DATE:  October 15, 2007
In re:
--------------------
SSN:  --------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-25064
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PHILIP S. HOWE
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Caroline Jeffreys, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is 37 years old, and works for a defense contractor.  He has multiple delinquent
debts which he has not paid or resolved.  He deliberately failed to disclose the delinquent debts on
his security clearance application.  Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations and
personal conduct security concerns.  Clearance is denied.
Pursuant to Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended1
and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program  (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended and modified (Directive).
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant.  On March 30, 2007, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons  (SOR)1
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.  Applicant answered the SOR in writing on May 7, 2007, and elected to have a hearing
before an administrative judge.  The case was assigned to me on June 21, 2007.  On July 26, 2007,
I convened a hearing to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  The Government and the Applicant submitted
exhibits that were admitted into evidence.  Applicant was given additional time to submit other
exhibits, but failed to do so.  DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on August 8, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant's admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated here as findings of fact.  He
admitted all allegations except Subparagraphs 1.u, 1.x, 1.ff, and 1.pp.  After a complete and thorough
review of the evidence in the record, and full consideration of that evidence, I make the following
additional findings of fact:
Applicant is 37 years old, unmarried, and works for a defense contractor as a production
control dispatcher.  He earns about $2,400 monthly.  He lives with his mother and aunt, and shares
the rent on their apartment.  He gives his mother $100 to $200 monthly.  He has no credit cards
except for the business credit card used for business purposes.  He drives a 2006 car purchased new,
which is titled in his mother’s name because of his poor credit history.  The cost, with all finance
charges included, is about $20,000.  He pays $500 monthly on the car.  He has about $300 to $400
each month available to repay debts. (Tr. 13-21, 64, 76)
Applicant has 42 delinquent debts totaling $58,076.  Of these debts, 12 debts are under $100
and total $881.  These debts, in addition to another 24 delinquent debts alleged in the SOR which
are under $1,000, total $11,959.  The remaining 6 delinquent debts total about $46,000.  Applicant
has not paid or arranged installment payments on any of this delinquent debt.  He pays his current
bills, and admits he does not care about paying his delinquent debts, and “just has not done anything”
about contacting the creditors to make payments.  He is waiting for them to contact him.  He moved
three or four times while incurring these debts.  His interview with a Government investigator was
in June 2006, and he learned then of the magnitude of his delinquent debts.  After that interview he
took no action to pay these debts.  Applicant is paying $50 monthly to the Internal Revenue Service
on a tax debt by garnishment, which he should complete by the end of 2008.  Applicant was on
disability for four months in 2004, after being injured on his job.  Later, he was disabled from
August 2005 to December 2005. (Tr. 19, 23-67, 72-75, 85; Exhibits 2-4)
3
The following debts of Applicant are alleged in the SOR and remain unpaid or otherwise
unresolved.
1.a. $804 electric bill Unpaid, Tr. 23-25; Exhibits 2-4
1.b. $100 medical bill from accident Unpaid, Tr. 25, 26; Exhibits 2-4
1.c. $650 television service Unpaid, Tr. 27, 28; Exhibits 2-4
1.d. $534 cell phone service Unpaid, Tr. 28-31; Exhibits 2-4
1.e. $7,306 car purchase debt Co-signer for cousin, unpaid, Tr. 31-33;
Exhibits 2-4
1.f. $320 for check not paid Unpaid, Tr. 33, 34; Exhibits 2-4
1.g. $3,980 for auto purchase, car returned Unpaid, Tr. 34-37; Exhibits 2-4
1.h. $241 for check loan Unpaid, Tr. 37-39; Exhibits 2-4
1.i. $612, Applicant uncertain of debt Unpaid, Tr. 39-41; Exhibits 2-4
1.j. $205 for cell phone service Unpaid, Tr. 41; Exhibits 2-4
1.k. $230 for rented video tapes Unpaid, Tr. 41-43; Exhibits 2-4
1.l. $514 for cell phone service Unpaid, Tr. 43, 44; Exhibits 2-4
1.m. $285 for a medical debt Unpaid, Tr. 44, 45; Exhibits 2-4
1.n. $805 for a medical debt Unpaid, Tr. 46, 47; Exhibits 2-4
1.o. $602 for a cable television bill Unpaid, Tr. 47, 48; Exhibits 2-4
1.p. $627 for telephone bill Unpaid, Tr. 48, 49; Exhibits 2-4
1.q. $75 for magazine subscriptions Unpaid, Tr. 49, 50; Exhibits 2-4
1.r. $150 judgment from 2004 Unpaid, Tr. 50, 51; Exhibits 2-4
1.s. $51 for medical debt Unpaid, Tr. 51, 52; Exhibits 2-4
1.t. $146 for telephone bill which Applicant
claims is the same as 1.p.
Unpaid, Tr. 52, 53; Exhibits 2-4
1.u. $499 for 2004 judgment on apartment
rent
Unpaid, Tr. 53-56; Exhibits 2-4
1.v. $391 for telephone bill Unpaid, Tr. 56, 57; Exhibits 2-4
1.w. $15 for a medical bill Unpaid, Tr. 57; Exhibits 2-4
1.x. $1,600 for a 2003 judgment for
apartment rent which Applicant claims is he
same as 1.u.
Unpaid, Tr. 53-56; Exhibits 2-4
4
1.y. $322 for 2003 collection account Unpaid, Tr. 57; Exhibits 2-4
1.z. $425 for 2003 telephone debt which
Applicant claims is the same as 1.v.
Unpaid, Tr. 58; Exhibits 2-4
1.aa-1.ee, and 1.hh-1.jj $640 total, for checks
written on joint account with former
girlfriend containing insufficient funds
Unpaid, Tr. 58-62; Exhibits 2-4
1. ff. $685 for a debt about which Applicant is
uncertain
Unpaid, Tr. 60, 61; Exhibits 2-4
1.gg. $343 for 2003 electric bill Unpaid, Tr. 60, 61; Exhibits 2-4
1.kk. $153 for a medical debt from 2001 Unpaid, Tr. 62; Exhibits 2-4
1.ll. $19,411 for the debt on a repossessed
automobile
Unpaid, Tr. 63, 64; Exhibits 2-4
1.mm. $12,649 for the same repossessed
automobile
Unpaid, Tr. 63, 64; Exhibits 2-4
1.nn. $1,171 for a 2000 judgment Applicant
claims was repaid by garnishment, but has no
documents to prove his claim
Unpaid, Tr. 64-66; Exhibits 2-4
1.oo. $777 for a cellular telephone bill from
February 2000
Unpaid, Tr. 66, 67; Exhibits 2-4
1.pp. $758 for a debt about which Applicant
is uncertain, but he has not taken any action to
dispute or verify
Unpaid, Tr. 67; Exhibits 2-4
Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA) on February 13, 2006. He
deliberately failed to disclose in four blocks of questions the information concerning his personal
finances and credit history as requested on the SCA.  Applicant did not disclose any repossessions
in the past seven years in answer to Question 27B, omitting the automobile repossessions on his
credit record.  Next, he failed to disclose the four judgments against him in answer to Question 27D
listed in the SOR.  Then, Applicant failed to disclose his financial delinquencies older than 180 days
in the past seven years in answer to Question 28A.  These delinquencies are listed in the SOR.
Finally, Applicant failed to list any current debts over 90 days delinquent as requested in Question
28B, as listed in the SOR.  Applicant has prior military service and had a secret clearance on active
duty.  He completed similar forms in the past and knew what information was required.  He claims
he submitted the SCA before he had an accurate list of debts, and relied on someone who told him
to tell the Government investigator what his debts were but not list them on the SCA.  Applicant
knew he had delinquent debts.  Applicant’s Answer to the SOR admits he deliberately falsified his
SCA answers. (Tr. 68, 69; Exhibits 1-4)
5
Applicant submitted three character reference letters.  The writers view him as a very
dependable, reliable, and conscientious employee.  Applicant received the 2006 company award for
customer satisfaction. (Exhibits A-C)
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 has 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 the
national interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information with Industry
§ 2 (Feb. 20, 1960).  Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the
security guidelines contained in the Directive.  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.
The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept.  All available, reliable
information about the person, past and present, is to be taken into account in reaching a decision as
to whether a person is an acceptable security risk.  Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personnel
security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC)
under each guideline that must be carefully considered in making the overall common sense
determination required.  
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.  Those assessments include:
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct,
and the extent of knowledgeable participation; (3) how recent and frequent the behavior was; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6)
the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent 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 (See Directive, Section E2.2.1. of Enclosure 2). Because each security
case presents its own unique facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed that the factors
exhaust the realm of human experience or that the factors apply equally in every case.  Moreover,
although adverse information concerning a single condition may not be sufficient for an unfavorable
determination, the individual may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or
recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or other behavior specified in the
Guidelines.
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 that the applicant
has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for
issuing a clearance.
6
Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal
or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being
eligible for access to classified information.  The Directive presumes a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed in the guidelines and an
applicant’s security suitability.  See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).  All that
is required is proof of facts and circumstances that indicate an applicant is at risk for mishandling
classified information, or that an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree of judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons handling classified information.  ISCR Case No.
00-0277, 2001 DOHA LEXIS 335 at **6-8 (App. Bd. 2001).  Once the Government has established
a prima facie case by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain,
extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of
demonstrating that is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance. ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. 2002).  “Any doubt as to whether access to
classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the
national security.” Directive ¶ E2.2.2.  “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must,
on the side of denials.”  Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.  See Exec. Or. 12968 § 3.1(b).
Based upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole, I find the following adjudicative
guidelines most pertinent to an evaluation of the facts of this case:
Guideline F: 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 could 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.
Guideline E: Personal Conduct: The Concern: 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.
CONCLUSIONS
Financial Considerations: Applicant has unpaid debts dating from 2000.  He has undertaken
no efforts to establish repayment plans for any of the debts.  Instead, after moving three or four times
and failing to inform his creditors of his latest address, he waits for them to find him and send
collection letters.  There are several debts of small amounts under either $100 or $1,000 that he could
have repaid in the past year to show he was trying to fulfill his obligations, but he did nothing about
repayment even after meeting with the Government investigator in June 2006.  Furthermore, he has
a series of checks written on his account for which there were insufficient funds to pay the checks
when submitted to his bank, all of which remain unresolved.
7
The Disqualifying Conditions (DC) applicable are Financial Considerations Disqualifying
Condition ¶19.a. (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), ¶19.b. (indebtedness caused by
frivolous or irresponsible spending and the absence of any evidence of willingness or intent to pay
the debt or establish a realistic plan to pay the debt), ¶19.c. (a history of not meeting financial
obligations), and ¶19.d. (deceptive or illegal financial practices such as check fraud).
Based on the evidence introduced at the hearing, and Applicant’s admissions, there are no
Mitigating Conditions (MC) applicable.  Applicant has done nothing about repaying or resolving any
of the debts listed in the SOR.  He failed to meet his burden of proof that any MC are applicable.
Personal Conduct:  DC ¶16.a (involving 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, or determine
trustworthiness) applies.  Applicant knew he had delinquent debts, had experience completing a
SCA, and yet provided false answers about his finances to Questions 27 and 28.
There are no MC applicable.  Applicant was confronted by the Government investigator in
the interview before making full disclosure about his debts.  He provided no evidence that he relied
on the advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel in making his answer, even though he was
given additional time to submit more exhibits.  These omissions were substantial.  Applicant failed
to meet his burden of proof that any ¶17 MC are applicable.
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). “Each
security clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon
consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication
policy.” Directive ¶ 6.3. “Available, reliable information about the person, past and present,
favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.” AG ¶ 2(a). In
evaluating Applicant’s case, I have considered the adjudicative process factors listed in the AG ¶
2(a).
Under this concept, Applicant’s conduct is serious and continuous.  He knew what he was
doing when he incurred the debts and then deliberately refused to take any action to repay them.  He
displayed a consistent pattern of incurring debts and not repaying them.  He was over 30 years of age
when this conduct occurred, so he was mature and knew what he was doing.  His actions were
voluntary, and any justification he gave about debts incurred while on disability are not persuasive.
He continued to have an income during that period.  He could have paid the debts instead of ignoring
them.  There is potential for coercion or duress with this volume of delinquent debts.  With his
pattern of behavior on debts, it is likely it will recur in the future.  He demonstrated by all his actions
related to his debts that he lacks good judgment, lacks self-control by incurring additional debt
before repaying older debt, and is not reliable.
After considering all of the evidence, I conclude the financial considerations security concern
against Applicant.  I also conclude the personal conduct security concern against Applicant.  Finally,
the “whole person concept” I conclude against Applicant.
8
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.  Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a to 1.pp: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2.  Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a to 2.d: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of 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 is denied.
Philip S. Howe
Administrative Judge