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. 07-05946
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T. Blank, Jr., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s financial irresponsibility and falsification of her clearance application render her
an unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Applicant challenges the 27 July 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 23 August 2007, and1
2
requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me 12 September 2007, and I convened a hearing 11
October 2007. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 24 October 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant denied the financial allegations of the SOR, except for SOR 1.a., 1.b., 1.d., 1.g.,
1.h., 1.r., and 1.q. Accordingly, I incorporate her admissions as findings of fact. She denied falsifying
her clearance application. She is a 42-year-old logistician aide for a defense contractor since July
1995. She has not previously held a clearance.
When Applicant submitted her clearance application in December 2006 (G.E. 1), she
answered “no” to two questions (questions 28 a. and b.) asking if she had been 180 days delinquent
on any accounts  within the last seven years, or was currently 90 days delinquent on any account. In
fact, she was more than 90 days delinquent on 18 accounts totaling over $27,000. Applicant has
offered no credible explanation for her failure to disclose her financial difficulties. Indeed, she
acknowledged (Tr 60) that she knew at the time that she should have answered “yes.” Applicant
knew that she had been receiving collection letters from the creditors, and had long since stopped
paying most of her creditors.
Applicant has a history of financial problems dating back to 1999, the point at which she lost
control of her finances. She cites no precipitating event for her financial difficulties (Tr 58), except
for being a single mother of three, living beyond her means (Tr. 34). 
Applicant acknowledges that she incurred each of the debts alleged in the SOR, and at some
point stopped payment on each account (Tr. 38-40). Of the 11 delinquent accounts she denied, only
two were paid: SOR 1.n. was largely paid by garnishment of her wages, and 1.o. was paid when the
IRS seized her income tax refund to pay an outstanding education loan. Applicant denies the
remaining nine because she is working with a credit repair organization to have them removed from
her credit report due to them being more than seven years old. She states an intent to pay “every
single debt that I need to satisfy” (Tr. 28), and to that end has taken a part-time job and a roommate.
She intends to pay her debts in the next 7-8 months. However, she had not yet made any payment
arrangement with her creditors, as she was focusing on getting aged debts off her credit report.
However, this seems more aimed a cleaning up her credit report, as she is trying to buy a house (Tr.
43-44). 
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.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).2
¶19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (b) indebtedness caused by frivolous or irresponsible3
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 is4
unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and5
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 that6
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
3
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.
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.2
CONCLUSIONS
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did
not mitigate the security concerns. Government records reflect over $27,000 of delinquent debt
acquired since 1999, because she could not or would not live within her means.3
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 has not4
established that her debts were due to circumstances beyond her control, or that she has acted
responsibly in addressing her debts.  There is no evidence that she has sought credit counseling or5
otherwise brought the problem under control.  The credit repair firm does not appear to be involved6
in counseling beyond the steps to improve her credit score so she can buy a house. Further, removing
seven-year-old debts from her credit report (a federal requirement) does not necessarily end her legal
responsibility for the debts, which is governed by state statutes-of-limitation. Applicant has taken
¶20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.7
¶16.(a) The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts  from any personnel8
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 falsification9
before being confronted with the facts;
¶17.(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission or concealment was caused or significantly contributed10
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.
4
no verifiable steps to address her debts.  There is nothing in the record to suggest that Applicant will7
be able to 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
problems.  Further, none of the Guideline E mitigating conditions apply. There is no evidence8
demonstrating that she corrected the falsification before being asked about it.  There is no evidence9
to suggest that Applicant receive bad advice about what she was required to disclose on her clearance
application.  I conclude Guideline E against Applicant.10
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: Against Applicant
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
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT 
5
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
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