KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct
DIGEST: Applicant is a 59-year-old contracts administrator employed by a federal contractor.  He
has had delinquent debts since 2002.  Even though his wife had cancer surgery, and has been unable
to work, he made no real effort to resolve his indebtedness until 2007.  The documentation he
provided was insufficient to mitigate the security concerns about his financial considerations.  He
gave a false answer on two security clearance applications involving a judgment, and even though
he had two subsequent interviews with investigators, he did not disclose the judgment to the
government.  His financial problems and deliberate omission are aggravated by the fact that he has
been a facility security officer (FSO) for over two years.  He also has held a security clearance since
1988.  He failed to mitigate the security concern about personal conduct.  Clearance is denied
CASENO: 07-07247.h1
DATE: 09/28/2007
DATE:  September 28, 2007
In re:
---------------------------
SSN:   -------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-07247
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is a 59-year-old contracts administrator employed by a federal contractor.  He has
had delinquent debts since 2002.  Even though his wife had cancer surgery, and has been unable to
work, he made no real effort to resolve his indebtedness until 2007.  The documentation he provided
was insufficient to mitigate the security concerns about his financial considerations.  He gave a false
answer on two security clearance applications involving a judgment, and even though he had two
subsequent interviews with investigators, he did not disclose the judgment to the government.  His
financial problems and deliberate omission are aggravated by the fact that he has been a facility
security officer (FSO) for over two years.  He also has held a security clearance since 1988.  He
failed to mitigate the security concern about personal conduct.  Clearance is denied
Item 3 (Security Clearance Application (SF 86), dated March 8, 2005).1
Id. at 1.2
Id. at 12.3
Id. at 2.4
Id. at 2, 4.5
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 8, 2005, Applicant submitted a Security Clearance Application (SF 86).   The1
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security clearance
for Applicant.  As required by Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within
Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6,
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, as amended, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on December 11, 2006, detailing
the basis for its decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Directive.  The President issued revised adjudicative
guidelines (Guidelines) on December 30, 2005.  DoD implemented them on September 1, 2006.
Pending official amendment/reissue of DoD Directive 5220.6, the Guidelines are to be used in all
cases when the SOR is dated on or after September 1, 2006.  Because the SOR was issued after
September 1, 2006, DoD policy requires that this case proceed under the revised guidelines. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on January 10, 2007, and requested a decision
without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted a file of relevant material (FORM) in support of
the government’s case, a copy of which was received by Applicant on July 1, 2007.  Applicant was
afforded the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or
mitigation by July 31, 2007.  He filed a response which was received by DOHA on August 2, 2007.
The case was assigned to me on September 10, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the allegations contained in SOR subparagraphs 1.a., 1.b., 1.e., and 1.f.
He denied all other allegations in the SOR.  The admissions are incorporated herein as findings of
fact.  After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due
consideration of same, I make the following additional findings of fact: 
Applicant is a 59-year-old contracts administrator employed by a federal contractor.   He has2
been employed with this company since 1976, and since March 2005, has served as the facility
security officer.   He is married with no children.   He has a bachelor’s degree in building3 4
construction.  He served in the United States Army from September 1969 to June 1972, and attained
the rank of Sergeant (E-5).  He was granted a security clearance in 1988.5
Item 6 (Credit Report, dated November 15, 2006) at 1-4.6
Item 7 (Credit Report, dated June 21, 2006) at 3; Item 7
Response to the FORM, dated July 22, 2007, at 7.8
Item 2 (Answer to SOR, dated January 10, 2007) at 1-9.9
Id. at 9.10
Id. at 1-9.11
Item 3, supra, note 1, at 4.12
Item 2, supra, note 8, at 5.13
Item 9 (Personal Subject Interview, dated July 6, 2005) at 1-3.14
Item 3, supra, note 1, at 4-5.15
4
Applicant had eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $79,567.   In his answer to the6
SOR, he provided evidence that a debt of $26 listed in SOR subparagraph 1.d., and a judgement for
$1,361 listed in subparagraph 1.h. were satisfied.  He did not provide evidence of payments or
payment arrangements with respect to the debts alleged in subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.f.  Subparagraph
1.e. is an amount in excess of $36,000, of which at least $4,000 is delinquent, and he provided  no7
evidence of payments.  Applicant provided evidence of one payment on debts alleged in
subparagraphs 1.b. and 1.g.  As to the debt alleged in subparagraph 1.c., he provided evidence of
three payments on his mortgage, and that foreclosure proceedings were held in abeyance by the
creditor.   He also stated that his wife underwent surgery in late 2003.  There is no evidence to show8
how much work Applicant or his wife missed during her recuperation.   She is now disabled an9
unable to work, although there is no doctor’s.  Applicant does not say whether she has applied for
and is/is not receiving social security disability.  He was interviewed by Defense Security Services
(DSS) in January or February 2005, to review an unfavorable financial credit report.   Most efforts10
at debt reduction occurred in 2007.11
Applicant first submitted his security clearance application on October 7, 2003.  He
subsequently re-signed and re-submitted a security clearance on March 8, 2005.  On both
submissions, he answered “No” to question 37, which asks whether any judgment had been filed
against him in the last seven years.   He omitted the judgment listed in SOR subparagraph 1.h.12
Applicant admitted that a judgment was filed against him in May 2003, but that he only became
aware of it in the second week of October 2003.  He stated that his wife who received the notice of
the judgment but did not tell him about it to “spare me the stress of another creditor demand.”13
Even though he knew about the 1.h. judgment since October 2003, he did not disclose the judgment
in his July 205 security interview, even though he specifically discussed his other financial
difficulties including medical expenses and delinquencies.   He even amended his earlier answers14
to questions 38 and 39 on his March 2005 SF 86 submission, but failed to disclose the 1.h.
judgment.15
POLICIES
“Substantial evidence [is] such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion16
in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.”  ISCR Case No. 04-11463 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2006) (citing
Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1).  “This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two
inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [a Judge’s] finding from being supported by substantial
evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).  “Substantial evidence” is “more than a
scintilla but less than a preponderance.”  See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4  Cir. 1994).th
5
In an evaluation of an applicant’s security suitability, an administrative judge must consider
the “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility For Access to Classified Information”
(Guidelines).  In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative
guidelines are divided into Disqualifying Conditions (DC) and Mitigating Conditions (MC), which
are used to determine an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible ironclad rules of law.  Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed
in the adjudicative process. Guideline ¶ 2.  An administrative judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal
is a fair, impartial and common sense decision.  Because the entire process is a conscientious
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept,” an administrative judge
considers all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, in making a decision. Guideline ¶ 2(c).
Specifically, an administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors
listed at Guideline ¶ 2(a): “(1) the nature, extent, 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 individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5)
extent to which 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.”
Since the protection of the national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case is arrived at by applying the standard that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being
considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”
Guideline ¶ 2(b).  In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable,
logical and based on the evidence contained in the record.  Likewise, I have avoided drawing
inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
In the decision-making process, facts must be established by “substantial evidence.”   The16
Government initially has the burden of producing evidence to establish a case which demonstrates,
in accordance with the Directive, that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
or continue an applicant’s access to classified information.  Once the Government has produced
substantial evidence of a disqualifying condition, the burden shifts to Applicant to present “witnesses
and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by
Department Counsel, and [applicant] has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a
See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).  “The Administrative Judge [considers] the record17
evidence as a whole, both favorable and unfavorable, evaluates Applicant’s past and current circumstances in light of
pertinent provisions of the Directive, and decides whether Applicant has met his burden of persuasion under Directive
¶ E3.1.15.”  ISCR Case No. 04-10340 at 2 (App. Bd. July 6, 2006).
Executive Order 10865, § 7.18
6
favorable clearance decision.”  Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  The burden of disproving a mitigating condition
never shifts to the Government.17
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.  This relationship transcends normal duty
hours and endures throughout off-duty hours.  The Government reposes a high degree of trust and
confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information.  Decisions under this
Directive include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk an applicant may deliberately or
inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information.  Such decisions entail a certain
degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
The scope of an administrative judge’s decision is limited.  Nothing in this Decision should
be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied
determination as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism.18
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline F—Financial Considerations
Guideline ¶ 18 articulates the Government’s concern regarding financial problems.  “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.” 
The government established its case under Guideline ¶ 19.  Two Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) could raise a trustworthiness concern and may be disqualifying
in this case: Guideline ¶ 19(a) “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and Guideline ¶ 19(c) “a
history of not meeting financial obligations.”  Applicant has a history of not meeting debts, as set
forth in the SOR and government exhibits.  
Five Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) under Guidelines ¶ 20(a)-(e)
are potentially applicable: 
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
7
(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;
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which
is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute
or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
Based on my evaluation of the record evidence as a whole, I conclude Guidelines ¶ 20(a) and
(e) do not apply.  The debts continued to be delinquent until recently and  there is no basis to dispute
most of the indebtedness.  However, Guidelines ¶ 20 (b), (c), and (d) are at issue.  Applicant did not
seek financial counseling.  His efforts at debt reduction only became serious in 2007.  He was on
notice in early 2005 that the government had concerns about his financial situation.  He did pay off
the $1,361 judgment (1.h.) and a $26 phone bill (1.d..)  But there is still over $60,000 of debt, and
there is insufficient evidence of payments made to know where Applicant stands in terms of his
overall debt repayment.  His wife had cancer surgery and is disabled, although there is no doctor’s
statement or other documentation to verify the impact on their finances.  I cannot make an
affirmative finding that he has his finances under control.  What is required is documentary proof
of payments - a cancelled check (both sides), a creditor’s statement, a money order, or a doctor’s
statement, etc.  While I do not cast aspersions on Applicant’s truthfulness, his saying so isn’t the best
evidence.  His statements must be supported by documents.  The mitigating condition under
Guideline ¶ 20 (b) is not totally applicable.  There is insufficient proof of serious debt reduction to
conclude that Applicant has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve the debts.  Therefore Guideline ¶ 20 (b), (c), and (d) do not apply.  I conclude Guideline F
against Applicant.
Guideline E—Personal Conduct
Under Guideline ¶ 15, “conduct involving...lack of candor [or] dishonesty...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.”  One personal conduct disqualifying condition is particularly relevant
and may be disqualifying in this case.  
Guideline ¶ 16. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying
include:
(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;
8
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an
employer, investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official government
representative.
Applicant’s furnished incorrect answers to question 37 on his two security clearance
applications in 2003 and 2005.  However, Applicant denied that he intentionally falsified the answers
by not listing this judgment.  Applicant knew he had a judgment against him.  He had an interview
with DSS agents twice, and knew they were concerned about his financial delinquencies.  Yet he did
not disclose the judgment to the government.  The government established its case under Guideline
¶ 16 (a) and (b).
Guideline ¶ 17. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or
falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly
contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising
or instructing the individual specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made
aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and
truthfully;
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or
it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on
the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; or
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the
behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused
untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.
Guideline ¶ 17 (a-c) does not apply.  Applicant did not make a timely or voluntary disclosure
of his judgment.  A false answer on a security clearance application is not a “minor” matter.
Truthfulness is at the heart of the security clearance process.  There is no evidence to support (b) or
(c).  As none of these conditions apply,  I conclude Guideline E against Applicant.
 
Whole Person Analysis
In addition to the enumerated disqualifying and mitigating conditions, I have considered the
general adjudicative guidelines related to the whole person concept under Guideline ¶ 2(a).
Applicant has made little progress resolving his debts.  He is 59 years old, sufficiently mature to be
fully responsible for his obligations.
I considered his age, his education, his employment, and factors that might motivate him to
be less than truthful.  Applicant supplied false answers on a security clearance applications.  This
is problematic because candor with the government about a person’s negatives is the crux of a
trustworthiness determination.  If a person discloses the adverse information about himself, then he
may be trusted with classified information.  Applicant admitted to financial problems spanning from
9
2002 until the present.  He has resolved two of the debts.  The remaining delinquent debts total over
$60,000.  His falsification constitutes very serious misconduct, which is an aggravating factor, given
his duties and experience as a facility security officer.
Applicant’s wife suffered medical problems, which caused a reduction in household income
and an increase in household expenses.  However, he provided no documentation to corroborate his
claims.  Further, the circumstances did not contribute to the falsification issue.  The financial
difficulties are ongoing.  There is no record evidence to suggest that Applicant did not voluntarily
incur these debts and commit the falsification.  His failure to significantly and responsibly address
his delinquent debts for several years is an aggravating factor.  He knew over 2 ½ years ago that the
government was focused on his financial delinquencies.  Yet he waited until the current year to the
attempt to make any debt resolution.  There is no evidence of his motivation which would operate
to mitigate his conduct.
The United States has a duty to protect itself from unauthorized disclosures of sensitive
information and place the utmost trust in those persons to whom it grant access to sensitive
information.  The totality of the record raises reasonable and persistent doubts about Applicant's
ability to protect classified information, and to exercise the requisite good judgment and discretion
expected of one in whom the government entrusts its interests.  I conclude it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant=s security clearance.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required
by E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST 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
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  Clearance is denied.
10
Christopher Graham
Administrative Judge