Required by Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, as amended and1
modified—most recently in August 2006 (Directive).
DATE:  October 31, 2007
In Re:
--------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-19193
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s falsification of her clearance application and financial irresponsibility render her
an unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Applicant challenges the 15 February 2007 Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Statement of Reasons (SOR) recommending denial or revocation of her clearance because of
financial considerations and personal conduct.  Applicant answered the SOR 10 March 2007, and1
2
requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me 12 July 2007, and I convened a hearing 14 August
2007. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 22 August 2007.
PROCEDURAL RULINGS
Applicant arrived nearly an hour late for her hearing because she lacked the necessary mass
transit fare to depart from her home in time to make her scheduled hearing. Although I had already
terminated her case because of her failure to appear, I reopened the case in the interest of judicial
economy.
At hearing, I granted Department Counsel’s motion to amend typographical errors in the SOR
(Tr. 29-31). I also left the record open to allow Applicant to provide any proof of the payments she
claimed to have made during her testimony. Applicant responded in a timely fashion, but the
documents she submitted were unresponsive to the reason the record was left open, being either
irrelevant or duplicative of evidence already in the record. Accordingly, I have not considered her
post-hearing submission (A.E. B).
Applicant testified that she had been terminated from her employment requiring the clearance
in January 2007, but was subject to recall if she obtained her clearance. Consequently, DOHA retains
jurisdiction over this case.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant denied the financial allegations of the SOR, except for ¶¶ 1.l.–1.s., in which she
admitted failure to file her state and federal income tax returns, and her January 2000 bankruptcy
petition. Accordingly, I incorporate her admissions as findings of fact. She denied falsifying her
clearance application. She is a 50-year-old senior help desk analyst for a defense contractor since
July 2004. She has previously held a clearance, but her current status is unclear.
When Applicant submitted her clearance application in October  2004 (G.E. 1), she answered
“no” to question 38 asking if she had been 180 days delinquent on any accounts within the last seven
years. In fact, she had been 180 days delinquent on 10 accounts totaling over $16,000. She had
disclosed her 2000 bankruptcy petition, and averred that all her delinquent debts had been
discharged. Applicant has offered no credible explanation for her failure to disclose her financial
difficulties. She has claimed that she did not know the details of her credit report when she
completed the clearance application. Nevertheless, she had been unemployed for the six months prior
to July 2004 and had to have known she had delinquent accounts, because she was not paying her
creditors and had been receiving collection letters from them.
The SOR alleges 13 delinquent debts totaling nearly $18,000. Each of these debts is
documented in Applicant’s credit reports. Applicant admits three delinquent state tax debts for 2002,
2003, and 2005, totaling over $2,300. She also admits failing to file her federal income tax returns
from 2002-2006, liability as yet undetermined.
The record here is unclear. She reports being unemployed from October 1999 to July 2000, at the same time2
she reports being employed from December 1999 to July 2000.
3
Applicant has a history of financial problems dating back to January 2000. She ascribes her
financial difficulties to several periods of unemployment, her willingness to help extended family
members to her financial detriment, and her own financial irresponsibility. According to her
clearance application, she has been employed in a variety of positions since September 1993. She
was unemployed the last six months of 1996. Between January 1999 and July 2000, she was
unemployed except for four months in the middle of 1999.   In January 2000, she filed for chapter2
13 bankruptcy protection, but she defaulted on plan payments. The chapter 13 petition was converted
to chapter 7 in May 2002, and she was discharged from her dischargeable debts in August 2002. Of
the 11 debts Applicant denied, she claims that some were discharged in her 2002 discharge, some
were paid, some settled, and some covered by insurance. However, she has been unable to
corroborate any of these claims. After her bankruptcy discharge, she continued to experience
financial problems, with new debts arising in 2002. She was employed continuously from at least
July 2000 to January 2004, when she was unemployed for six months before obtaining the job that
requires her clearance. She has since been laid off from that job, but is subject to recall if she obtains
her clearance.
 Applicant’s finances—and her financial records—are in disarray, and are likely to remain
so. Her ongoing financial distress is best exemplified by the fact that she came to the hearing
unprepared to address the debts alleged in the SOR, because she was in “survival mode,” trying to
keep her utilities from being disconnected (Tr. 64-65). In addition, she had to file a second chapter
13 bankruptcy petition in May 2007 to forestall foreclosure on her mortgage, seriously past due (A.E.
A). Her personal financial statements (G.E. 2, 3) show negative monthly cash flow. 
POLICIES AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The Directive, Enclosure 2 lists adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating an
Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative Judges must assess both
disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each adjudicative issue fairly raised by the facts and
circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair and impartial common sense
consideration of the factors listed in Section 6.3. of the Directive. The presence or absence of a
disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or against Applicant. However, specific
adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them, as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified information.
Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative
guidelines are Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant or continue an Applicant’s security clearance. The government must prove, by something
less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it
establishes a prima facie case against access to classified information. Applicant must then refute,
extenuate, or mitigate the government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the
Applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (b) indebtedness caused by frivolous or irresponsible4
spending and the absence of any evidence of willingness or intent to pay the debt or establish a realistic plan to pay the
debt; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;
¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is5
unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and6
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20.(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that7
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.8
4
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship with the
government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a compelling interest in
ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those
who must protect national interests as their own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in
favor of the government.3
CONCLUSIONS
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did
not mitigate the security concerns. Government records reflect nearly $18,000 of delinquent debt
acquired after Applicant’s bankruptcy discharge in August 2002.  While her periods of4
unemployment undoubtedly contributed to her financial difficulties, she has compounded them by
providing financial assistance to extended family members and spending on non-essentials when her
finances are extremely tight.
Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. Her financial
difficulties are both recent and multiple;  indeed they appear to be ongoing. Applicant has5
established that her debts were only partially due to circumstances beyond her control, and she has
not acted responsibly in addressing her debts.  There is no evidence that she has sought credit6
counseling, beyond what is required for her most recent chapter 13 bankruptcy filing, or otherwise
brought the problem under control.  Applicant has taken no verifiable steps to address her debts.  Her7 8
chapter 13 bankruptcy plan primarily addresses her mortgage arrears, and it is not clear that she will
be able to remain current with plan payments or address any of her past and newly acquired debts.
The record contains little to suggest that Applicant would be able to become or remain financially
stable in the future. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline E, and Applicant did
not mitigate the security concerns. She deliberately concealed the nature and extent of her financial
¶16.(a) The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts  from any personnel9
security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, . . . [or] determine
security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . .;
¶17.(a)  The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification10
before being confronted with the facts;
¶17.(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission or concealment was caused or significantly contributed11
to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual
specifically concerning the security clearance process . . . [later] the individual cooperated fully and truthfully.
Department Counsel acknowledged that this allegation duplicated the allegation at SOR 1.f.12
5
problems.  Further, none of the Guideline E mitigating conditions apply. There is no evidence9
demonstrating that she corrected the falsification before being asked about it.  There is no evidence10
to suggest that Applicant receive bad advice about what she was required to disclose on her clearance
application.  I conclude Guideline E against Applicant.11
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT 
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph h: For Applicant12
Subparagraph i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph n: Against Applicant
Subparagraph o: Against Applicant
Subparagraph p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph q: Against Applicant
Subparagraph r: Against Applicant
Subparagraph s: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT 
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
6
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 denied.
 
John G. Metz, Jr.
Administrative Judge