1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-11210
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his security clearance application (SF 86) on October 25,
2006. On October 25, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
and Guideline E for Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised
adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and
effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 30, 2007. He answered
the SOR in writing on November 19, 2007, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on November 30,
2007. On December 6, 2007, I received the case assignment and scheduled a hearing
for January 22, 2008.
2
I convened the hearing on January 22, 2008, as scheduled. Before the
introduction of any evidence, the Government withdrew SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.e and 1.m
(duplicate listing of ¶¶ 1.f and 1.b, respectively). Four Government exhibits (Ex. 1-4) and
four Applicant exhibits (Ex. A-D) were received into evidence without objection and
Applicant testified, as reflected in a hearing transcript (Tr.) received by DOHA on
January 31, 2008. At Applicant’s request, the record was held open until January 29,
2007, for him to submit documents of his enrollment in a debt repayment program. On
January 28, 2008, Applicant forwarded documentation of a debt repayment plan that
was admitted as Exhibit E without any objections.
On February 3, 2008, Applicant submitted a bank draft authorization form related
to the debt management plan. The Government did not object to its inclusion despite
the late submission. The document and Applicant’s forwarding correspondence were
admitted as Exhibit F. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
DOHA alleged under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, that as of August 27,
2007, Applicant owed delinquent debts totaling $21,350 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.d and 1.f-1.l)
that had been charged off and/or placed for collection. Under Guideline E, Personal
Conduct, Applicant was alleged to have deliberately falsified his October 25, 2006,
security clearance application (SF 86) by denying that he had been over 180 days
delinquent on any debts within the seven years preceding his clearance application
(SOR ¶ 2.a) or that he was currently over 90 days delinquent on any debts (SOR ¶ 2.b).
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the debts but indicated he was paying on
those in SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.j, and would look into the $874 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.l as
he had medical insurance. As for the Guideline E allegations, Applicant averred he was
unaware of his indebtedness, which was taken as a denial of any intentional
falsification. After consideration of the evidence of record, I make the following findings
of fact.
Applicant is a 57-year-old senior designer who seeks to retain his secret-level
security clearance (Tr. 54). He served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from
December 1973 to October 1976, in his state’s National Guard from January 1985 to
July 1986, and in the U.S. Army Ready Reserve from July 1986 to October 1988. He
was honorably discharged from these enlistments (Ex. 1, Tr. 52-53).
The father of two grown sons from his first marriage, Applicant married his
current spouse in December 1978. They have three adult children of their own, two
daughters born in September 1978 and December 1979, and a son born in August
1983.  As of January 2008, their youngest son was living at home during the week and
he was not contributing to the household (Ex. 1, Tr. 53, 97-98). 
In June 1980, Applicant started working for a defense contractor at a different
facility than where he is currently employed. He was granted a secret-level security
3
clearance for his duties in about August 1990. In August 1994, he transferred to his
present location to avoid a layoff. He started there as a draftsman and moved up to
senior designer (Tr. 36). His clearance was renewed in March 1995 and in August 1998
(Ex. 1).
Applicant’s spouse handled the family’s finances with little input from him (Tr.
37). In 2001, Applicant’s accounts began to fall delinquent. A joint charge account
opened with a retailer became $548 past due in February 2001 (SOR ¶ 1.a). In about
June 2001, a $3,493 credit card balance was charged off after no activity since
November 2000 (SOR ¶ 1.d). In October 2001, an individual revolving charge account
was charged off in the amount of $925 and transferred (SOR ¶ 1.h). A $2,018
delinquent credit balance was placed for collection after no activity since February 2001
(SOR ¶ 1.j). Another credit card balance of $927 was placed for collection by a bank in
September 2001 (SOR ¶ 1.b). A $5,956 debt balance in collection for nonpayment since
November 2000 rose to $7,510 as of November 2002 (SOR ¶ 1.f). A $268 charge off
balance was placed for collection for failure to pay since February 2001 (SOR ¶ 1.k).
See Ex. 2, Ex. 4.
In February 2002, Applicant was injured at home. During the 13 weeks he was
out of work, Applicant received disability insurance payments that covered his wages for
a 40-hour-work week but not overtime (Tr. 41-42, 47, 55-56). In February 2002, a
judgment was awarded a medical provider against Applicant in the amount of $581.
Applicant satisfied the judgment in March 2002. After an automobile accident, Applicant
disputed the debt remaining on his loan, but he eventually satisfied a judgment balance
of $2,175 awarded the creditor in November 2002 (Ex. 4, Tr. 72-74). 
In May 2002, Applicant paid at least $7,500 toward the $15,000 cost of his
daughter’s wedding. He is not sure how he paid for his share (Tr. 57). In December
2002, a medical provider placed a $615 delinquent balance for collection (SOR ¶ 1.l).
Applicant had therapy on the leg he injured in February 2002 and this cost was not
covered by insurance. Applicant received collection notices in the mail but assumed
since he had insurance that it was due to a problem with the account number. Applicant
did not followup to ensure that the matter was resolved (Ex. 4, Tr. 71-72).
In 2003, Applicant’s mother-in-law came to live with them. Applicant’s spouse,
who had been employed full-time as a bank teller, stopped working but for a seasonal
position with a tax preparation firm each Spring (Tr. 49-50). She lost some income that
first tax season as she fell ill with pneumonia and had to be hospitalized in intensive
care for five days, but her medical costs were largely covered by insurance (Tr. 58).
While vacationing for their 25  wedding anniversary, Applicant and his spouseth
were talked into buying a timeshare in October 2003. They fell behind in the payments
The debt balance as of August 2007 was $7,588 (Ex. 3). The account was placed for collection when it was1
past due in the amount of $3,205 (Ex. 4).
Applicant provided no proof of payments on SOR ¶¶ 1.f, 1.i, or 1.j. The credit reports (Ex. 2, Ex. 3) reflect no2
progress on those debts. Applicant is seeking to have the full $7,510 balance of ¶ 1.f paid through the debt
management plan (Ex. E), which calls into question whether he made the $250 monthly payments claimed
in May 2007. The debt in ¶ 1.j is not included in the latest debt management plan, Applicant listed an updated
balance of $2,812 (Ex. A), which also calls into question whether any payments had been made. As for the
4
on their loan, and it became past due in the amount of $3,205 (SOR ¶ 1.c)  (Ex. 4, Tr.1
62-66).
In March 2005, a wireless telephone provider placed a $175 balance for
collection (SOR ¶ 1.i). Applicant had opened a wireless phone account for his youngest
son who did not pay the bill (Tr. 70). A telephone service provider placed a $101
balance for collection in May 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.g) (Ex. 4).
At his employer’s request, Applicant completed an electronic questionnaire for
investigations processing (e-QIP) on October 25, 2006. Applicant responded negatively
to financial delinquency inquiries: 28a. “In the last 7 years, have you been over 180
days delinquent on any debt(s)?” and 28b. “Are you currently over 90 days delinquent
on any debt(s)?” (Ex. 1).
A check of Applicant’s credit on November 3, 2006, revealed several delinquent
balances: $543 (SOR ¶ 1.a), $1,300 (SOR ¶ 1.b), $7,588 (SOR ¶ 1.c), $3,493 (SOR
¶1.d), $7,510 (SOR ¶ 1.f), $101 (SOR ¶ 1.g), $175 (SOR ¶ 1.i), $2,812 (SOR ¶ 1.j),
$268 (SOR ¶ 1.k), and $874 (SOR ¶ 1.l). Another creditor had charged off a $925 debt
balance (SOR ¶ 1.h), but there was no indication it was being collected (Ex. 4).
In January 2007, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator about
his finances. He was shown his credit report at that time (Tr. 74, 94-95). 
In June 2007, Applicant took out a $25,000 loan from his 401(k) account to
purchase and refurbish a motor home that he has used twice for camping (Tr. 99-101).
He is repaying the loan at $44.97 per week (Ex. B). The motor home sits at a friend’s
house (Tr. 99).
A check of Applicant’s credit on August 27, 2007, showed Applicant had opened
new credit card accounts in December 2006 and May 2007 with respective limits of
$500 and $300. He owed balances of $440 and $194. His credit report also disclosed
outstanding balances on the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.c (balance $7,588), 1.d, and 1.f
($7,510) (Ex. 3).
In a September 2007 response to interrogatories from DOHA, Applicant indicated
that he had no knowledge of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.g, 1.k, and 1.l. He averred the
wireless services debt in ¶ 1.i was his son’s and had been paid, and he was making
payments of $50 monthly on the debt in ¶ 1.j, and of $250 monthly on the debt in ¶ 1.f.2
wireless phone debt on an account Applicant opened for his youngest son, he was asked whether his son had
done anything to clear up the debt. Applicant responded, “Apparently not. I’m going to be stuck with it.” Tr.
70).
5
Applicant attributed his debts to him being out of work for 13 weeks in 2002, to the
expense of his daughter’s wedding in May 2002, and to his spouse’s on and off
employment in the past five years. Applicant provided a personal financial statement
reflecting a monthly net remainder of $55 after payment of expenses and $130 on credit
cards. As for his failure to disclose his debts on his clearance application, Applicant
stated:
I am sorry that I misunderstood the question. I thought I was only filling out
the questionnaire as to any updates or routine maintenance of my
clearance. I did not believe that my financial status had any bearing on my
security clearance. I felt I was not applying for a loan. I have worked here
for over 27 years and am a veteran of our armed services.
Ex. 2.
After he received the SOR, Applicant contacted a debt management firm for
assistance in dealing with his debt. His spouse refused to become involved (“I got a
hold of them without my wife. She’s refused to get involved with any of this.” Tr. 38). On
November 8, 2007, the debt management firm proposed to address $15,625 in debt
(including old balances of SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.f, 1.g, 1.k, 1.l) on payments from Applicant
of $534 monthly from November 20, 2007 (Ex. D). 
On November 27, 2007, Applicant attempted to resolve his debt by applying for
a hardship withdrawal of $36,000 from his 401(k), claiming that his debt was from
unreimbursed medical expenses, and from attorney fees or court-related judgments. His
application was denied. As of January 17, 2008, Applicant had $53,752.80 available for
a hardship withdrawal if he could establish his eligibility (Ex. C, Tr. 38-39).
Over the December 2007/January 2008 time frame, Applicant contacted his
creditors and obtained updated balance information ($597.44 on ¶ 1.a, $1,422 on ¶ 1.b,
$7,588 on ¶ 1.c, $3,493.34 on ¶ 1.d, $7,510 on ¶ 1.f, $110 on ¶ 1.g, $925 on ¶ 1.h,
$2,812 on ¶ 1.j, $268 on ¶ 1.k, and $874 on ¶ 1.l) (Ex. A, Tr. 39-42). On January 23,
2008, the debt management firm proposed to resolve $13,896.78 of Applicant’s debt
(SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 1.f, and 1.l) by January 2011 in return for $498 the first month
and $449 monthly thereafter. Applicant and his spouse signed the agreement on
January 28, 2008 (Ex. E). Applicant arranged for automatic withdrawal from his and his
spouse’s joint checking account in the amount of $449 per month starting February 20,
2008 (Ex. F).
Applicant had taken no steps toward resolving the delinquent debt for the
timeshare as of January 2008 (SOR ¶ 1.c). The creditor offered to settle the debt for
$2,000. He told the creditor he would pay it if allowed to take a hardship withdrawal from
6
his 401(k). As of January 2008, the lender was holding off on foreclosure action pending
information from Applicant due the date of his hearing (“I was supposed to call them
today, because I don’t know what’s going to be happening.” Tr. 66-67). He had not
considered stopping his contributions to his 401(k) to obtain the funds to resolve his
debts (Tr. 87-88).
 
Applicant earned about $71,000 at his defense contractor job in 2006. Due to
less overtime, he earned about $10,000 less in 2007 (Tr. 47-48). As of January 12,
2008, Applicant’s hourly wage was $28.05 (Ex. B). His spouse was still handling the
family’s finances (Tr.  48). He estimated they have about $255 available each month in
discretionary funds (Tr. 86). As of January 2008, Applicant’s mother-in-law was giving
Applicant about $600 per month, which is sufficient to cover the expense of caring for
her (Tr. 97). Applicant’s spouse drives a 2007 model year convertible that costs them
$160 per week. They took out a joint five-year automobile loan in September 2007 (Tr.
88, 96).
 At his hearing, Applicant testified on direct examination that he understood he
made “a grave mistake” by not reporting any debts on his security clearance application,
but he was not totally aware of his indebtedness (Tr. 37). When asked to explain on
cross-examination why he responded “No” to the debt inquiries if he knew he had some
indebtedness, Applicant responded:
To be honest with you, I kind of struggled through those questions.
Basically, that was embarrassment, and I did not–at the time, I did not–I
didn’t think they were going to run a credit report, to be honest with you. I
thought it was just updating everything, you know, did we still live at the
same address and so on and so forth.
Applicant thereafter admitted that he knew his answers to questions 28a. and 28b. were
false, and he expressed regret for lying about his financial situation (Tr. 90-91).
Policies
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole person concept.” The Administrative Judge must consider all available,
7
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:
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. 
8
Applicant and his spouse did not spend wisely and incurred obligations beyond
what they could reasonably afford on their incomes. Beginning in 2001, creditors began
charging off and/or referring delinquent balances for collection. While a couple of debts
that went to court judgment were eventually satisfied, about $16,000 in delinquent debt
was still outstanding when he and his spouse purchased a timeshare in October 2003.
They fell behind some $3,205 in that loan as well. With more than $24,000 in delinquent
debt to be repaid, Applicant borrowed $25,000 from his 401(k) to buy and refurbish a
motor home in June 2007 that sits in his friend’s yard. Security significant concerns are
raised by “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” (AG ¶ 19(a)), by “indebtedness
caused by frivolous or irresponsible spending and the absence of any evidence of
willingness or intent to pay the debt or establish a realistic plan to pay the debt” (AG ¶
19(b)), by “a history of not meeting financial obligations” (AG ¶ 19(c)), and by
“consistent spending beyond one’s means” (AG ¶ 19(e)).
When he answered interrogatories in September 2007, Applicant attributed his
indebtedness to him being out of work following an accident in 2002, to the expense of
his daughter’s wedding in 2002, and to his spouse’s seasonal employment since 2003.
Under AG ¶ 20(b), such circumstances are potentially mitigating of financial
considerations concerns (“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 individual
acted responsibly under the circumstances”). However, Applicant has not shown that
his financial problems were due primarily to the lack of sustainable income, or to
medical expenses. Although he lost the opportunity for overtime earnings during the 13
weeks of recuperation, his salary was covered by disability insurance. The loss of
spousal income has been compensated for in part by his mother-in-law contributing
$600 monthly to the household. Medical costs were largely covered by health
insurance. AG ¶ 20(b) does not mitigate the judgment concerns raised by several years
of disregard for his financial obligations.
Applicant’s claimed ignorance of his debt (“I was unaware how bad everything
was, seriously. I’m not lying to you. I was totally unaware.” Tr. 82) is not supported by
the evidence. Even though his spouse handled the family’s finances, he knew of
collection notices from at least one creditor pursuing the medical debt in SOR ¶ 1.l and
he did not follow up (Tr. 71-72). He knew he had financial problems when he filled out
his SF 86 in October 2006 (Tr. 90), and was shown his credit report in January 2007
(Tr. 95). He placed his immediate desires ahead of his obligation to his creditors and his
future financial security by borrowing against his retirement to purchase a recreational
vehicle in June 2007. While he receives some credit for repaying that loan, the decision
to purchase the motor home is difficult to justify given his more than $26,000 in
outstanding delinquent debt.
After the SOR was issued, Applicant attempted without success to obtain a
hardship withdrawal from his 401(k) in November 2007. He contacted a debt
management firm and took the initial step of obtaining updated debt balance information
from his creditors. These efforts to resolve his delinquencies implicate AG ¶ 20(d) (“the
9
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts”). Yet, even if his claims of satisfaction of the $175 debt (SOR ¶ 1.i) and of
payments on those debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.j are accepted as accurate, he has not
done enough to persuade me that the financial issues are likely to be resolved in the
foreseeable future. As of his hearing on January 22, 2008, he had not signed off on a
proposed plan to repay $15,625 of his debt through monthly repayments of $534. After
his hearing, he presented a new debt management plan under which he and his spouse
agree to pay $449 monthly to resolve debts totaling $13,896.78 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.d,
1.f, and 1.l). However, with about $255 in discretionary funds available per month,
Applicant has not shown that he can afford those payments. He testified that his spouse
is seeking employment, but admitted she has not had any success (Tr. 86). Given
Applicant’s credit history and lack of present means to make those $449 payments, it is
premature to conclude that his financial problems are being resolved. AG ¶ 20(c) (“there
are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control”) does not
apply. Moreover, concerns persist that Applicant will continue to engage in discretionary
purchases that may stress his financial situation further. He took on the financial burden
of a car loan that costs him about $640 monthly for five years without any significant
thought:
Q. And again, given your financial situation, did you discuss the possibility
of buying a cheaper car, rather than a 2007 model?
A. No. I see your point.
(Tr. 88). He also continues to rationalize in his own mind the purchase of the motor
home (“I know sometimes people do need some pleasure and enjoyment to get away
from things, even if it’s once a year.” Tr. 112).
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The security concern related to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in
AG ¶ 15:
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.
As of October 2006 when Applicant applied for renewal of his secret-level
clearance, he owed on several accounts that had been delinquent since 2003 (SOR ¶¶
1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.f, 1.h, 1.j, 1.k, and 1.l). In March 2005, a wireless telephone provider
placed a $175 balance for collection (SOR ¶ 1.i). A long distance services provider
placed a $101 balance for collection in May 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.g). All these debts should
have been reported in response to the financial delinquency inquiries pertinent to debts
10
over 180 days within the past seven years (section 28a) and to debts currently over 90
days delinquent (section 28b).  Applicant instead responded “No” to both questions. 
Under AG ¶ 16(a) personal conduct concerns are raised by the “deliberate
omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant 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.” Applicant doesn’t contest that he answered “No” to the debt inquiries.
When he answered the SOR, he denied any intentional falsification, and claimed he
was unaware of his indebtedness. However, in response to DOHA interrogatories in
September 2007, Applicant stated in part:
I am sorry that I misunderstood the question. I thought I was only filling out
the questionnaire as to any updates or routine maintenance of my
clearance. I did not believe that my financial status had any bearing on my
security clearance.
Ex. 2. If Applicant had no knowledge of his indebtedness, it stands to reason he would
have so indicated when he was first confronted. Instead, he attempted to justify his false
responses by claiming that he failed to understand that his financial situation had any
bearing on his clearance. At his hearing, Applicant admitted that he had lied on his
security clearance application, although he again provided an excuse (“I thought it was
just updating everything, you know, did we still live at the same address and so on and
so forth.” Tr. 90). AG ¶ 16(a) applies.
Concerns as to whether Applicant understands his obligation of full candor
preclude me from applying AG ¶ 17(a) (“the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts
to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the
facts”). The details of his debts first surfaced in a credit report and were not volunteered
up-front. As recently as November 2007, he continued to justify his negative responses
to the debt inquiries on his SF 86:
I admit that I did not answer Question 28A and 28B of [my SF 86]
correctly. I did not fully understand the extent of the investigation that
would be taking place. If I could turn the clock back I would mark yes, but I
still could not list my debts at that time because I did not know the full
extent of my financial condition. I was fully unaware of all the collections
etc. I do not see all of the bills that come in.
See Answer. His belated expression of regret is noted in his favor, but it is not enough
to overcome the personal conduct concerns. None of the mitigating conditions apply.
11
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): “(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness
of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include
knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) extent to which participation
is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent
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.”
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole person concept. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant has a long tenure with the
defense contractor, but he has not exhibited good judgment in handling his personal
financial matters. He placed his personal interest ahead of his obligation to his creditors.
Moreover, as a longtime holder of a security clearance, Applicant knew or should have
known of the importance of being completely candid with the Government. Whether
from embarrassment or more likely fear that disclosure of his debts could negatively
affect his clearance and perhaps his continued employment, Applicant put self-interest
ahead of his fiduciary obligation to the Government. Efforts at reform are too recent and
incomplete to overcome the considerable concerns about his judgment and reliability.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Withdrawn
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
12
Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Withdrawn
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
Conclusion
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 Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                           
________________________
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
Administrative Judge