DATE:  October 29, 2007
In Re:
------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-26170
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHARLES D. ABLARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Nichole Noel, Esq. , Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Patrick Gromek, Personal Representative
SYNOPSIS
Applicant, a 50-year-old training instructor for the Army employed by a defense contractor,
mitigated financial security concerns arising from IRS tax delinquencies for four tax years arising
because of underemployment for a four year period after he retired from the Army. Payments have
been made and are continuing under a payment plan for the $7,500 balance due worked out by
Applicant and the IRS. Clearance is granted. 
STATEMENT OF CASE
On or about May 23, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant
2
to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, as amended and
modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, and
subject to the revised Adjudicative Guidelines effective September 1, 2006, issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary
affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA recommended the case be referred to an
administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or
revoked.
On June 25, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and requested a hearing. The
matter was assigned to me on July 23, 2007. A notice of hearing was issued on August 30, 2007, for
a hearing on September 12, 2007, and held that day. The government offered five exhibits. Applicant
offered eight into evidence at the hearing. All of the offered exhibits were admitted in evidence
without objection. The transcript was received on September 20, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted with explanation six of the eight SOR allegations relating to a 1992
bankruptcy and delinquent debts to the IRS. He denied two allegations relating to state taxes. After
a complete review of the record, I make the following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is a 50-year-old employee of a defense contractor working as a training instructor
in the intelligence field since November 2004. He served 22 years in the Army and retired in 1998.
For the five years between his retirement and his present employment he had only occasional work
as an independent contractor which was not remunerative. In large measure, that led to his current
financial problems. 
An analysis of the debts alleged in the SOR from testimony and documentary evidence
submitted in the record indicates as follows:
1. Par. 1.a.: Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in March 1992 as a result of a divorce.
 
2. Par. 1.b.: Applicant was discharged in bankruptcy in July 1992. Some of the debts were
paid, others were discharged without payment. 
3. Par. 1.c.: An IRS tax lien for 1999 taxes in the amount of $3,909 was filed against him.
4. Par. 1.d.: An IRS tax lien for 2000 taxes in the amount of $3,366 was filed against him.
 
5. Par. 1.e.: Applicant is indebted to IRS for tax year 2005 in the amount of $599. 
6. Par. 1.f.: Applicant is indebted to IRS for tax year 2006 in the amount of $1,076. 
7. Par. 1.g.: Applicant was indebted to the State of Arizona in the amount of $288 for 1999.
3
8. Par. 1.h.: Applicant was indebted to the State of Arizona in the amount of $249 for 2000.
During the period 1999 to 2004, when Applicant was working as an independent contractor
no taxes were withheld and he should have received 1099s from his employers but often did not.
Thus, he fell behind in payment of his 1999 and 2000 taxes and liens were placed by IRS. He has
since worked out a plan with IRS to resolve the debts from these two tax years. He has been paying
on them through voluntary withholdings from his salary (Exhs. A, C, and D), but now they are being
resolved through garnishment by payroll deduction in the amount of $130 per month (Exhs. G and
H). The net result is that his total tax debt is now approximately $7,500.
Applicant is also negotiating a payment plan for the two recent tax years, 2005 and 2006. He
filed the tax returns but did not have sufficient funds to pay all the taxes but has made partial
payments and is making voluntary payments of $100 per month (Tr. 27 and Exh. D). 
As to the Arizona tax debts, Applicant submitted documentation to establish that he does not
owe those state taxes (Exh 5). The government concedes that the debts are not owed (Tr. 8).
Applicant has a BS degree in Information Technology and an associates degree in
Intelligence Operations both of which he earned in 2005. He is paying $240 per month on his student
loan (Exh. 3). 
Applicant is highly regarded by his employer for his work ethic and skills (Tr.40). His present
work involves application of skills he learned while on active duty with the Army. He is highly
regarded by the Army office for which he provides support services (Exh. E). The chief executive
officer of his employer served as his personal representative at the hearing and offered his support
in helping him further reduce his tax indebtedness through the use of his own CPA firm (Tr.40).
Applicant’s annual salary is $65,000 and his Army retirement is $12,000 per annum. He is
divorced and has two grown children one of whom is in the Army. His present income and financial
obligations are such that he can resolve his outstanding tax debts and live without incurring
additional debts which he could not pay (Exh. 3). He intends to increase the payments now being
made to accelerate the payment of the tax debts. 
Applicant has made good faith efforts to resolve delinquent debts arising from causes many
of which were beyond his control.
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.
An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration of the
following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and
maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the
4
presence or absence of rehabilitation and other 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.  Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG ¶ 2 a). Security clearances are
granted only when “it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Executive Order No.
10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).
Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the
evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which
disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information
See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance. “Any doubt as to
whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved
in favor of the national security.” (AG ¶ 2 b) “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate
adjudicative factors under the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) and factors in the Directive, I
conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR:
Applicant’s delinquent debts prompted the allegation of security concerns under Guideline
F because an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts
to generate funds (AG ¶ 18). Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying
include a history of not meeting financial obligations (AG ¶ 19 c) and evidence of inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts (AG ¶ 19 a). Mitigating Conditions (MC) that might apply include the
fact that the behavior happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s current reliability , trustworthiness, or good judgment (AG ¶ 20 a), or the
person has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts (AG ¶
20 d). I find that the evidence justifies application of the cited mitigating conditions to Applicant.
The fact that Applicant has had one Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1992 raises possible concerns
about a pattern of financial problems. However, that was 15 years ago while he was in the Army and
under circumstances not likely to be repeated. 
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons
who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns
of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense
assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information. 
The “whole person” concept recognizes we should view a person by the totality of his acts
and omissions. Each case must be judged on its own merits taking into consideration all relevant
circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. Applicant
impressed me at the hearing as a credible, hard-working person whose delinquent debts arose in large
measure as a result of his under-employment for five years Those conditions are unlikely to recur
as he has a well-paying job with a company that is very supportive and appreciative of his work. He
5
has taken significant corrective steps and established to my satisfaction that he is now financially
responsible and will remain so.
After considering all the evidence in its totality, and as an integrated whole to focus on the
whole person of Applicant, I conclude that a security clearance should be granted. 
FORMAL FINDINGS 
Formal findings as required by the Directive are as follows:
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h.: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or renew a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is granted.
Charles D. Ablard 
Administrative Judge