DATE:  December 20, 2007
In Re:
-------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-02012
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s financial irresponsibility renders her an unsuitable candidate for a security
clearance. However, the record did not establish that she falsified her clearance application.
Clearance denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Applicant challenges the 9 August 2007 Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Statement of Reasons (SOR) recommending denial or revocation of her clearance because of
Required by Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, as amended and1
modified—most recently in August 2006 (Directive).
2
financial considerations and personal conduct.  Applicant answered the SOR 6 September 2007 (and1
dates following), and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me 25 October 2007, and I
convened a hearing 29 November 2007. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 7 December 2007.
PROCEDURAL RULINGS
At hearing, I granted Department Counsel’s previously submitted motion to amend the SOR
by adding subparagraph 2.c. (Tr. 13). I also left the record open until the close of business 7
December 2007 to submit documentation of any claimed payments to her creditors or evidence that
they were discharged in her bankruptcy (Tr. 125-126). On 6 December 2007, Applicant submitted
responsive documents, to which Department Counsel raised no objection. Accordingly, I admitted
Applicant’s submission as A.E. C.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the financial allegations of the SOR, except for SOR 1.e. Accordingly,
I incorporate her admissions as findings of fact. She denied falsifying her clearance application. She
is a 36-year-old systems management technologist for a defense contractor since April 2005. She
previously held a clearance with two different employers in the 1990s. Her background was also
being investigated for a clearance in 2004, however, the processing stopped when the company she
was employed by lost the contract.
When Applicant submitted her clearance application in July 2006 (G.E. 1), she answered
“yes” to a question (question 27 b.) asking if she had had any repossessions in the last seven years.
She disclosed a June 2005 automobile repossession with an $18,725 deficiency balance. She also
answered “yes” 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
the two spaces allotted on the form, she disclosed the debts at SOR 1.h. and 1.j. with the kind of
detail (account numbers and business entities) that could only have come from a credit report.
Applicant testified credibly that she attached a copy of her credit report to her application, because
she knew from past experience the importance of providing complete answers on clearance
applications.
Despite the information in the credit report she provided, Applicant is alleged to have
falsified her clearance application by failing to disclose the other past due debts alleged in the SOR,
as well as a paid judgment at SOR 1.b.
Applicant has a history of financial problems dating back to 2000, the point at which she
began to lose control of her finances. She cites no precipitating event for her financial difficulties,
except for being a single mother of two, and living beyond her means. 
3
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). It appears that most, if not all, the debts alleged
in the SOR—and specifically the automobile repossession deficiency (SOR 1.d.)—were discharged
in bankruptcy in June 2007 (G.E. 4, A.E. C). However, Applicant produced no evidence of financial
counseling, or a personal budget to demonstrate that it was unlikely that she would continue to have
financial difficulties. Between September 2001 and June 2004, Applicant was consistently late with
her rent, and her landlord just as consistently reduced the past-due rent to judgment (G.E. 5, 6, 7),
which she eventually paid. The credit reports contradict her claim that she always did so within a
matter of days or weeks (Tr. 37-41). Around July 2001, Applicant bought a $22,000 new car at over
21% interest, on a six-year note. Almost immediately, she began to miss payments or make late
payments, incurring late fees and additional interest. After three years of payments, she discovered
that she had only reduced the principal balance to $18,725. The car was voluntarily repossessed in
September 2004 and sold, resulting in a deficiency balance of $11,300 that she was unable to pay
(A.E. C). Although an earlier background investigation was terminated in 2004 before her clearance
was adjudicated, Applicant knew that she had financial problems and that those problems were of
security concern to the government (G.E. 8). She is currently on a repayment plan for back taxes,
state and federal, that she incurred when she would stop having taxes withheld from her paychecks
anytime she need extra cash flow to keep up with day-to-day expenses (Tr. 103-105).
Her character references (A.E. C) consider her honest and trustworthy.
POLICIES AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines list factors 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.
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”
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;
¶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. . .;
4
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. The government alleged nearly $25,000 of delinquent debt, as
well as $6,000 in paid judgments. Her June 2007 bankruptcy discharge was for over $43,000 in
unsecured claims. Applicant acquired those debts since 2000, because she could not or would not
live within her means.  She also owed over $6,000 in past due state and federal taxes that could not3
be discharged.
Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. Her financial
difficulties are both recent and multiple;  indeed there is no clear evidence that they have ended.4
Applicant has not 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 credit5
counseling or otherwise brought the problem under control.  Applicant’s bankruptcy discharge gives6
her a clean financial slate as of June 2007, but she produced no evidence to demonstrate that she was
capable of handling her finances, and it is too early to tell whether the fresh start afforded her by her
bankruptcy discharge will be successful.  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 failed to establish a case for disqualification under Guideline E. The
judgment at SOR 1.b. was paid at the time Applicant completed her clearance application, and I
accept her testimony that she attached a copy of her credit report to her application, as permitted by
the application. That report would have disclosed essentially the same debts as appear on the August
2006 credit report used by the government (G.E. 7).  Further consideration of the Guideline E8
mitigating conditions is unnecessary. I conclude Guideline E for Applicant.
5
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT 
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph b: For 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
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT 
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Subparagraph b: For Applicant
Subparagraph c: For 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