DATE:  October 31, 2007
In re:
---------------------
SSN: -------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18105
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MICHAEL H. LEONARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Stephanie C. Hess, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has a history of unresolved financial problems, which is ongoing. He has done little
to demonstrate that he will resolve the financial problems in a satisfactory manner. In addition, he
made multiple false statements about his background on a security-clearance application. Clearance
is denied. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2,1
1992, as amended (Directive).
 See Memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, dated August 30, 2006, Subject:2
Implementation of Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (December
29, 2005). 
2
This is a security clearance case. Applicant contests the Defense Department’s intent to deny
or revoke his eligibility for a security clearance. Acting under the relevant Executive Order and DoD
Directive,  the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a statement of reasons1
(SOR) to Applicant on May 7, 2007. The SOR is equivalent to an administrative complaint and it
details the factual basis for the action. The issues in this case fall under Guideline F for financial
considerations based on delinquent debts and Guideline E for personal conduct based on falsification
of a security-clearance application.   
In addition to the Directive, this case is brought under the revised Adjudicative Guidelines
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (Revised Guidelines) approved by
the President on December 29, 2005. The Revised Guidelines were then modified by the Defense
Department, effective September 1, 2006. They supersede or replace the guidelines published in
Enclosure 2 to the Directive. They apply to all adjudications and other determinations where an SOR
has been issued on September 1, 2006, or thereafter.  The Directive is pending revision or2
amendment. The Revised Guidelines apply here because the SOR is dated after the effective date.
On June 25, 2007, and then again on July 21, 2007, Applicant replied to the SOR and
requested a hearing. The hearing took place as scheduled on October 16, 2007, and the transcript was
received on October 24, 2007.     
FINDINGS OF FACT
Under Guideline F, the SOR alleges 14 delinquent debts for about $13,769 in total. Based
on his July response to the SOR, Applicant admits indebtedness of about $8,245 and denies the
balance. Under Guideline E, the SOR alleges Applicant made false statements when providing
answers to four questions on his security-clearance application. His position on these allegations will
be discussed below. In addition, the following facts are established.
Applicant is a 35-year-old assistant steward who has worked for a shipping company since
November 2004. This is an entry-level position, and his goal is to make a career out of it by working
his way up the ladder in the steward department. He married in 2002, and he and his wife had a son
in 2004. His wife is 23 years old and she is not employed outside the home. 
This is the first time Applicant has applied for a security clearance, and he completed a
security-clearance application in December 2004 (Exhibit 1). When signing his application, he
certified that his statements were true, complete, and correct to the best on his knowledge and belief
and were made in good faith, and he acknowledged that a knowing and willful false statement could
be punished under federal law. Applicant submitted a “clean” application; in other words, he did not
3
disclose any background information that was negative or derogatory. In particular, he answered the
following questions in the negative:
• Question 24–asking if he had ever been charged with or convicted of any drug- or alcohol-
related offenses.
• Question 27–asking if he had, in the last seven years, illegally used any controlled substance,
to include marijuana.
• Question 38–asking if in the last seven years he had been over 180-days delinquent on any
debts.
• Question 39–asking if he was currently over 90-days delinquent on any debts.
The background investigation of Applicant revealed the following: (1) a 1999 arrest for
possession of marijuana resulting in Applicant pleading no contest (Exhibit 8); (2) a history of
marijuana use by Applicant from at least 1997 to about June 2001; and (3) credit reports containing
numerous and longstanding delinquent debts (Exhibits 5, 6, and 7). He did not disclose any of this
information on his security-clearance application as required by the scope of Questions 24, 27, 38,
and 39. 
Applicant has a history of unresolved financial problems as established by credit reports from
2005, 2006, and 2007 (Exhibits 5, 6, and 7). The credit reports form the basis for the debts in the
SOR. He denied 4 of the 14 debts. In particular, he denied the indebtedness in SOR ¶ 1.e, because
of a dispute over merchandise he purchased. He denied the indebtedness in SOR ¶ 1.h,  because he
was not familiar with the creditor. He denied the medical debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.k and 1.l, because he
had no idea about the medical bills. And he denied, in part, the indebtedness in SOR ¶ 1.n, because
he disputes the amount the creditor is seeking to collect on a judgment based on a delinquent credit
card account. Applicant did not provide any documentary information to support his denials. 
Concerning the debts he admits, Applicant has been unable to repay or otherwise resolve the
indebtedness. In his testimony, he stressed that he needs to be able to work to pay his debts and his
current position provides him a better opportunity to do so. He met with a consumer credit
counseling organization in 2005 or 2006, but was unable to undertake a repayment plan due to lack
of money. The soonest Applicant believes he will be able to begin to repay these debts is in March
2008, when he completes repaying a motorcycle loan (his transportation) and a family loan.
Applicant did not provide any documentary information about these debts or about his overall
financial situation. 
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND POLICIES
 Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“it should be obvious that no one has a ‘right’ to a3
security clearance”); Duane v. Department of Defense, 275 F.3d 988, 994 (10  Cir. 2002) (“It is likewise plain that thereth
is no ‘right’ to a security clearance, so that full-scale due process standards do not apply to cases such as Duane’s.”).
 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.4
 Directive, ¶ 3.2. 5
 Directive, ¶ 3.2. 6
 ISCR Case No. 02-18663 (App. Bd. Mar. 23, 2004).7
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14.8
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.9
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.10
 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 11
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002) (citations omitted).12
4
No one has a right to a security clearance.  As noted by the Supreme Court in Department3
of Navy v. Egan, “the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations
should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  A favorable decision establishes eligibility of an4
applicant to be granted a security clearance for access to confidential, secret, or top-secret
information.  An unfavorable decision: (1) denies any application; (2)  revokes any existing security5
clearance; and (3) prevents access to classified information at any level and retention of any existing
security clearance.  Under Egan, Executive Order 10865, and the Directive, any doubt about whether6
an applicant should be allowed access to classified information will be resolved in favor of
protecting national security.
There is no presumption in favor of granting, renewing, or continuing eligibility for access
to classified information.  The government has the burden of presenting evidence to establish facts7
alleged in the SOR that have been controverted.  An applicant is responsible for presenting evidence8
to refute, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts that have been admitted or proven.  In addition, an9
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision.  In Egan,10
the Supreme Court said that the burden of proof is less than the preponderance of the evidence.  The11
agency appellate authority has followed the Court’s reasoning, and a judge’s findings of fact are
reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard.12
The Revised Guidelines set forth adjudicative guidelines to consider when evaluating a
person’s security clearance eligibility, including disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating
conditions (MC) for each guideline. In addition, each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial
commonsense decision based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information, the
pertinent criteria and adjudication factors, and the whole-person concept. A person granted access
to classified information enters into a special relationship with the government. The government
must be able to have a high degree of trust and confidence in those persons to whom it grants access
to classified information. The decision to deny a person a security clearance is not a determination
 Executive Order 10865, § 7.13
 Revised Guidelines at 10–12 (setting forth the disqualifying and mitigating conditions).  14
 Revised Guidelines at 10.15
 DC 1 is “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security16
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.”
5
of an applicant’s loyalty.  Instead, it is a determination that the applicant has not met the strict13
guidelines the President has established for granting eligibility for a security clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Personal Conduct Security Concern
Personal conduct under Guideline E  includes issues of false statements and credible adverse14
information that may not be enough to support action under any other guideline. In particular, a
security concern may arise due to “[c]onduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations [that may] 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.”15
The SOR alleges that Applicant made false statements when providing answers to four
questions on his security-clearance application. In general, Applicant contends his statements were
not deliberately false. For Question 24 about arrests, he thought the question had a five-year scope.
For Question 27 about drug use, he considered it “a mandatory no” question if he wanted to get and
keep the job, and he knew that his answer was false (R. 52, 63–65). For Questions 38 and 39 about
delinquent debts, he knew he had debts, but did not think they were delinquent. The issue is whether
Applicant’s answers to these four questions were deliberately false. Given the record evidence, the
multiple allegations will be treated collectively instead of analyzing each falsification allegation
individually. 
The doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything)
should be considered in assessing Applicant’s credibility. In his hearing testimony, Applicant
essentially admitted that his answer to Question 27 was deliberately false when he described it as “a
mandatory no” question (R. 52, 63–65). In addition, he seemed to concede some untruthfulness in
his closing argument (R. 79). Taken together, these circumstances show his denial to Question 27
was deliberately false. Because his answer to Question 27 is so obviously false, his attempts to refute
and rebut the other three falsification allegations are not persuasive. In short, Applicant’s testimony
on these points has no credibility. On this basis, the record evidence is sufficient to prove Applicant
made deliberately false statements as alleged in the SOR. Accordingly, the record evidence is
sufficient to conclude that DC 1  applies against Applicant. 16
 Revised Guidelines at 13–14 (setting forth the disqualifying and mitigating conditions). 17
 Revised Guidelines at 13. 18
 DC 1 is “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.” 19
 DC 3 is “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” 20
6
All of the mitigating conditions under Guideline E have been considered and none apply in
Applicant’s favor. His deliberately false answers and explanations militate against credit in
extenuation or mitigation.
2. The Financial Considerations Security Concern
Under Guideline F for financial considerations,  a security concern typically exists due to17
significant unpaid debts. “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.”  Similarly, an individual who is18
financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly
handling and safeguarding classified information.   
The record evidence supports a conclusion that Applicant has a history of financial problems.
In this regard, his denials of four debt allegations are not accepted as valid explanations given that
he did not provide corroborating evidence (documentary information) to support his denials. His
history of financial problems is a security concern because it indicates inability to satisfy debts  and19
a history of not meeting financial obligations  within the meaning of Guideline F. The record20
evidence is more than sufficient to establish these two disqualifying conditions.
All of the mitigating conditions under Guideline F have been considered and none apply in
his favor. His financial problems are longstanding and cannot be traced solely to an unexpected event
or circumstance beyond his control. In addition, he presented little in the way of favorable
information (including no documentary information), and his good intentions and future plans are
not sufficient evidence to overcome the security concern raised by the government’s evidence.
Indeed, what is missing here is: (1) a realistic approach for resolving his delinquent debts; (2)
documented actions taken in furtherance of that approach; and (3) a measurable improvement to his
situation. At this point, it is likely that his history of financial problems will continue. 
To conclude, Applicant did not present sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate
the security concerns. Applicant did not meet his ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable
clearance decision. In reaching this conclusion, the whole-person concept was given due
consideration and that analysis does not support a favorable decision for Applicant. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
SOR ¶ 1–Guideline F: Against Applicant
7
Subparagraphs a–n: Against Applicant
SOR ¶ 2–Guideline E: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs a–d: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
or continue eligibility for security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.  
Michael H. Leonard
Administrative Judge