DATE: November 28, 2007
In Re:
------------------------
SSN: -----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-19963
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARTIN H. MOGUL
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has had a history of financial difficulties and significant overdue debts. He has
reduced or eliminated by dispute many of these debts, but his overall current debt is still extremely
high. Additionally, Applicant’s credibility is suspect since he knew information that he provided to
the Government was materially incorrect and incomplete.  Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance
is denied.
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 28, 2007 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, 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 and recommended referral
to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.
In a signed and sworn statement, dated May 1 2007, Applicant responded in writing to the
SOR allegations. He requested a clearance decision based on a hearing record.
On September 19, 2007, this case was assigned to this Administrative Judge to conduct a
hearing and issue a written decision. A Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties on October 4,
2007, and the hearing was held on October 17, 2007, in San Jose, California.
At the hearing, Department Counsel offered eight documentary exhibits (Government’s
Exhibits 1 through 8), and no witnesses were called. Applicant offered 10 documentary exhibits,
(Applicant’s  Exhibits A through J) and offered his own testimony. Since Applicant did not have
copies of any of the documents that he offered, he was instructed to make two copies of each
document, one for Department Counsel and one for the Administrative Judge. The record was held
open until November 2, 2007, to allow Applicant to submit copies of these documents and any
additional post hearing exhibits to help establish the status of debts that Applicant contended at the
hearing were resolved. Applicant failed to meet the November 2  deadline, and the decision wasnd
originally written with the assumption that no submissions would be forthcoming. However,
Applicant did finally submit additional documents; the date on the envelope was November 7, 2007,
and the documents were received in my office on November 9, 2007.   While this is clearly beyond
the time constraint allowed for additional evidence, I have considered the additional documentation
in an effort to have a full and complete administrative record upon which to base the decision. Not
all of the documents, previously identified as Applicant’s Exhibits A through J, were resubmitted.
Therefore, the new documents offered into evidence, which do include some of the previous
documents,  have been identified and entered into evidence as  Exhibit A.  The transcript (Tr) was
received on October 25, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In the SOR, the Government alleges that a security risk may exist under Adjudicative
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Directive. The
SOR contains 22 allegations, 1.a. through 1.v., under Guideline F, and five allegation, 2.a. through
2.e., under Guideline E. In his Response to the SOR (RSOR) Applicant admitted the following SOR
allegations under paragraph 1: a., c., e., o., s., and v., and under paragraph 2: a., b., c., and d.  The
admitted allegations are incorporated herein as  findings of fact. 
3
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's
Answer to the SOR, the documents and the live testimony, and upon due consideration of that
evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact: 
Applicant is 41 years old. He is currently unmarried, and he has one daughter. Applicant has
a Bachelor of Science degree. He is employed as a program manager operations engineer for a
defense contractor, and he seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the
defense sector.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)
The SOR lists 21 debts that Applicant owed as of the time the SOR was issued, 1.a. through
1.u. and one additional allegation 1.v., under Adjudicative Guideline F.  The allegations will be
discussed in the order that they were listed in the SOR: 
When Applicant began testifying at the hearing, it became evident that he did not know the
status of each of the debts listed on the SOR. Therefore, the record was held open to allow Applicant
to opportunity to gather all of his records and submit to me a definitive response as to the status of
each of these debts, and if he had evidence to establish the status of each debt, he was also to submit
it into evidence (Tr at 41–51). 
1.a. This overdue debt to Creditor 1 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $112. In his RSOR
Applicant admitted that this debt is due and owing. In his post hearing submission, (Exhibit A)
Applicant argued that this debt has been disputed and it is due to be removed from his credit reports.
The credit reports submitted with Exhibit A acknowledge the dispute, but do not indicate that the
debt will be removed from the reports. I can not find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.b. This overdue debt to Creditor 2 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $306. In his RSOR
Applicant denied this allegation. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt has been disputed and
removed from his credit reports. Exhibit 5, a credit report offered by the Government, indicates this
debt originally arose in 1997. This debt was not listed on the latest credit report offered by Applicant,
dated August 27, 2007. However, since there is no information to indicate that this debt was no
longer listed because it has been resolved in some manner, and since debts are often dropped from
credit reports after seven year, this debt being older than that, I cannot determine that this debt has
been satisfied.
1.c. This overdue debt to Creditor 3 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $201. In his RSOR
Applicant admitted that this debt is due and owing. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt has
been disputed and removed from his credit reports. The  August 27, 2007 credit report offered by
Applicant, indicates that this debt  was deleted from the credit report. Therefore, I find that this debt
has been resolved. 
4
1.d. This overdue debt to Creditor 4 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $121. In his RSOR
Applicant denied this allegation.  In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt has is not listed by
any of the credit reporting services. The August 27, 2007 credit report offered by Applicant, indicates
that this disputed debt  was deleted from the credit report. Therefore, I find that this debt has been
resolved. 
1.e. This overdue debt to Creditor 5 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $201. In his RSOR
Applicant admitted that this debt is due and owing. I find that this debt, which is listed on the SOR,
as the same creditor and the same amount as the debt listed as 1.c., above,  is a duplication of that
debt. Therefore, I find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.f. This overdue debt to Creditor 6 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $2,817. In his
RSOR Applicant denied this allegation because of a dispute. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this
debt, “Should not be includeed (sic) in assessement (sic) beyond threahold (sic).” Since I can not
determine what this means, I cannot find that this debt has been satisfied.
1.g. This overdue debt to Creditor 7 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $4,047. In his
RSOR Applicant denied this allegation because of a dispute. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this
debt is in “formal dispute process” and it will be resolved when the original creditor retrieves the
record of the debt. Since there is no evidence that the debt will be resolved, I  cannot find that this
debt has been satisfied.
1.h. This overdue debt to Creditor 8 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $1,048. In his
RSOR Applicant denied this allegation. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt is resolved and
has been deleted from the August 27, 2007 credit report. The credit report acknowledges that a
different debt to this creditor is in dispute, but gives no indication that this debt is in dispute and will
be removed from the report. I can not find that this debt has been resolved.
1.i. This overdue debt to Creditor 9 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $367. In his RSOR
Applicant denied this allegation.  In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt is “Resolving for
settlement.” I cannot find that at this time this debt has been resolved.
1.j. This overdue debt to Creditor 10 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $487. In his RSOR
Applicant denied this allegation. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt has been verified by
Equifax reporting agency as not belonging to Applicant. I find this to be correct.  Therefore, I find
that this debt has been resolved. 
1.k. This overdue debt to Creditor 11 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $920. In his
RSOR Applicant denied this allegation. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt is resolved and
has been deleted from the August 27, 2007 credit report. The TransUnion credit reporting agency
identified that this disputed debt would be deleted.  Therefore, I find that this debt has been resolved.
1.l. This overdue debt to Creditor 12 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $3,392. In his
RSOR Applicant denied this allegation. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt has been
deleted from the August 27, 2007 credit report.  The TransUnion credit reporting agency identified
that this disputed debt would be deleted.  Therefore, I find that this debt has been resolved. 
5
1.m. This overdue debt to Creditor 13 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $26,163 for a
judgement entered against Applicant on January 2001. At the hearing, Applicant testified that the
creditor was going to make some kind of deal to resolve this debt by placing a lien on another piece
of property that Applicant planned to sell. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that he is in negotiations
with the corporate attorney for this creditor, and that there is a lien on property, which is pending a
sale and resolution.  However, no evidence has been offered to establish that, at this time, this debt
has been resolved.
1.n. This overdue debt to Creditor 14 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $920. In his
RSOR Applicant denied this allegation. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt has been
verified as not his debt and deleted from the August 27, 2007 credit report. While this debt was not
listed on the August 27, 2007 credit report,  no information was included in the report to indicate that
this debt was no longer listed because it has been resolved in some manner. Since this debt arose in
November 2000, it could have been dropped from credit report without any resolution. Therefore,
I cannot determine that this debt has been satisfied.
1.o. This overdue debt to Creditor 15 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $201. In his
RSOR Applicant admitted that this debt is due and owing. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this
debt has been deleted from the August 27, 2007 credit report. The TransUnion credit reporting
agency identified that this disputed debt would be deleted.  Therefore, I find that this debt has been
resolved. 
1.p. This overdue debt to Creditor 16 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $1,771. In his
RSOR Applicant denied this allegation. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt has been
resolved and deleted from the October 12, 2007 credit report (Exhibit 8).  While this debt was not
listed on Exhibit 8,  no information was included in the report to indicate that this debt was no longer
listed because it has been resolved in some manner. Since this debt arose in August 2000, it could
have been dropped from credit report without any resolution. Therefore, I cannot determine that this
debt has been satisfied.
1.q. This overdue debt to Creditor 17 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $54. In his RSOR
Applicant denied this allegation. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt has been resolved and
deleted from the October 12, 2007 credit report (Exhibit 8).  While this debt was not listed on
Exhibit 8,  no information was included in the report to indicate that this debt was no longer listed
because it has been resolved in some manner. Since this debt arose in April 2000, it could have been
dropped from credit report without any resolution. Therefore, I cannot determine that this debt has
been satisfied.
1.r. This overdue debt to Creditor 18 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $23,036.  In his
RSOR Applicant denied this allegation because of a dispute. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this
debt is the same as that listed on 1.m., above. While both of these debts are greater than $20,000, I
can not see evidence that they are the same debt, although they may be.  Additional evidence would
be required to establish that this is the same debt as 1.m.
6
1.s. This overdue debt to Creditor 19 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $365. In his RSOR
Applicant admitted that this debt is due and owing. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt is
“Resolving for settlement.” I cannot find that at this time this debt has been resolved.
1.t. This overdue debt to Creditor 20 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $289. In his RSOR
Applicant denied this allegation. In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt was identified in the
August 27, 2007 credit report as “paying as agreed” as of May 2004. I cannot find that at this time
this debt is overdue.
1.u. This overdue debt to Creditor 21 is listed in the SOR in the amount of $159. In his
RSOR Applicant denied this allegation.  In Exhibit A, Applicant argued that this debt has been
resolved and deleted from the October 12, 2007 credit report (Exhibit 8).  While this debt was not
listed on Exhibit 8,  no information was included in the report to indicate that this debt was no longer
listed because it has been resolved in some manner. Since this debt arose in August 1999, it could
have been dropped from credit report without any resolution. Therefore, I cannot determine that this
debt has been satisfied.
1.v. Applicant prepared a Personal Financial Statement on December 18, 2007, (Exhibit 6)
which indicates he has a monthly net remainder of $2,800, after expenses. The Government alleges
that he should have been able to resolve more of his debts.  In his RSOR Applicant admitted this
allegation, but he added that he needed to seek legal assistance for some of these debts.  In Exhibit
A, Applicant argued that he has been “proactively  taking continuous mitigating steps” to resolve his
debts. 
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
2.a. Applicant completed a signed, sworn Security Clearance Application (SCA) on
September 13, 2004. Question #38 asks,  “In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days
delinquent on any debt(s)?” Applicant answered, “No” to this question and listed no debts (Exhibit
1). Clearly, at the time he completed the SCA, Applicant was or had been over 180 days delinquent
on  the debts listed on the SOR, and he should have included these debts. In his RSOR Applicant
admitted this allegation.
2.b. Question #39 asks,  “Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?”
Applicant answered, “No” to this question and again listed no debts (Exhibit 1). At the time he
completed the SCA, Applicant was still delinquent on the debts listed on the SOR, and he should
have included all of these debts. In his RSOR Applicant admitted this allegation.
Applicant’s explanation for his responses to Questions #38 and #39 was that since he was
disputing or paying some of these debts, he did not want to list them on the SCA as legitimate. He
could give no reasonable explanation for why he did not list those debts that he was not disputing,
or  why he could not give information about the debts on which he claimed to be making payments.
2.c. Applicant was arrested on January 1, 1997, and charged with (1) Fraud, Use of Credit
Card over $100, (2) uttering Forged Instrument, (3) Grand Theft-Attempt 3   Degree, and (4)rd
Forgery. On January 23, 1997, Applicant was charged with one count on Grand Theft-Attempt 3rd
7
Degree, a felony, to which Applicant plead Not Guilty.  On January 27, 1997, the judge in the case
withheld adjudication and Applicant was placed on a pretrial diversion program. The case was Nolle
Prossed on April 7, 1998. In his RSOR Applicant admitted this allegation.
Applicant’s explanation at the hearing of this event was that his girlfriend, at the time, gave
him a credit card to use to purchase several items. Applicant used the card for several purchases and
signed his name each time, even though, according to Applicant, not only was this credit card not
his, but it belonged to someone other than his female companion.  He contended that he was not
aware that the card did not belong to his girlfriend, but he could give no reasonable explanation for
why he would sign his name for a card that he believed belonged to his girlfriend, who was with him
when the purchases were  made. 
2.d. Question #21 of the SCA asks, “Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any
felony offense?” Applicant  was  instructed to “report information regardless of whether the record
in your case was sealed or otherwise stricken from the record.” Applicant answered, “No” to this
question and failed to list the 1997 felony charge as set forth in paragraph 2.c., above. In his RSOR
Applicant admitted this allegation.
2.e. During a June 15, 2005 interview with an authorized investigator for the Department of
Defense Applicant did not fully disclose the events as described in paragraph 2.c., above. He failed
to disclose the full extent of his misuse use of the credit card on four separate occasions. In his
RSOR Applicant denied this allegation contending that he omitted this information because he was
found Not Guilty.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines that must be carefully
considered in evaluating an individual's security eligibility and making the overall common sense
determination required. The Administrative Judge must take into account the conditions raising or
mitigating security concerns in each area applicable to the facts and circumstances presented.
Although the presence or absence of a particular condition for or against clearance is not
determinative, the specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be
measured against this policy guidance, as the guidelines reflect consideration of those factors of
seriousness, recency, motivation, etc. 
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.
8
Each adjudicative decision must also include an assessment of: (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). 
BURDEN OF PROOF
              Initially, the Government must prove controverted facts alleged in the Statement of Reasons.
If the Government meets that burden, the burden of persuasion then shifts to Applicant to establish
his security suitability through evidence of refutation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to
demonstrate that, despite the existence of disqualifying conduct, it is nevertheless clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue the security clearance. Assessment of Applicant's
fitness for access to classified information requires evaluation of the whole person, and consideration
of such factors as the recency and frequency of the disqualifying conduct, the likelihood of
recurrence, and evidence of rehabilitation.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the U.S. Government that is predicated upon trust and confidence. Where facts proven by the
Government raise doubts about Applicant's judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness, Applicant has
a heavy burden of persuasion to demonstrate that he or she is nonetheless security worthy. As noted
by the United States Supreme Court in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988),
"the clearly consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials."
CONCLUSIONS
Having considered the evidence of record in light of the appropriate legal precepts and
factors, I conclude the following with regarding Guidelines F and E: 
(Guideline F - Financial Considerations)
With respect to Guideline F, the Government has established that Applicant has had a history
of financial difficulties and many long overdue debts. The evidence shows that Applicant has made
an effort  to resolve these debts through payment or dispute. However, at this time there are still a
great many long overdue debts that do not appear to be resolved.
Regarding the Disqualifying Conditions (DC) under Guideline F, I conclude both  DC 19.
(a) and (c) apply because of Applicant’s history of unwillingness to satisfy his debts, and his history
of not meeting financial obligations. While Mitigating Condition (MC) 20. (d)  is applicable to
Applicant under Guideline F, because he has initiated a good-faith effort to resolve his debts, it is
not controlling because of the long history of overdue bills and the current significant unresolved
debts. I, therefore,  resolve Guideline F against Applicant.
9
(Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
With respect to Guideline E, the evidence establishes that Applicant provided inaccurate
information to the Government in response to questions, #38,  39, and 21 on the SCA that he
executed in September 13, 2004.  I conclude that when Applicant completed the SCA, he knowingly
and wilfully provided false and materiel information to the Government. He also was not truthful
with the information that he provided to the Government  investigator.
In reviewing the DCs  under Guideline E, I conclude that DC 16. (a) applies because of
Applicant’s deliberate omission, concealment, and falsification of relevant facts from a personnel
security questionnaire, which was used to determine security clearance eligibility. DC 16. (b) also
applies because Applicant deliberately provided false information to an investigator. I can not find
that any Mitigating Condition (MC) applies in this paragraph.  I resolve Guideline E against
Applicant.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the  Directive are hereby
rendered as follows:
Paragraph 1, Financial Considerations,  Guideline F: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k.: For 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.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u.: Against Applicant
10
Paragraph 2, Personal Conduct,  Guideline E: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e.: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances and facts presented by the record in this case, it is clearly not
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge