence, and evidence of rehabilitation.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the U.S. Government that is predicated upon trust and confidence. Where facts proven by the
Government raise doubts about Applicant's judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness, 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 him a security clearance. This the
Applicant has 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 and  E: 
(Guideline F - Financial Considerations)
The Government has established its initial case under Guideline F. The record evidence
proves Applicant's history of indebtedness, primarily to the IRS. However, there is evidence that
Applicant is attempting to resolve the overdue debts to the IRS.
Regarding the Disqualifying Conditions (DC) under Guideline F in the Adjudicative
Guidelines, I conclude DC 19 (a) applies because of Appellant’s “history of not meeting financial
obligations.”
In considering the Mitigating Conditions (MC) I find that MC 20. (d)  applies, as Applicant
has initiated a good-faith effort to repay the IRS, and (e) also applies, as Applicant has a reasonable
basis to dispute the debt listed as 1.a., because he believes the court resolved the case in his favor,
6
and 1.f., because Applicant believes this debt should have been resolved through workers
compensation insurance.   I, therefore, hold Guideline F for 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 at least one of the two questions on the SCA
that he executed in 2005. Applicant did have a lien placed on his property by the IRS. As discussed
above, it is not clear if a judgement was entered against him. However, I find that Applicant’s
contention that he did not believe a judgement was entered against him, and he understood the term
property to mean only real property when he completed his SCA are valid, and Applicant did not
intend to mislead the Government.
In reviewing the DCs under Guideline E,  I conclude that no DC applies against Applicant.
I therefore, resolve Guideline E against Applicant.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the  Directive are hereby
rendered as follows:
Paragraph 1, Financial Considerations,  Guideline F: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Personal Conduct,  Guideline E: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances and facts presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
7
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge