DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February1
20, 1990), 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 (RAG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department
of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
                                                          )     ISCR Case No. 06-24093
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Francisco J. Mendez, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 25 February 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guideline F.  Applicant answered the SOR 13 March 2008, and requested a hearing.1
DOHA assigned the case to me 9 May 2008, and I convened a hearing 12 June 2008.
DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 23 June 2008.
 
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. He is a 47-year-old facility specialist
employed by a defense contractor since February 2004. He seeks to retain the security
clearance he has held since September 1989.
The SOR alleges, government exhibits substantiate, and Applicant admits, 12
delinquent debts totaling nearly $37,000. Over $34,000 of the debt is for unpaid taxes to
the IRS (tax years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004) and his home state. He may owe the
IRS an additional $5,000 for tax years 2005, 2006, and 2007. Of the remaining $2,900,
Applicant claims—without corroboration—to have paid or settled seven debts for $1,800
in March 2008, as he answered the SOR.
Applicant attributes his tax difficulties to using the standard deduction when
itemizing his deductions would have lowered his tax liability. In addition, he did not
ensure that his income tax withholding was adequate to cover his tax liability. Finally, on
a larger level, he acknowledges a history of financial mismanagement, procrastination,
and irresponsibility.
Applicant was aware of his financial delinquencies before his subject interview in
November 2000, but took no action to address them. In response to the SOR, Applicant
claimed to have paid or settled seven debts, but produced no documentation to support
his claim. Finally, in about May 2008, he began to work with his accountant to file
amended returns using itemized deductions to reduce his tax liability. However, no
returns have been filed as yet, and it is unclear how much debt remains to be paid even
with the benefit of itemized deductions. 
Policies
The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (RAG) 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 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 RAG ¶ 2(a). The
presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or
against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where 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 guideline is Guideline F
(Financial Considerations).
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
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 that4
it is  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
3
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” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.2
Analysis
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant’s credit reports establish his
indebtedness. Applicant was aware of the alleged debts since at least November 2007,
yet he took no effective action to address the debts before the SOR was issued.  The3
only action taken by Applicant after the SOR was issued was to hire a law firm to
dispute the debts. That effort may bear fruit, but not in time to be much help to Applicant
in this case.
Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. His
financial difficulties are both recent and multiple.  The debts were not due to4
circumstances beyond his control and he has not acted responsibly in addressing his
debts.  There is no evidence that he has sought credit counseling or otherwise brought5
the problem under control.  At best, only a small portion of the debts have been paid,6
and those were not paid in a timely, good-faith effort.  Further, given his unwillingness to7
seek or use financial counseling, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Applicant
will put his financial problems behind him. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
4
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph b: Against 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
Conclusion
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 GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge