KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant has a history of delinquent debts that stem in part from the payment failures of
her spouse during periods of income losses attributable to his underemployment.  While Applicant
and her spouse have since began paying off their listed debts, their efforts are for the most part quite
recent and incomplete.  Based on the limited repayment efforts she and her spouse have
demonstrated to date, she is unable to mitigate security concerns associated with her past history of
delinquent debts.  Applicant successfully refuted allegations that she falsified his security clearance
application, but failed to mitigate additional security concerns attributable to her failure to provide
requested financial releases and agree to a follow-up OPM interview.  Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 07-04658.h1
DATE: 09/28/2007
DATE:  September 28, 2007
In re:
-----------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-04658
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ROGER C. WESLEY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Julie R. Edmunds, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has a history of delinquent debts that stem in part from the payment failures of her
spouse during periods of income losses attributable to his underemployment.  While Applicant and
her spouse have since begun paying off their listed debts, their efforts are for the most part quite
recent and incomplete.  Based on the limited repayment efforts she and her spouse have
demonstrated to date, she is unable to mitigate security concerns associated with her past history of
delinquent debts.  Applicant successfully refuted allegations that she falsified his security clearance
application, but failed to mitigate additional security concerns attributable to her failure to provide
requested financial releases, and agree to a follow-up OPM interview.  Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 8, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive 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 granted, continued, denied or
revoked.
Applicant responded to the SOR on July 11, 2007, and requested a hearing.  The case was
assigned to me on August 14, 2007, and was scheduled for hearing on September 12, 2007.  A
hearing was held on September 12, 2007, for the purpose of considering whether it would be clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant, continue, deny, or revoke Applicant’s security
clearance.  At hearing, the Government's case consisted of one witness (an OPM investigator) and
three  exhibits; Applicant relied on one witness (herself) and two exhibits.  The transcript (R.T.) was
received on September 20, 2007.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Before the close of the hearing, Applicant requested leave to keep the record open to permit
her the opportunity to document her payments to her creditors.  For good cause shown, Applicant
was granted seven days to supplement the record.  The Government, in turn was allowed five days
to respond.  Within the time permitted, Applicant furnished a two-month checking account summary
covering the period of July to September 2007, statements documenting her payments on a non-listed
account, pay offs of her student loans, and payments on her creditor 1.e and creditor 1.f/g debts.  For
good cause demonstrated, Applicant’s supplemental exhibits are admitted as Applicant’s exhibits
C through F. 
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
Under Guideline F, Applicant is alleged to have accumulated seven delinquent debts
exceeding $40,000.00.  Under Guideline E, she is alleged to have (a) falsified her electronic
questionnaire for investigations (e-QIP) of August 2006 by omitting her debts over 180 and 90 days
3
delinquent, respectively, and (b) failing to cooperate by (i) declining to execute financial releases in
November 2006 and (ii) declining to submit to an additional interview at her place of employment
or agree to a more convenient time for the agent to return.
For her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted to three of the listed debts, but denied the
remainder of them (claiming they belonged to her spouse).  Applicant denied falsifying her e-QIP
and failing to cooperate.  She claimed she gave the investigating agent copies of her cleared checks
and denied any further contact with the agent until January 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is a 39-year-old accounts payable specialist for a defense contractor who seeks a
security clearance.  The allegations covered in the SOR and admitted by Applicant are incorporated
herein by reference and adopted as relevant and material findings.  Additional findings follow.
Between 2003 and 2005, Applicant and her spouse opened joint accounts with the creditors
listed in the SOR.  These debts appear on her credit report as joint marital debts and must be
considered as such, absent probative evidence that the debts were created by her spouse alone and
were neither intended to benefit Applicant nor did so in fact.  This is a rather tall evidentiary burden,
which Applicant has not met.  She has neither challenged her disputed creditors and the credit
reporting firm nor otherwise demonstrated at hearing that the debts are not her responsibility. 
Burdened by her parenting responsibilities with her two children, she regularly deferred to
her spouse to pay their debts.  Her husband, who was underemployed during key periods between
2003 and 2005, stopped paying on some of their debts.  Applicant assures that after the birth of her
second child, her spouse took over the responsibilities for paying their bills and did not confide in
her about the financial difficulties they were experiencing (R.T., at 33).  Her spouse admits to not
keeping her informed of their financial problems (see ex. A).  Without informing Applicant, he
borrowed heavily on their Navy Credit Union accounts to repay their other debts during their period
of reduced family income (R.T., at 46-48).
Since receiving the SOR, Applicant and her spouse have initiated efforts to pay  some of their
creditors.  Applicant documents paying off her creditor 1.a account and making payments on her
creditor 1.e repossession deficiency and creditor 1.f/g credit union accounts (see exs. C and F; R.T.,
at 40).  She documents also paying off her non-listed student loan accounts (see ex. E).  She claimed
she has since paid off the $11,000.00 balance with funds furnished by her aunt, who she has not yet
begun to repay.  Applicant was afforded an opportunity to supplement the record with payment
documentation regarding this creditor 1.d debt (R.T., at 44-45).  Her supplemented bank statement
and other statements provided make no references to her creditor 1.d debt. Whether this debt was
actually paid or not cannot be documented from the post-hearing materials furnished by Applicant.
As for her debts covering creditors 1.b and 1.c, she provides no documented repayment.
Applicant assures she is working on repaying the remaining listed accounts, and has tasked
her spouse to contact creditors 1.b and 1.c and 1.e through 1.g). Her spouse just recently started a
new job and now brings home around $4,000.00 a month (R.T., at 48-49).   Previously, he netted less
than $1,200.00 a month, which produced, together with Applicant’s $1,800.00 a month (R.T., at 48),
4
a monthly net of around $3,000.00 a month (R.T., at 52).  Applicant and her spouse have no mutual
funds or savings accounts and  maintain a very small checking account (R.T., at 51-52).  Neither
Applicant nor her spouse have received financial counseling since they began encountering financial
difficulties. 
Asked to complete an e-QIP in August 2006, Applicant omitted her debts over 180 and 90
days delinquent, respectively.  She attributes her omissions to her unawareness at the time that she
had any delinquent debts (R.T., at ).  She had deferred to her spouse to pay the bills and was not told
of any delinquent debts.  Her spouse corroborates Applicant’s claims.  When asked, though, by an
interviewing OPM agent in November 2006 to complete financial releases, Applicant declined (see
ex. 3; R.T., at 24-25).  She did indicate that she and her spouse fully intended to pay off their
delinquent obligations, and she agreed to provide copies of her canceled checks (see ex. 3).  The
same OPM agent returned in December 2006 to interview Applicant (R.T., at 25).  At this interview,
she provided copies of her checks, but declined to be interviewed further about her finances.  The
agent offered to be flexible about scheduling, but Applicant (claiming he was rude) still refused to
be interviewed again (R.T., at 25-26, 35).  
At hearing, Applicant said she checked with her supervisor after her interview with the OPM
agent and was told she did not require a clearance (R.T., at 58).  She claimed her human resource
manager suggested she apply for a clearance, but initially never advised her that her company was
sponsoring her clearance application (R.T., at 59-61).  She says that her resource manager advised
her later (after she completed her e-QIP and was interviewed by OPM) that  she needed a clearance
for her company’s federal contract (R.T., at 63-64).  She states that had she known initially that her
company had sponsored her for a clearance she might have provided the requested financial releases
(R.T., at 65).  Applicant could not corroborate her claims in any way.  The information provided
Applicant,  both by her supervisor/human resources manager in the beginning and by the OPM agent
who subsequently came to interview her in November and December 2006, was sufficient to apprise
her of the nature of the Government’s background investigation and her corresponding need to be
cooperative in all phases of the investigation.
Applicant is well regarded by her supervisor and work colleagues and is reputed to be
responsible and trustworthy (see ex. B).  A coworker grades her with high marks in her business and
personal life (ex. B).
POLICIES
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified
Information (effective September 2006) list Guidelines to be considered by judges in the decision
making process covering DOHA cases.  These Guidelines require the judge to consider all of the
"Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying” (Disqualifying
Conditions), if any, and all of the "Mitigating Conditions," if any, before deciding whether or not a
security clearance should be granted, continued or denied.  The Guidelines do not require the judge
to assess these factors exclusively in arriving at a decision.  In addition to the relevant Adjudicative
Guidelines, judges must take into account the pertinent considerations for assessing extenuation and
mitigation set forth in E.2.2 of the Adjudicative Process of Enclosure 2 of the Directive, which are
intended to assist the judges in reaching a fair and impartial common sense decision.
5
Viewing the issues raised and evidence as a whole, the following adjudication policy factors
are pertinent herein:
Financial Considerations
The Concern: 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.  Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may
lead to financial crimes including espionage.  Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources
of income is also a security concern.  It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal
acts.
Personal Conduct
The Concern: Conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, 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. 
Burden of Proof
By virtue of the precepts framed by the revised Adjudicative Guidelines, a decision to grant
or continue an applicant's security clearance may be made only upon a threshold finding that to do
so is clearly consistent with the national interest.  Because the Directive requires Administrative
Judges to make a common sense appraisal of the evidence accumulated in the record, the ultimate
determination of an applicant's eligibility for a security clearance depends, in large part, on the
relevance and materiality of that evidence.  As with all adversary proceedings, the Judge may draw
only those inferences which have a reasonable and logical basis from the evidence of record.
Conversely, the Judge cannot draw factual inferences that are grounded on speculation or
conjecture.
The Government's initial burden is twofold: (1) It must prove any controverted fact[s]
alleged in the Statement of Reasons and (2) it must demonstrate that the facts proven have a
material bearing  to the applicant's eligibility to obtain or maintain a security clearance.  The
required showing of material bearing, however, does not require the Government to affirmatively
demonstrate that the applicant has actually mishandled or abused classified information before it
can deny or revoke a security clearance. Rather, consideration must take account of cognizable risks
that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information.
Once the Government meets its initial burden of proof of establishing admitted or
controverted facts, the burden of persuasion shifts to the applicant for the purpose of establishing
his or her security worthiness through evidence of refutation, extenuation or mitigation of the
Government's case.
6
CONCLUSIONS
Applicant is an accounts payable specialist for a defense contractor who accumulated a
number of delinquent debts over a three-year period spanning 2003 and 2005, while deferring to
her spouse to pay their bills.  Each of the accounts are considered marital debts.  These debts,
considered together, and without resolution,  raise  security  concerns, along with the omissions of
the same in her e-QIP.  Security significant, too, are Applicant’s repeated failure to cooperate with
an interviewing OPM agent about her security clearance application.
Financial issues
Security concerns are raised under the financial considerations guideline of the revised
Adjudicative Guidelines where the individual applicant is so financially overextended as to indicate
poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, which can
raise questions about the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified
information, and place the person at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
Applicant’s accumulation of delinquent debts and her past failures to document payments on any
of her listed debts warrant the application of two of the disqualifying conditions (DC) of the
Guidelines for financial considerations: DC 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and
DC 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations).
Applicant’s debts are attributable in part to her deferring to her spouse who was not able to
attend to the debts during periods of reduced income, and tried unsuccessfully to cover their other
debts with Navy credit union loans.   Except for her student loans, neither Applicant nor her spouse
had any contact with their creditors to resolve their debts before receiving the SOR. 
Since receiving the SOR, Applicant has initiated efforts to resolve some of her listed
delinquent debts. Specifically, she is able to document paying off one of her listed creditors
(creditor 1.a) and repaying her student loans.  She documents also paying on one of the non-listed
creditors and initiating repayment of her creditor 1.e repossession deficiency and her Navy Credit
Union debts (creditors 1.f and 1.g).   She expresses hope of working on her remaining creditor
accounts.  Because of her husband’s work losses that contributed to their financial difficulties,
Applicant may rely somewhat on 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) of the Guidelines for financial considerations. 
Without financial counseling and a stronger repayment history, though, mitigation credit is
more difficult for Applicant at this time.  Her repayment efforts to date entitle her some advantage
of MC 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts) of the Guidelines. However, her repayment efforts, while encouraging, remain a work
in progress. With her spouses’s increased contributions to the family’s aggregate income, Applicant
should be able to make continued progress in the repayment of her listed delinquent debts.  At this
time, though, it is still too soon to make any safe predictions about her ability to repay her debts in
the foreseeable future.  Based on her repayment history to date, Applicant may not take advantage
of any of the other available mitigating conditions.
7
Holding a security clearance involves the exercise of important fiducial responsibilities,
among which is the expectancy of consistent trust and candor.  Financial stability in a person
cleared to access classified information is required precisely to inspire trust and confidence in the
holder of the clearance.  While the principal concern of a clearance holder’s demonstrated financial
difficulties is vulnerability to coercion and influence, judgment and trust concerns are implicit in
financial cases (as here).
Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the debt accumulations
of Applicant and her spouse and the limited steps they have taken to date to resolve them, Applicant
does not mitigate security concerns related to her established debt delinquencies.  Unfavorable
conclusions warrant with respect to the allegations covered by sub-paragraphs 1.b through 1.g of
the SOR.  Applicant is entitled to mitigation credit with respect to creditor 1.a, for which she
provides payment documentation.
E-QIP issues
Security concerns over Applicant’s judgment, reliability and trustworthiness are raised under
the personal conduct guideline, too, as the result of her omissions of her debts in the e-QIP she
completed in August  2006.  By omitting debts attributable to her over 180 and 90 days delinquent,
respectively, Applicant failed to furnish materially important background information about her
debts that was needed for the Government to properly process and evaluate her security clearance
application. 
Applicant’s e-QIP omissions are attributable to her accepted impressions that she had no
debts of her own that were over 180 and 90 days delinquent with creditors 1.a through 1.g.
Applicant’s impressions, while mistaken, were made in good faith, without any indicated intent to
mislead. Applicant’s explanations, considering the circumstances surrounding the furnished
information at the time, enable her to refute the falsification allegations.  Considering all of the
evidence produced in this record, favorable conclusions warrant with respect to subparagraphs 2.a
and 2.b of Guideline E.
Cooperation issues
Interested in following up on Applicant's e-QIP submission after obtaining a copy of her
credit report, an OPM agent tried in vain to resolve his agency’s concerns with his initial and
follow-up interview in November 2006. In the first interview, he asked for the standard financial
release to enable him substantiate information in Applicant’s obtained credit report.  Asked to
provide a financial release, Applicant declined, citing privacy concerns.  His attempts, in turn, to
schedule a follow-up interview with Applicant to discuss her finances were rebuffed.  By all
tangible indications in the developed record, Applicant failed to cooperate with the OPM agent
tasked to investigate her background eligibility for holding a security clearance.  To date, Applicant
has still not provided the requested financial releases, or agreed to reschedule another OPM
interview.  
Appraising the security significance of Applicant’s cooperation failures, a number of
disqualifying conditions under the personal conduct guideline are applicable.  Applicant’s failure
and refusal to provide the requested financial releases and sit for a second OPM interview raises
8
security concerns covered by the personal conduct guideline that normally mandate an unfavorable
clearance action.  Specifically, 15(a) (refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or
cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator
for subject interview, completing security forms or releases, and cooperation with medical or
psychological evaluation) applies herein to Applicant’s refusal to provide a financial release or
agree to reschedule a second OPM interview when expressly asked by the appearing OPM agent
in December 2006.  In such a case (as here) where the clearance applicant persists in her refusal to
provide requested financial information and meet for a requested interview, cooperation strains
emerge that are at odds with that agency’s security requirements.
Applicant can be granted no excuse from the accepted regulatory requirement of cooperating
with the Government’s background investigation of her security clearance worthiness and
eligibility.  Applicant’s refusals to complete financial releases and agree to the rescheduling of a
second OPM interview to address her reported debts in her latest credit report  (as here) represent
material breaches of her fiducial responsibilities to cooperate with the Government in all stages of
processing of her security clearance application.  While Applicant might well believe she does not
need a security clearance for her work assignment based on information supplied by her supervisor,
her employer manifestly determined otherwise and submitted the required application materials in
Applicant’s behalf.  
Based on Applicant’s  repeated and continuous refusal to cooperate with the Government
in its background investigation of her clearance eligibility, no mitigating conditions under the
personal conduct guideline are available to her.  While her most recent efforts in supplying updated
financial information about her repayment initiatives are encouraging, more probative
demonstrations of her willingness to cooperate are needed before Applicant can be fully credited
with eliminating all residual concerns about her willingness to cooperate with Government
investigators and the Government’s correlative concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness
to hold a security clearance.
Altogether, Applicant’s extenuation and mitigation efforts fail at this time to quell the still
active concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness associated with her past failures to
cooperate fully with the instituted background inquiries of OPM.  Unfavorable  conclusions
warrant, accordingly, with respect to the allegations covered by subparagraph 2.c of Guideline E.
In reaching my decision, I have considered the evidence as a whole, including each of the
E2.2 factors enumerated in the Adjudicative Guidelines of the Directive.
FORMAL FINDINGS
In reviewing the allegations of the SOR and ensuing conclusions reached in the context of
the FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, CONDITIONS, and the factors listed above, this
Administrative Judge makes the following FORMAL FINDINGS:
GUIDELINE F (FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS): AGAINST APPLICANT
Sub-para. 1.a: FOR APPLICANT
9
Sub-para. 1.b: AGAINST APPLICANT
Sub-para. 1.c: AGAINST APPLICANT
Sub-para. 1.d: AGAINST APPLICANT
Sub-para. 1.e: AGAINST APPLICANT
Sub-para. 1.g: AGAINST APPLICANT
GUIDELINE E (PERSONAL CONDUCT): AGAINST APPLICANT
Sub-para. 2.a: FOR APPLICANT
Sub-para. 2.b: FOR APPLICANT
Sub-para. 2.c: AGAINST 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 Applicant’s security clearance.  Clearance
is denied.
Roger C. Wesley
Administrative Judge