DATE:  November 19, 2007
In re:
-------------------- 
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-22950
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PHILIP S. HOWE
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is 39 years old, married, and has four children.  He works for a defense contractor
as a metal fabricator.  He has $50,633 in delinquent debt from tax liens and medical debts.  He
resolved some of the tax liens, but none of the medical debts by his own initiative.  He failed to
mitigate the financial considerations security concern.  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 April 16, 2007, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons  (SOR)1
detailing the basis for its decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) 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 24, 2007, and elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge.  The
case was assigned to me on July 23, 2007.  On September 20, 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.
DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on October 3, 2007.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The Government moved to amend the SOR by deleting subparagraphs 1.c to 1.h, and then
substituting new wording for each of those subparagraphs pertaining to tax lien liabilities.  The
amendment also added subparagraphs 1.tt to 1.ww.  Applicant had no objection to the amendment,
and I granted the motion.  Applicant then stated his answers to each of the amendments on the
record.  The Government also moved during the hearing to withdraw subparagraph 1.ff because this
debt was paid.  Applicant had no objection to the motion, and I granted the motion. (Tr. 7-10, 46)
Applicant submitted additional exhibits after the close of the hearing.  The Government had
no objection to these exhibits.  I marked them as Exhibits E to I and admitted them into evidence.
(Tr. 68, 69)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant's admissions to the SOR allegations regarding his medical services delinquent
debts are incorporated here as findings of fact.  Applicant denied the allegations concerning tax liens.
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 39 years old, married, and has four children.  One child has cerebral palsy.
Applicant works for a defense contractor as a metal fabricator, and has been at that location for the
past nine years.  He has a high school degree with no further education.  He does not have health
insurance through his employer because he claims it will cost him about $1,400 a month.  Instead,
he and his wife do not have health insurance for themselves, and use a state program to provide
insurance for their four children.  Applicant earns about $3,000 after taxes monthly, and his monthly
expenses nearly equal that amount of income.  He had two cars repossessed in the 1990s, and his
3
current automobiles have no debt on them. His wife does not work outside the home. (Tr. 27-29, 53,
57-63, 66; Exhibits 1-5)
Applicant has 48 delinquent debts listed in the SOR.  They total $50,633.  SOR subparagraph
1.ss alleges Applicant did not file his 2003 and 2004 federal and state income tax returns.  That
allegation is the 49  allegation in the SOR.  Applicant’s delinquent debts fall into two mainth
categories, state tax liens and medical bills which are unpaid.  Applicant’s repayment plan for any
or all of these debts is to allow a judgment be entered against him in court, then have the
garnishment process take the money from his paycheck.  He claims he paid $14,000 in debts over
the past three years using this method.  Applicant’s attitude is if he does not have the money in his
paycheck, he will not miss it or spend it.  He also claims he does not have money available in his
paycheck to repay these delinquent debts each month. Applicant has household repair expenses to
replace windows and a furnace in his 100-year-old house this winter.  Applicant is not certain which
debts have been paid and which remain unpaid.  He filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the 1990s to
eliminate medical debts arising from his first child’s birth when his employer’s insurance plan did
not pay for those expenses. (Tr. 41-46, 49, 63-65)
Applicant’s tax delinquencies arose from two types of taxes.  The first is his local city income
tax.  His employer does not withhold money for that tax, so Applicant has to pay it directly to the
city government.  He has not done so, and the city filed tax liens against him.  He has now paid those
debts, and plans on paying a portion of the tax debt every six months.  The second type of tax lien
Applicant incurred was for a business he tried to start and operate.  It did not operate, and he had no
liability for taxes, but he did not clear his tax record with his state taxing agency.  Now he has
resolved those liens and convinced the state to withdraw them.  Applicant paid the city tax by
garnishment as listed in Subparagraph 1.a.  Examining the exhibits, and comparing the amounts in
the SOR alleged to the releases offered by Applicant, the tax liens in Subparagraphs 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g,
1.j, 1.tt, and 1.uu were business taxes mistakenly assessed against him.  The judgements and liens
were released by the state government. (Tr. 24-37, 52, 53; Exhibits 2-5, A-E)
Applicant’s remaining delinquent debts listed in the SOR are unpaid medical bills, except
for a $482 medical debt in Subparagraph 1.ff which the Government withdrew, an unpaid credit card
debt for $722 in Subparagraph 1.pp, an unpaid telephone bill for $141 in Subparagraph 1.qq, and a
deficiency on a repossessed vehicle from the 1990s for $1,470 in Subparagraph 1.rr.  Applicant has
no repayment plan in effect or contemplated to repay any of these debts. (Tr. 33-53; Exhibits 2-5,
F-I)
Applicant filed his 2003 and 2004 tax returns, with amendments because he and his wife
were separated for a while in those tax years, and the filing status needed to be adjusted in April
2006.  Applicant set aside his tax forms for those years, and when they were out of sight, they were
out of his mind, having been overwhelmed by his financial problems, as he claims. (Tr. 55, 56)
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
4
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.
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
5
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
guideline 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.
CONCLUSIONS
The Government established by substantial evidence and Applicant’s admissions each of the
allegations in the SOR.
Financial Considerations: Applicant has $50,633 of alleged delinquent debts.  He has no
repayment plan in effect nor does he contemplate implementing a plan.  He has not taken the
initiative to repay his debts, probably because he does not have the income to repay the debts.  He
has done nothing to repay his medical bills, despite having a state medical plan based on the number
of his children and his income, he incurred thousands of dollars of medical bills which he cannot
repay on his income.
The disqualifying conditions (DC) applicable are ¶19.a. (inability or unwillingness to satisfy
debts), and ¶19.c. (a history of not meeting financial obligations).  Applicant prefers to allow himself
to be sued and to have his wages garnished to repay his delinquent debts.  He is unable to repay his
debts on his own initiative based on his limited income.  His history of not paying his medical debts
dates from the 1990s.  
The Mitigating Condition (MC) which might be applicable is ¶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, and the
person acted responsibly under the circumstances).  Applicant’s educational limitations, and his job
classification, coupled with having four children to raise on a limited income, complicates his ability
to repay his debts.  Apparently, his wife cannot work because she cares for their child who has
cerebral palsy.  To an extent his situation is beyond his control due to these facts.  However, this MC
does not overcome the DC because he did not show any efforts to resolve his medical expenses, or
repay on his own initiative the 31 medical debts which are under $500 individually.  He has been
6
employed for the past nine years, and he did not show any business downturn adversely affected him.
Therefore, this MC has limited application.
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).
I considered all nine factors in relationship to Applicant and his situation.  Applicant was a
parent and an adult when all these debt liabilities were incurred.  They occur frequently and are likely
to be repeated based on the debt history presented.  He has not made a good-faith or timely effort to
repay his debts.  The use of garnishment proceedings is not a good-faith effort on the part of
Applicant to voluntarily repay his delinquent debts.  In summary, none of the “whole person
concept” factors are applicable to result in a favorable resolution for Applicant.
Applicant’s struggles on a low income and with family health care issues were factors I
evaluated.  Applicant should have attempted to establish a debt reduction plan and a family budget
with the assistance of a reputable debt counselor through his bank or credit union, or a community
organization.  Also, Applicant should have been pro-active in his efforts to resolve his financial
obligations.  Applicant should examine his health care debt history, and seek ways to repay the past
debts, and minimize incurring additional debt through the use of state programs, a primary care
physician instead of the hospital emergency room for ordinary illnesses, and similar procedures the
state or community programs may provide him and his family. 
Therefore, based on all the evidence and the guidelines, I conclude the financial
considerations security concern against Applicant.  I also conclude the “whole person concept”
against Applicant.
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.  Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
7
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: Against 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.v: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.x: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.y: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.z: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.aa: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.bb: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.cc: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.dd: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ee: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ff: Withdrawn
Subparagraph 1.gg: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.hh: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ii: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.jj: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.kk: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ll: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.mm: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.nn: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.oo: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.pp: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.qq: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.rr: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ss: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.tt: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.uu: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.vv: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ww: Against Applicant
DECISION
8
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