DATE:  October 9, 2007
In re:
-------------------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-22488
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Fahryn Hoffman, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant owes more than $25,000 in delinquent debt incurred in his name or for which he
is contractually liable. While his spouse was handling the family’s finances, and he is presently in
divorce proceedings in part because of the unpaid debt, Applicant failed to ensure that debts he
knowingly incurred were paid on time. Efforts to resolve his financial situation, undertaken in
response to court actions by his creditors, are not enough to overcome the financial considerations
concerns. Personal conduct concerns exist because be falsely denied any financial delinquencies
when he completed his November 2005 security clearance application. Clearance is denied.
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant. As required by ¶ E3.1.2 of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6
(Jan. 2, 1992), as amended, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) on April 3, 2007, detailing
the basis for its decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on December
29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006. The
guidelines were provided to Applicant when the SOR was issued. Applicant answered the
allegations in the SOR on May 8, 2007. By letter dated May 25, 2007, Applicant was directed to
indicate whether or not he wished to have a hearing before a DOHA administrative judge. On June
6, 2007, Applicant declined a hearing.
On June 27, 2007, the government notified Applicant that it was requesting a hearing in his
case. On July 30, 2007, the government moved to amend the SOR to add seven new allegations
under Guideline F (SOR ¶¶ 1.s through 1.y), and to amend Guideline E to incorporate those debts
among those allegedly concealed when he completed his November 2005 security clearance
application (e-QIP). On August 3, 2007, the case was assigned to a DOHA administrative judge to
consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security
clearance for Applicant. The case was transferred to me on August 6, 2007, because of Applicant’s
work location.
On August 7, 2007, Applicant requested a hearing at the earliest date available. I scheduled
a hearing for August 23, 2007, near Applicant's duty station. Also on August 7, 2007, I ordered
Applicant to inform me by August 17, 2007, of good cause to deny the proposed amendments to the
SOR  Applicant was notified that in the absence of a timely objection, the SOR would be amended,
and he would be expected to answer the new allegations, either admit or deny, at his upcoming
hearing. Applicant filed no response by the due date.
The hearing was convened as scheduled on August 23, 2007. Before the introduction of
evidence, the SOR was amended and Applicant filed his answers to the new allegations. The
government submitted five exhibits (Ex. 1-5) and Applicant four exhibits (Ex. A-D) and testimony
was taken from the Applicant, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on September 5, 2007. Based
on the evidence presented, the government withdrew SOR ¶ 1.s.
The record was held open until September 24, 2007, for Applicant to submit documentation
of his divorce proceedings and/or other financial records. Applicant timely forwarded a letter from
his divorce attorney (Ex. E), a statement of payments on the debt in SOR ¶ 1.a (Ex. F), and a letter
showing the balance of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.f (Ex.G). The government had no objections, and the
documents were admitted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Under Guideline F, as amended, Applicant was alleged to owe 25 delinquent debts totaling
about $64,952 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a–1.y).  Under Guideline E, as amended, Applicant is alleged to have
falsified his November 2005 Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) by
denying that he was over 180 days delinquent on any debt and that he was currently over 90 days
On his e-QIP, Applicant indicated he had been living at the same address since 1995. Assuming the home he1
lived in was destroyed by fire in September 2000, then the residency information he provided on his e-QIP is not
accurate.
3
delinquent on any debt. Applicant initially admitted the debts in the SOR with the exception of SOR
¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, and 1.i, and averred he was working on resolving the debts. During the course of the
hearing, it became clear that Applicant had admitted only some of the debts because they appeared
on his credit report (“I mean if that’s what the credit report says, then I believe it to be accurate.”
Tr. 75). He denied any knowledge of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.i, 1.p. 1.q, 1.r, 1.d, 1.u, 1.v, 1.x, and 1.y.
Applicant also denied that the deliberately falsified his e-QIP, averring that he had been unaware
of his financial situation until sometime after he completed his security clearance application.
After a thorough consideration of the pleadings, exhibits, and hearing transcript, I make the
following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 44-year-old engineer who has worked for a defense contractor since December
2005. He came to his present location in March 2007 on loan from another subsidiary of the same
corporation, but in July 2007 transferred to his present employer. Applicant held a confidential-level
clearance when he worked for the “sister company.” His current duties in the engineering/planning
of repair and upgrade of military vessels do not require access to classified information, but he will
need a clearance for access to a classified area as the job progresses.
Applicant worked as a mechanic until his brother, a college professor, convinced him to
pursue his undergraduate degree. In September 1998, he matriculated in a local community college.
He worked as a janitor and tutor part-time. With the demands of schooling and work, his spouse took
over the handling of the family’s finances. His spouse was employed as a receptionist in a medical
office. In September 2000, he began engineering studies at the state university. That same month,
he and his spouse lost everything in a house fire.   They were renting from his brother, and had1
insurance but it covered less than half of their personal property loss. His spouse was too
emotionally distraught to work for about a year. She collected temporary disability payments for part
of the time and then unemployment compensation until those benefits ran out.
From June 2001 until Applicant finished college, he held an internship with a local
consulting firm that dealt in oceanographic matters. His spouse returned to work as a medical
receptionist in about September 2001, but after about a year, she quit and has not been back to work.
Applicant indicates he was unaware that her disability and then unemployment payments had
stopped. (Tr. 94)
Applicant earned his bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering in May 2003, and
began working locally as an application engineer for a foreign-owned company involved in
oceanographic instrumentation. His annual salary was about $47,000. His job took him away from
home at least 50 percent of the time, and as compensation, his employer gave him the money for a
cruise that he took to Mexico in April 2004. In December 2004, Applicant got laid off when the
company closed its U.S. operations. His unemployment compensation was about 65% of his
previous base salary.
In June 2005, Applicant took what he considered to be a temporary position with a company
doing oceanographic measurements. In November 2005, Applicant accepted a job offer from the
4
defense contractor at an annual salary of almost $52,000. Needing a secret clearance for his expected
duties with the defense contractor,  Applicant completed an Electronics Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on November 22, 2005. Applicant responded negatively to
questions 28 a [“In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)?”] and
28 b [“Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?”].
A check of Applicant’s credit on December 14, 2005, revealed several accounts had been
charged off and/or placed for collection since 2003. Some of the accounts had been opened in
Applicant’s name alone or jointly with his spouse (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.d, 1.e, 1.g, 1.h, 1.k, 1.m, 1.n, 1.o,
1.p, 1.t) and others by his spouse with him as an authorized user (SOR ¶¶ 1.f, 1.i, 1.u, 1.w). They
had a mortgage on a house that they owned jointly but did not live in, and that account was current.
A financial history of the delinquent accounts is reflected in the following table.
Debt as alleged in SOR Delinquency date Payment Status
¶ 1.a. $1,852 finance services
debt in collection 
Opened Apr 02, $3,100 credit
limit. $1,852 bal for coll Sep
05, net bal with interests and
costs $2,127.86 Dec 05.
$50 monthly payments
starting Apr 06, balance
$1,481.31 Sep 07.
¶ 1.b. $131 power services
debt in collection
Last activity Oct 06, $131 for
coll Dec 06, unpaid Feb 07.
Assumed spouse had made
the payments, learned she
had closed the account with
funds owed. Unpaid as of
Aug 07.
¶ 1.c. $440 gasoline credit
card debt in collection
Last activity Aug 03, $440
listed for coll May 06, $454
bal Jan 07.
Assumed it had been paid.
Not satisfied as of Aug 07.
¶ 1.d. $231 home heating
debt in collection
Last activity Apr 03, $231 for
coll Jan 04, unpaid as of Apr
04.
Assumed spouse had paid it.
Not satisfied as of Aug 07.
¶ 1.e. $5,971 retail revolving
charge in collection
Opened Jan 86, last activity
Aug 03, $4,338 charged off
Apr 05, $4,735 coll bal as of
Dec 05.
Purchases made by Applicant
and his spouse after house
fire. No payments on  $5,971
bal as of Aug 07. 
¶ 1.f. $3,001 credit card debt
in collection
Opened Jun 94, authorized
user, $4,591 charge off Nov
02, $3,891 bal Feb 07.
Spouse took out card in his
name without his knowledge,
paid $700 ($70 monthly)
starting Nov 06, balance
$3,016.20 as of Aug 07.
¶ 1.g. $458 wireless phone
service debt in collection
Past due $458 as of Mar 04,
unpaid as of Feb 07.
Cell phone in his name used
by spouse, no payments as of
Aug 07.
Debt as alleged in SOR Delinquency date Payment Status
5
¶ 1.h. $8,666 credit card debt
in collection
Opened Dec 01, credit limit
$5,500, $7,654 charged off
April 04; $10,156 bal in coll
Jun 05, $8,666 bal as of Sep
06.
Primary holder but not
primary user, $50 monthly
payments in Jul 07 and Aug
07
¶ 1.i. $2,733 electronics debt
in collection
Last activity Apr 03, $2,473
bal for coll May 05, $2,733
bal Jun 06
Spouse primary, Applicant
contractually liable. No
payments as of Aug 07.
¶ 1.j. $80 telephone debt in
collection
Opened Jun 03, $80 due
since Jan 05
Discontinued landline
service, unaware of debt. No
payments as of Aug 07.
¶ 1.k. $1,551 credit card debt
charged off
Opened Jan 03, high credit
$893, last activity Aug 03,
$1,281 charged off, $1,551
bal 
No payments toward $1,551
bal as of Aug 07.
¶ 1.l. $3,891 credit card debt
charged off
Same debt as ¶ 1.f See ¶ 1.f
¶ 1.m. $439 gasoline credit
card debt charged off
Opened Jul 99, transferred
Jun 06 
Acknowledged as his card.
Original bal less than $300.
No payments as not sure of
current assignee.
¶ 1.n. $480 retail credit card
debt charged off
Opened Apr 02, $480
charged off and sold Mar 04 
Home improvement debt. No
payments as of Aug 07.
¶ 1.o. $2,832 credit card debt
charged off
Opened Apr 98, $2,934
charged off Oct 03,
transferred
Authorized user, judgment
sought for $2,688.27;
Payments at $50 monthly
from Jul 06, $650 paid as of
Aug 07.
¶ 1.p. $1,546 credit card debt
charged off
Opened jointly with spouse
Feb 98, $1,546 charged off
Nov 03,  $1,607 bal Dec 03
charged off, $1,546 listed bal
Oct 04
Bal $1,546 reported as
unpaid on Mar 07 credit
report, no effort to repay as
of Aug 07.
¶ 1.q. $169 debt charged off
by bank
Amount of term payment on
debt in ¶1.y and ¶ 1.u
¶ 1.r. $172 debt charged off
by bank
Amount of term payment on
debt in ¶ 1.h
¶ 1.s. $1,644 collection debt
(withdrawn)
Same debt as ¶ 1.a See ¶ 1.a
Debt as alleged in SOR Delinquency date Payment Status
6
¶ 1.t. $506 retail credit card
debt 
Opened Apr 99, $65 past due
on $506 bal Apr 04, account
closed by grantor 
Acknowledged bal $506
reported as unpaid on Mar 07
credit report, unpaid as of
Aug 07.
¶ 1.u. $8,680 debt in
collection
Opened Jun 98 as authorized
user, $2,601 past due Jun 04,
bal $8,060 charged off Dec
02
Disputes; spouse’s primary
responsibility.
¶ 1.v. $2,934 debt in
collection
Same debt as ¶ 1.o See ¶ 1.o
¶ 1.w. $1,366 debt in
collection
Opened Nov 00, authorized
user, last activity Jun 03,
$1,366 charged off
Acknowledged bal $1,366
unpaid as of Aug 07.
¶ 1.x. $7,654 debt in
collection
Same debt as ¶ 1.h See ¶ 1.h
¶ 1.y. $7,525 debt in
collection
Same debt as ¶ 1.u See ¶ 1.u
On December 20, 2005, the creditor owed the debt in SOR ¶ 1.a placed a $2,127.86 balance
for collection. (Ex. F). In March 2006, the assignee filed for a judgment in small claims court.
Applicant paid $50 per month ($850 total) toward the debt beginning April 20, 2006. 
From March to May 2006, he was on an extended work assignment at a shipyard located
more than 3,000 miles from his home. In May 2006, Applicant was interviewed by a government
investigator about his finances. He provided a personal financial statement estimating a net monthly
remainder of $260 after payment of living expenses, $435 in a mortgage loan, and $150 to lawyers
towards debts in collection. He now claims he was unaware of the delinquencies until his May 2006
interview, and that the $150 in claimed payments did not represent actual payments but rather
anticipated payments based on what he could afford.
In or before June 2006, the assignee collecting the debt in SOR ¶ 1.o sought a legal judgment
in the amount of $2,688.27 ($2,583.27 plus costs, see Ex. 2 , Ex. D). Applicant offered to repay the
debt at $50 per month before the formal judgment was entered, and his offer was accepted by the
collection agency. As of August 2007, Applicant had paid $650 towards the debt (Tr. 161).
On July 31, 2006, an arbitrator ordered Applicant to pay $8,666.22 on the debt in SOR ¶ 1.h.
On October 10, 2006, the assignee collecting the debt filed for an order and judgment confirming
the arbitration award plus costs. By letter dated November 22, 2006, Applicant offered to pay $50
per month toward the debt, representing that it was all that his finances would allow (Ex. 2).
Applicant made his first payment on the debt on July 10, 2007. He made a second payment
approximately one month later.
DOHA is not likely to have inquired about specific contacts with a debt resolution firm unless Applicant told2
the government about it. Yet there is nothing in the record to confirm that Applicant had claimed to be working through
a debt resolution company. The discrepancy was not resolved at the hearing.
Applicant initially testified he asked for a divorce in October 2006 (Tr. 63), and his spouse filed for divorce3
in March 2007(Tr. 57). He later testified he asked for the divorce in September 2006, and she filed in February 2007 (Tr.
95).
7
The assignee collecting the debt in SOR ¶ 1.f filed a small claims action to recover a
$3,211.23 balance. On October 31, 2006, Applicant offered to repay the debt at $70 monthly,
starting November 20, 2006. As of August 27, 2007, Applicant had paid $700 towards the debt
bringing the balance with interest to $3,016.20  (Ex. 2, Ex. G).
By September 2006, Applicant and his spouse were having marital problems, in part due to
her handling of their financial affairs, including that she had kept delinquency information from him.
While he was out of state on temporary duty, he told her he wanted a divorce. He continued to give
her $500 per week to cover their expenses, including rent, and for the mortgage on the home they
own.
In late November or early December 2006, DOHA forwarded financial interrogatories to
Applicant, requesting proof that he was working with a debt solutions firm allegedly named by him
during his May 2006 interview. DOHA also asked Applicant what he was doing to satisfy the debts
in SOR ¶¶ 1.u, 1.o, 1.e, 1.f, 1.p., 1.w, 1.k, 1.t, 1.m, 1.h, 1.i, 1.g, 1.d, and why he had not listed those
debts on his security clearance application. On December 14, 2006, Applicant responded he was
unfamiliar with the debt resolution firm that DOHA claimed he had said he was working with.2
Instead, he indicated he was dealing with the creditors individually, and he provided correspondence
confirming efforts to resolve the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.f, 1.h, and 1.o. Applicant attributed his
financial difficulties to the house fire in September 2000 when he was a full-time student, his
spouse’s subsequent inability to work, their use of credit to cover living costs, and his spouse’s
disability status. Applicant indicated that he was “working slowly and diligently to pay off the
financial obligations that [he has] while making sure [he did] not put [himself] in the same situation
again.” Concerning his failure to disclose his debts on the e-QIP, Applicant indicated without
explanation that  he misunderstood the questions and he was not trying to deny his responsibility.
In February or March 2007, Applicant’s spouse filed for divorce, although she and Applicant
had agreed previously to share the same attorney.  She obtained a court order that required him to3
pay alimony of $500 every two weeks, but in April 2007 it was reduced to $400 per week. About
$445 of those funds is to cover the monthly mortgage payment on the home they own.
A check of Applicant’s credit on March 6, 2007, showed progress in satisfying the debt in
SOR ¶ 1.a, but it also showed a recent utility company debt placed for collection in December 2006
in the amount of $131. Applicant was out of state at the time working and his spouse had run up the
bill, and disconnected the service only to open a new account in her name. The credit bureau
reported delinquent debt totaling $38,388.
Applicant testified he is going to assume $25,000 of the marital debt (Tr. 60). His attorney’s letter does not4
indicate any dollar limit as to the amount of the debt Applicant will assume (see Ex. E).
8
In March 2007, Applicant’s services were loaned out to his present employer. He was paid
about 10 percent more while on this temporary assignment through June 2007. On his transfer to his
current employer in July 2007, Applicant’s base annual salary increased almost 25 percent, to
$66,000 annually. He supplements his income with a catering business on the side,  from which he
earns about $500 per month. As of August 2007, he was on a housing relocation package so had no
rental obligation, but he had signed a lease to rent a residence at $600 per month effective mid-
September 2007. He estimates he will have about $400 left over each month after payment of
expenses and the $220 towards his old debts. For the last three to four seasons of winter hockey,
Applicant has held season tickets to attend American Hockey League games.
Applicant had a court hearing for his divorce scheduled for September 19, 2007, after which
he hoped to provide information regarding the distribution of assets and liabilities in the divorce.
On September 19, 2007, the matter was continued to November 1, 2007. Applicant has proposed that
he and his spouse split the marital debts and equity in the home equally, and that he pay alimony for
about four years until his spouse qualifies for social security benefits. Applicant estimates his share
of the equity in the home to be about $30,000 minus any realtor commission from the sale. In the
alternative, Applicant proposes that he assume responsibility for the debts that are in his name
individually, or jointly with his spouse, in return for paying no alimony and waiver of his interest
in the home.4
Applicant has not incurred any new credit card debt since 2004. In July 2007, his brother
purchased a 2007-model year pickup truck for him. Applicant is repaying his brother $510 per
month for the vehicle.
Applicant conducted himself in a very professional manner in his work for a defense
contractor since December 2005, including while on temporary duty in 2006 into 2007. A diligent
and motivated employee, he demonstrated a high degree of accountability and ethical behavior on
the job. He is held in high regard by those who have had the opportunity to work with him or
observe his work.
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has “the authority to . . . control access to
information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently
trustworthy to occupy a position . . . that will give that person access to such information.” Id. at
527. The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility
for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb.
20, 1960). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App.
Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).
Some of the debts were likely alleged twice, under the names of the original creditor and the subsequent5
assignee (SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.l, ¶¶ 1.a and 1.s, ¶¶ 1.o. and 1.v, ¶¶ 1.h and 1.x, ¶¶ 1.y and 1.u). Of the debts that the
government added in the amendment, the evidence was sufficient to prove the additional delinquency in SOR ¶¶ 1.t and
1.w only.
9
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and
mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline. In evaluating the security worthiness of an
applicant, the administrative judge must also assess the adjudicative process factors listed in ¶ 6.3
of the Directive. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a
determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. It is merely an indication
the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have
established for issuing a clearance. 
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline F—Financial Considerations
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. (AG ¶ 18) 
Finances were tight after Applicant started college in 1998. Applicant or his spouse in his
name opened several credit card accounts over the next three years to pay for living expenses, and
to reestablish themselves after a house fire in 2000.  Several accounts were charged off in the
2003/04 time frame due to nonpayment. Of the $64,952 in delinquent debt alleged in the SOR,
Applicant has delinquent debt on his record totaling about  $32,363.50,  not including an additional5
$8,680  owed on an account opened by his spouse on which he was listed as an authorized user.
While it is not clear that he incurred the charges, the debt is reported on his March 2007 credit
record as a past due balance. While some of the debts were apparently incurred by his spouse
without his knowledge (SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.d, 1.f, 1.g, 1.i, 1.k, 1.p, 1.u), other accounts were actively used
by him or known to him (most notably SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.e, 1.h, 1.j, 1.m, 1.n, 1.o, 1.t, 1.w). Applicant
knew that after their house fire, they had incurred significant credit card debt for living expenses and
refurnishing their home. Disqualifying conditions (DC) ¶ 19(a), inability or unwillingness to satisfy
debts, and ¶ 19(c), a history of not meeting financial obligations, apply.
The house fire is an extenuating factor that explains the reliance on credit in 2000/01 (see
¶ 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), the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances), although
concerns are raised by the extent to which they took on new debt when she was out of work and he
was a full-time student. For ¶ 20(b) to apply in his favor, Applicant must have acted reasonably to
address his indebtedness once he was in a position to do so. On earning his bachelor’s degree, he
took a job paying $47,000 per year. Given the significant travel involved with that job, he left the
family’s finances to his spouse, and he contends she failed to apprise him of their financial situation
(“I trusted her.” Tr. 97). Yet on occasion he handled some of the debts (“I did on occasion write
10
some [checks] or, you know, go online and make a payment.” Tr. 101) Failure to adequately monitor
repayment of known financial obligations is itself financially irresponsible behavior.
Since he began working for a defense contractor in December 2005, Applicant has paid  $850
on SOR ¶ 1.a, $700 on SOR ¶ 1.f, $100 on SOR ¶ 1.h, and $650 on SOR ¶ 1.o. While these
payments weigh in his favor, they were not initiated by him, but were in response to creditor
assignee action to recoup payment, including through court proceedings. Applicant made his first
payment on the debt in ¶ 1.a after the creditor had initiated action in small claims court. In June
2006, Applicant stipulated to a court judgment being entered against him and for him to repay the
debt in ¶ 1.o at $50 monthly. Applicant knew that an arbitrator had found against him in the amount
of $8,666.22 on July 31, 2006, but he made no payments on the debt in ¶ 1.h until the creditor went
to court in October 2006 seeking an order to enforce the arbitration award.  He offered to pay $50
per month in November 2006, but the first payment was not made on the debt in ¶ 1.h until July
2007.  Similarly, the creditor assignee collecting the debt in ¶ 1.f had to file in court before
Applicant started paying on it. These recent payments, although made on agreed upon terms, are not
enough to apply MC ¶ 20(d), the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts, especially considering his lack of any effort to contact his other creditors.
Following his interview of May 2006 with a government investigator, Applicant was clearly aware
of the seriousness of his financial situation, and he made no effort to contact the creditors who had
not resorted to legal action. When asked about his failure to address the $80 debt owed the telephone
company, he explained he wanted to make sure that his financial situation will allow him to make
the payments on the debts he has worked out with attorneys (“I’ve been trying to make sure that my
finances will allow me to pay the debts that I’ve worked out with these other attorneys without
putting me in any other financial situations so I don’t go deeper.” Tr. 98) At the same time, he
apparently found the money to afford season tickets for minor league professional hockey games
for the past three or four years (see Ex. A).
Although the Directive does not require that Applicant be debt free, the risk of undue
financial pressure persists where the delinquent debt in his name and/or for which he is contractually
liable amounts to as much as half of his annual salary. As of September 2007, there had been no
final order either requiring his spouse to sell their home, which would give him the equity to devote
to the debt, or making his spouse responsible for a significant amount of the delinquent debt listed
on his credit record. It is premature at this juncture to conclude that his financial problems are safely
in the past. Even though he has not personally incurred any new credit card debt in the last couple
years, he is paying his brother $510 monthly for a new truck that his brother bought for him because
of his poor credit rating.
Guideline E—Personal Conduct
 Conduct involving questionable judgment, 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. (AG ¶ 15) 
On his November 22, 2005 e-QIP, Applicant responded negatively to questions 28.a [“In the
last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)?”] and 28.b [“Are you currently
over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?”].  His December 2005 credit report disclosed more than
11
$25,000 in bad debt on his record, most of it charged off and/or placed for collection in 2003/04.
Applicant has consistently denied the intentional concealment of his delinquent debt. In his
December 2006 response to interrogatories, Applicant indicated he misunderstood the questions and
was not trying to avoid his responsibility. He provided a different explanation when he answered
the SOR, indicating for the first time that he had been unaware of his financial situation when he
completed his clearance application. A good faith misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge of his
financial situation would negate the willful intent required under DC ¶ 16(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. Several character references consider Applicant to be honest and
a person of integrity. But the inconsistencies in his explanations, when coupled with the extent of
his debt, make it especially difficult to accept his denial of intentional concealment.
Considering only those revolving charge accounts opened in his name and/or knowingly used
by him, $7,654 had been charged off in April 2004 on ¶ 1.h, $4,338 had been charged off in April
2005 on ¶ 1.e, $2,934 had been charged off in October 2003 on ¶ 1.o, $1,851 had been charged off
on ¶ 1.a in January 2004, $1,281 had been charged off in May 2004 on ¶ 1.k, a $506 balance was
180 days past due as of April 2004 on ¶ 1.t, $480 had been charged off in March 2004 on ¶ 1.n, and
$439 had been charged off in September 2003 on ¶ 1.m. Applicant admitted at his hearing that he
knew some of the accounts might have been late (“I knew some of them night have been late but I
didn’t know anything was past 90 days and that type of situation, no.” Tr. 103).  Had he acted in
good faith, it stands to reason that he would have at least checked on the status of his financial
accounts. At a minimum, he had an obligation to determine the status of those debts that he thought
might be late before he answered the e-QIP. An inference of intentional falsification may reasonably
be drawn in this case. The personal conduct concerns are not mitigated when Applicant has yet to
provide a consistent, credible explanation for his clearly false answers to the financial delinquency
questions on his e-QIP. None of the mitigating conditions apply.
Whole Person Analysis
The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. (AG ¶ 2(a))
Although  extenuating circumstances (house fire, spouse’s unemployment) explain Applicant’s
overuse of credit, he did not ensure that debts were paid once he began working. Efforts to address
his delinquent debt were prompted by the creditors taking court action and not initiated by him, and
he has not done enough on his own to resolve the financial considerations concerns (see 2(a)(6), the
presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes)). Applicant has
shown himself to be a very dedicated, reliable coworker for the defense contractor, but those with
a clearance must also be counted on to be fully candid at all times, even if it comes at personal cost.
Concerns persist as to whether Applicant’s representations can be relied on, given his failure to
provide a consistent, credible explanation for the clearly false denials of any delinquent debt on his
e-QIP.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Favorable findings are returned as to SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.f (1.l same debt), 1.h (1.x same debt), and 1.o (1.v same6
debt), because of his payments, even though the past due balances were proven. 
Applicant has not shown that he is not legally responsible for the debt (¶ 1.y same debt) if his spouse does not7
pay.
12
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant6
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: Withdrawn
Subparagraph 1.t: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u: Against Applicant7
Subparagraph 1.v: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.x: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.y: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: 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.
Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Administrative Judge