1
                                                             
                            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
             DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------, -------- --------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-15630
SSN: ------ ---- -------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s has substantial delinquent debt that he cannot afford to repay, and
has to borrow $1,000 per month from family to avoid further delinquencies. He falsified
information about his recent drug use on his security clearance application. Based upon
thorough review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access
to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted his Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions (SF 86), on
November 29, 2006. On January 17, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns
under Guidelines F and E. 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 (DoD) for SORs issued after September 1,
2006. 
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on February 4, 2008. He answered
the SOR in writing on February 12, 2008, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge. DOHA received the request on February 19, 2008. Department
Counsel was prepared to proceed on February 26, 2008, and DOHA assigned the case
to me on February 28, 2008. 
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on March 11, 2008, and I convened the hearing
as scheduled on March 26, 2008. An electronic copy of the notice was delivered to
Applicant on March 11, 2008 via email, and he acknowledged receiving it 15 days
previously during the hearing. (Tr. at 9.) The government offered exhibits (GE) 1
through 7, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf,
and submitted Applicant’s Exhibit (AE) A (a bound volume with 27 separate tabs and
exhibits), and AE B (a single page inserted in the inside front-cover pocket of AE A),
which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.)
on April 14, 2008. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 44-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He is married with
two sons, ages 17 and 14. He also has a 22-year-old daughter about whom he only
learned recently, who lives independently without financial effect on his family.
Applicant’s wife has been unable to work since December 2006, when she suffered a
work-related injury. She was injured again in an automobile accident in September
2007. They are still awaiting financial compensation from both incidents, although she
does receive workers’ compensation. (GE 4 at 14;AE A at tab 23; Tr. at 45-46.) Her loss
of income caused their monthly expenses to exceed their income by approximately
$1,000 per month, an amount that Applicant’s mother-in-law has been giving to them for
more than six months. They also borrowed $14,000 from his parents to pay some older
bills, and are repaying that debt at a rate of $410 per month.
In his Answer to the SOR, dated February 12, 2008, Applicant admitted to the
truth of each SOR allegation. During his testimony, he stated that he has been working
to repay his delinquent debts and thought that some of them may have been repaid,
although he could not find documentation to substantiate those payments. His most
recent credit bureau report (CBR) does not contain some of the SOR-listed debts that
were reflected in earlier reports. The 18 delinquent debts listed in the SOR, to which
Applicant formally admitted, total $36,680, and range from 1989 to 2006. (GE 3.)
Applicant does not dispute owing the three state tax debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.a
through 1.c, and testified that he believes the total owed is now approximately $1,700.
(Tr. at 37, 51-52.) During the hearing, Applicant disputed owing both the $947 tax debt
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e, and the separate $1,600 tax debt to the same state alleged in
SOR ¶ 1.d. Although both debts are listed on pages 3 and 4 of GE 3, it is apparent that
the $1,600 tax lien filed in 1995 was simply an updated claim from the same originally
disputed smaller claim filed in 1989. This claim arose when Applicant earned some
outside income in that state while serving in the Navy, and the state taxed his entire
3
reported federal income including his military pay on which he paid taxes in his home
state. Applicant neither lived nor worked in the state after leaving the Navy in 1990, and
would not have incurred a separate tax liability in 1995. Although he originally disputed
the amount owed, he never followed through and believes it is now too late to dispute
the issue. He has made no effort to resolve this debt to date, because he cannot afford
to pay it now. (Tr. at 37-38, 52-54.)
Applicant entered into an Offer in Compromise agreement with the Federal
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to resolve what was originally more than $17,000 in
delinquent tax debt. As of March 13, 2008, he had paid $5,317 toward the negotiated
$10,332 settlement, and still owed $5,015 toward which he pays between $440 and
$530 per month. The IRS considers him to be in good standing on the agreement. This
is the debt alleged in the amount of $11,235 in SOR ¶ 1.f, which was based on the
amount filed with the federal tax lien in October 2006. Applicant also anticipates that his
tax refund of approximately $1,700 and the $1,800 federal tax rebate will be kept by the
IRS and applied to this debt, allowing him to finish paying it with only three or four
additional monthly payments. (GE 3 at 4;GE 4 at 11; AE A at tab 15; Tr. at 38, 54-57.)
Applicant was originally unsure whether the two debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.g
($315) and 1.h ($171) had been paid. These outstanding balances were reported in GE
3 (CBR dated Feb. 15, 2007) at pages 5 and 7. However, they do not appear in GE 5
(CBR dated Feb. 26, 2008), and are listed as closed collection accounts with no
balance shown in AE A at tab 22, page 10 (CBR dated Mar. 17, 2008). He had no proof
of having made payment and has not contacted the creditors, and later testified that he
thought the ¶ 1.h debt had not been paid, and confirmed that it is listed with a $171
balance due on page 3 of AE A at tab 22. (Tr. at 38-39, 57-59.) 
Applicant also testified that he believed the two debts, to the same creditor, listed
in SOR ¶¶ 1.i ($135) and 1.j ($159) have been paid. These debts were listed on page 6
of GE 3, but do not appear on any of Applicant’s subsequent CBRs (GE 5 and AE A at
tab 22). However, he did not keep any record of the payments. (Tr. at 39, 59.) He
admitted still owing th $14,746 debt listed in SOR ¶ 1.k. This was a credit card balance
on a company credit card issued to him by a former employer. When he was
unexpectedly laid off, he used the card for personal expenses and has not made any
payments toward this debt. Although it has been dropped from his 2008 CBRs due to
the age of the debt, Applicant agreed that he still owes it and intends to pay it when he
can. (GE 3 at 6; Tr. at 39-40, 59-60.)
Applicant also admits owing the $740 delinquent utility bill alleged in SOR ¶ 1.l.
He has not contacted this creditor because he has not had sufficient funds to repay the
debt. (GE 3 at 7; AE A tab 22 at 2; Tr. at 40; 60.) He believed that the debts alleged in
SOR ¶¶ 1.m ($118), and 1.n. ($116) have been paid. He did not have documentation to
support that, except that neither debt appears on either of the 2008 CBRs in the record.
(Tr. at 40, 60-61.) He formerly tried, and plans to again dispute the amount claimed by
the creditor ($3,920) for the delinquent debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.o. He believes a
significant portion of that amount should have been paid by a former health insurance
4
program, however it became due in June 2002 and was reported delinquent in August
2002. Applicant reported on his SF 86 that he was unemployed from September 2001
until September 2002, and did not explain what insurance coverage he would have
been eligible for. (GE 3 at 8; GE 5 at 2; GE 2 at 17; Tr. at 40, 61-64.)
Applicant admitted owing the $269 medical debt listed in SOR ¶ 1.p. He thought
that the two debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.q ($453) and 1.r ($276) may have been included in
an $1,800 payment he made to a debt collector in September 2007. He had no
documentation to substantiate this, however, and both debts were still reported to be
outstanding on his February and March 2008 CBRs. (AE A at tabs 21, and 22 at 11-12;
GE 5 at 2; Tr. at 64-66.) 
In sum, Applicant still owes at least 12 of the SOR-listed delinquent debts with an
outstanding balance in excess of $28,600. He has been making $290 monthly
payments toward a delinquent tax debt in his present state that is not listed in the SOR.
The outstanding balance on this debt is down to $610. (AE A at tab 21.) He also makes
about $500 in monthly payments toward his federal tax Offer in Compromise. In order to
make those payments and pay some of his other bills, he has borrowed $14,000 from
his father and still borrows $1,000 per month from his mother-in-law. He has decided
not to file for bankruptcy since many of these debts arose in part due to his drug and
alcohol addiction and making his creditors whole is important to him as part of his
recovery program. (Tr. at 35-36, 74-76.)
Applicant stopped drinking alcohol in November 2002 as part of a court-ordered
treatment program following a DUI arrest. From 1990 until 2002, he used marijuana on
a daily basis. Following the treatment program, he continued to use marijuana, but on a
less frequent “recreational” basis. He stopped using marijuana in late November 2006.
In response to question 24 on his SF 86, he reported occasional use of marijuana from
1990 until October 2002. He further added the comment: “Was a recreational user prior
to 2002 when I entered an intensive outpatient treatment program for a DUI conviction.
Have been clean and sober since Thanksgiving 2002.” (GE 2 at 38.) 
In his December 2007 response to DOHA Interrogatories, Applicant reported
“daily” marijuana use ending in October 2006. (GE 4 at 7.) He reported this information
because he decided to correct his previous false statement that he had stopped using
marijuana in 2002. The Government had no other source of information about
Applicant’s actual marijuana use between 2002 and 2006. (Tr. at 67-70, 79.) Applicant
was awarded non-judicial punishment while in the Navy in 1985 after a urinalysis test
that showed he had used cocaine. (GE 1.)
Applicant provided letters attesting to his positive post-alcohol-treatment lifestyle
changes and good character from two supervisors, a long-time friend, his father, sister,
and both his wife’s parents. (AE A at tabs 4-10.) His testimony during the hearing was
forthright and credible.
5
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 used to evaluate
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(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in
the context of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.” The
Administrative Judge must consider all available, 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 “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified
information will be resolved in favor of the 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides that “Any determination under this order adverse to
an applicant 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.” 
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
6
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
AG ¶ 18 expresses the security concern pertaining to financial considerations:
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 over-
extended 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.
AG ¶ 19 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Of these nine different disqualifying conditions, the Government asserted
that two were raised by Applicant’s financial circumstances (Tr. at 82.): “(a) inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts;” and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.”
The evidence shows that Applicant has paid about half of his delinquent federal
tax debt, and most of his delinquent taxes in his current state which were not alleged in
the SOR. However, he still has at least 12 outstanding, acknowledged, SOR-listed
delinquent debts totaling in excess of $28,600. His monthly income falls about $1,000
short of being sufficient to pay his present bills and make payments toward those two
tax debts and a $14,000 loan from his father. He and his wife borrow $1,000 a month
from his mother-in-law to make up that difference. Substantial security concerns are
raised under both AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c).
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The five
potentially pertinent conditions are:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment;
(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 individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
7
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control;
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented roof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
Applicant’s delinquent debts arose over 20 years, and a substantial number and
amount remain delinquent at present. His family budget is such that they have to borrow
$1,000 per month from family to make payments toward two tax liens, and avoid
incurring additional delinquent debts. They may receive some compensation for his
wife’s injuries, but the amount and timing of any such recovery are completely unknown.
Part of their present inability to repay these debts resulted from her inability to resume
working after her 2006 automobile accident, but most of their delinquent debts predate
that incident. Applicant offered no evidence of financial counseling or any
comprehensive plan to address his debt. He is repaying two delinquent tax debts, but
has not contacted any of the remaining creditors to arrange repayments because he
has no funds available to do so. He originally disputed the amount of one state tax
claim, but did not follow through and the time for disputing that liability has passed. He
also stated that he wanted to dispute some of the claimed $3,920 medical bill, but has
not taken any steps to do so.
This evidence establishes minimal mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20(a) through (e).
Applicant and his family remain financially over-extended to a significant extent. He has
significantly improved his lifestyle and begun to address his financial obligations in a
responsible manner, but insufficient time has passed to establish a clear record of
trustworthiness, reliability and good judgment. 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
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.
8
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The disqualifying condition alleged in the SOR and raised by the evidence
in this case is:
(a) 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 provided a false denial, concerning his marijuana use between October
2002 and November 2006, in response to question24 on his 2006 SF 86. He certified
the completeness and accuracy of his answers, acknowledging the obligation to be
truthful. He knew this was false when he completed the questionnaire. The weight of
evidence in this record leads to the conclusion that his false response to this question
was deliberate. 
Applicant was asked to describe his history of drug use in DOHA Interrogatories,
and voluntarily corrected the false information described above in his December 2007
answer. The Government had no other source of information about this drug use. This
establishes the personal conduct mitigating condition set forth in AG ¶ 17(a): “the
individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or
falsification before being confronted with the facts.” Although the correction occurred
just over a year after the original falsification, it took place during Applicant’s next
communication with the Government on the subject of his drug use. He was not
confronted with the facts, because no one in the Government knew what the facts were.
The revelation was in response to a general question, and was made with the intent to
be forthright and set the record straight. The original falsification was made very near
the same time that Applicant decided to stop using marijuana, and was intended to be
deceptive in that regard. He has not used marijuana since November 2006, and
admitted to the recent use after a year of abstinence. Given his 21-year history of
significant drug use, his willingness to falsify his SF 86 about that use establishes
significant concerns about his candor, judgment and willingness to follow rules and
regulations. On balance, the mitigating effect of his December 2007 voluntary disclosure
is insufficient to overcome those concerns.
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
9
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 common sense 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’s conduct of potential
concern involves substantial delinquent debts that he cannot afford to repay, and
falsification about recent drug use on his security clearance application. Applicant is a
mature, experienced adult who is accountable for his decisions and conduct. His debts
arose over a lengthy period, and persist to date. There is ongoing potential for pressure,
coercion, exploitation or duress since he remains financially overextended. His
substantial and responsible steps to stop drinking and abusing drugs, and to resolve the
debts as he can afford to do so are commendable, but it will be some time before he
can become solvent. His falsification concerning recent drug use took place on his
present application for a clearance, and was done to conceal relevant negative
information. His indebtedness is quite likely to continue in the foreseeable future. In light
of his lengthy substance abuse history, recurrence of concealment of such activity was
not shown to be unlikely.  
On balance, Applicant presented insufficient evidence to fully mitigate reliability
and trustworthiness security concerns arising from his failure to satisfy debts, history of
not meeting financial obligations, and falsification on his clearance application. Overall,
the record evidence leaves substantial doubts as to Applicant’s present eligibility and
suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not
mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial considerations and personal
conduct. 
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: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
10
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:            AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a:                                 Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b:                                   Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c:                                   Against Applicant 
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a
security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.       
                                  
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge