1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-05036
SSN: ------------------ )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
January 30, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY-ANDERSON, Darlene, Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Questionnaire for National Security Positions dated
September 14, 2005.  On July 18, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 (as amended), and Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons
(SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the 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 the Applicant and
recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance
should be denied or revoked.
The Applicant responded to the SOR on August 17, 2007, and he requested a
hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned to the
undersigned on December 3, 2007.  A notice of hearing was issued on December 17,
2007, scheduling the hearing for January 10, 2008.  At the hearing the Government
presented eight exhibits.  The Applicant presented five exhibits and testified on his own
behalf.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on January 18, 2008.
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are based on the Applicant’s Answer to the SOR,
the testimony and the exhibits.  The Applicant is 44 years old and has a high school
diploma and a year and a half of college.  He is employed by a defense contractor as a
Security Guard and is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with his
employment.  
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  After a complete and
thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same,
the following findings of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the
SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he is financially overextended
and at risk to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
 The Applicant admits each of the allegations set forth in the SOR.  From October
2004 through November 2005, the Applicant was unemployed.  During that year he
received unemployment benefits but they were not enough to cover his bills.  He used
credit cards to subsidize his income and became deeper indebted.  He tried to make
payments to the creditors but only fell farther and farther behind.  
From time to time, between 1992 and 2004, for about a three to four years
period, the Applicant also helped family members in need, including his sister and a
brother by giving them a place to live and food to eat when they could not provide for
themselves because of their drug addictions.  He also helped a friend who was suffering
from the same condition.  He co-signed for a vehicle for his nephew who ultimately
defaulted on the car loan.  All of this took a serious toll on the Applicant’s financial
situation. The Applicant lost his apartment because he could not afford to pay his rent.
It was also about this time that his wife left him.  The Applicant moved into a motel
where he paid $50.00 a month.  He tried to find employment but was unsuccessful, so
he decided to go to school to improve himself.  He moved in with a friend and then with
his sister.        
Credit reports of the Applicant indicate that he is indebted to at least nine
separate creditors that include credit cards and personal loans totaling an amount in
excess of $ 52,000.00.  (See Government Exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7).   A debt to Citi
Financial in the amount of $4,332.00 remains delinquent and outstanding.  A debt to Citi
in the amount of $7,459.00 remains delinquent and outstanding. A debt to Applied CD
Bank in the amount of $3,613.00 remains delinquent and outstanding.  A debt to
GEMB/CCARC in the amount of $3,444.00 remains delinquent and outstanding.  A debt
3
to Midland in the amount of $633.00 remains delinquent and outstanding.  A debt to
Beneficial/HFC in the amount of $2,878.00 remains delinquent and outstanding.  A debt
to AMGNL in the amount of $1,974.00 remains delinquent and outstanding.  A debt to
GMAC in the amount of $25,846.00 remains delinquent and outstanding.  A debt to
American General Finance in the amount of $2,001.00 has been paid.  A debt to First
National CC in the amount of $478.00 remains delinquent and outstanding.        
In November 2005, the Applicant was hired by his current employer.  In order to
resolve his indebtedness, he tried to get set up a payment plan with his creditors but
they refused him and wanted full payment immediately.  He tried to obtain a debt
consolidation loan and discussed his situation with consumer credit counselors but they
wanted some collateral for the loan and the Applicant had anything to offer them.     
In an effort to pay his delinquent debts the only way available to him was to
approach each debt one by one until all of his delinquent debts are paid in full.  The
Applicant saved the sum of $3,600.00 and paid off his debt to American General
Finance Company.  He is presently saving money to pay off another one of his
delinquent debts.  The Applicant has also paid other delinquent debts that are not
alleged in the SOR.  (See Government Exhibit 3).  He voluntarily returned to his landlord
to pay him the money he owed him.  (Tr. p. 53).  
The Applicant’s personal financial statement dated May 31, 2007, indicates that
he is financially incapable of paying the delinquent debts set forth in the SOR.  (See
Government Exhibit 3).  
  
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he intentionally falsified material
aspects of his personal background during the employment process.
The Applicant completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions dated
September 14, 2005.  Question 27(d) asked him if in the last seven years has he had
any judgments against him that have not been paid.  The Applicant answered, “NO”.
(See Government Exhibit 1).  This was a  false response.  The Applicant failed to reveal
the judgment he had against him in the amount of $2,001.00 by American General
Finance.  
Question 28(a) of the same application asked the Applicant if he has ever been
over 180 days delinquent on any debts.  Question 28(b) asked him if he was currently
90 days delinquent on any debts.  The Applicant answered, ‘NO”.  (See Government
Exhibit 1).  This was a false response.  The Applicant explained that when he completed
the application, he thought that it would prevent him from getting the job if he answered
the questions truthfully.  (Tr. p. 66).  
4
I find that the Applicant knew about his delinquent debts at the time he completed
the application and intentionally sought to conceal them from the Government.   
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  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 can 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.
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19(a)  inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;
19(c)  a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
15.  The Concern.  Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified
information.  OF special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers
during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security
clearance process.
5
Condition that could raise a security concern:
16(a)  The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and
material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award
benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award
fiduciary responsibilities.
Condition that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 16-17,  in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
 a.  The nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances
b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct
e.  The voluntariness of participation
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior
changes
g.  The motivation for the conduct 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicted
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
6
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order
. . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a
determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, a security clearance is entrusted to civilian workers who
must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information twenty-four hours per
day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore appropriately concerned when
available information indicates that an Applicant for such access may be involved in
instances of financial irresponsibility and dishonesty which demonstrates poor judgment
or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F) and he has been untruthful on
his Questionnaire for National Security Positions (Guideline E).  This evidence indicates
poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because
of the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with his security clearance eligibility.
The Applicant is a compassionate, kind and caring individual, but his kindness
has contributed to his financial delinquencies.  Considering all of the evidence, the
Applicant has not introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation
that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case.  With respect to his finances, the
Applicant has in excess of $ 52,000.00 in delinquent debt.  He has recently paid off one
of the debts and plans to continue to pay all of his debts, one by one as he saves the
money to do so.  However, he has just started to address his delinquent debts and has
a long way to go before they are resolved.  At the present time, he has not presented
7
sufficient evidence to demonstrate a track record of financial responsibility or that he
has resolved his financial indebtedness.
 Upon review of his financial statement, it appears that he has no disposable
income at the end of the month to pay his past due bills.  There is little evidence of
financial rehabilitation at this time.  Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations),
Disqualifying Conditions 19(a)  inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts and 19(c) a
history of not meeting financial obligations apply.  None of the mitigating conditions
apply.  His financial problems remain current, they are not isolated, and the Applicant
has not initiated a prompt, good faith effort to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve his debts.   Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).  
With respect to Guideline E, the Applicant deliberately concealed material
information from the Government on his security clearance application in response to
his financial matters.  With the particular evidence that I have been provided, there is no
reasonable excuse for his failure to answer the questions truthfully.  Consequently, the
evidence shows that the Applicant cannot be trusted with the national secrets.
Disqualifying Condition 16(a)  the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of
relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history
statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities applies.  None of the mitigating
conditions are applicable.  I find that the Applicant deliberately sought to conceal
material information from the Government and that he cannot be trusted with the
national secrets.  
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Government's Statement of
Reasons.     
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.a.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.c.: Against the Applicant.
8
    Subpara.  1.d.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.e.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.f.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.g.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.h.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.i.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.j.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.k.: Against the Applicant.
Paragraph 2: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.a.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.b.: Against the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interests to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge