1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-06852
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
June 11, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On October 28, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant detailing the security concerns under
Guidelines E and F. 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 answered the SOR in writing on November 29, 2007, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on January 8, 2008. Applicant did not file a
response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on May 2, 2008. Based upon a
review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
No such statement was on the EQNSP. 
1
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 42 year old employee of a defense contractor.
Applicant is indebted in the approximate amount of $4,740.00 to an individual as
a result of a judgement entered against her in 2003.
Applicant is indebted to Capitol One Bank in the approximate amount of $925.00
as a result of a judgment entered against her in 2001.
Applicant is indebted to Pallino in the approximate amount of $862.00. This debt
was placed for collection with RPM in 2007.
Applicant is indebted to Dominion Virginia Power in the approximate amount of
$1,038.00. This debt has been assigned to NCO-MARLIN for collection.
Applicant is indebted to Sprint in the approximate amount of $391.00. This debt
was referred to AFNI-BLOOM for collection in or before 2004.
Applicant has a history of bad debts and judgments against her going back to the
early 1990s when she and her husband divorced. She has struggled since then while
rasing her two children without child support from the husband. Her financial difficulties
were compounded by several periods of unemployment.
Applicant completed an electronic questionnaire for national security positions
(EQNSP) in July 2006. In response to three questions on the EQNSP, applicant
intentionally provided false, material information. Specifically, in response to Question
28A, she denied that in the prior seven years she had been over 180 days delinquent
on any debt; in response to Question 28B, she denied she was then over 90 days
delinquent on any debts; and in response to Question 29, she denied that in the prior
seven years she had any judgments against her that had not been paid. As documented
above, applicant was well over 180 days delinquent on numerous debts, including two
judgment debts from 2001 and 2003, when she completed the EQNSP. During a
December 2006 interview with an OPM investigator, applicant stated she didn’t list her
debts on the EQNSP because she feared “repercussions from her job supervisor and/or
security officer.” In her response to the SOR, she stated she didn’t list the debts or
judgments because (1) she was rushing to complete the EQNSP and was concentrating
on her job history, (2) because of her 2001 interview with an investigator, she knew the
Government was aware of her debts, and (3) she thought she had put down on the
EQNSP that she “would discuss [her debts] with interviewer.”   This was not the first1
time applicant falsified material facts on a DoD security questionnaire. On an April 1999
security clearance application (SCA), she denied having any financial problems when, in
fact, she had numerous delinquent debts, including judgment debts, outstanding.
3
Policies
The President has “the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on
national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to
occupy a position that will give that person access to such information.” (Department of
the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,527 (1988).) In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), the President set out
guidelines and procedures for safeguarding classified information within the executive
branch. The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant
applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” (Exec. Ord. 10865, Section 2.)
To be eligible for a security clearance, an applicant must meet the security
guidelines contained in the Directive. Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personnel
security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
under each guideline.
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in
the SOR that disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to
classified information. (Directive, Paragraph E3.1.14.) Thereafter, the applicant is
responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.
(Directive, Paragraph E3. 1.15.) An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.” (ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).) “Any doubt as to
whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will
be resolved in favor of the national security.” (Directive, Paragraph E2.2.2.)
A person granted access to classified information enters into a special
relationship with the government. The government must be able to repose a high
degree of trust and confidence in those individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not a
determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. (Exec. Ord. 10865, Section 7.) It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
has established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to Financial Considerations is set forth in
Paragraph 18 of the new AG, and is as follows:
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.
4
The AG note several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
Paragraph 19.a., an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” is potentially
disqualifying. Under Paragraph 19.c., “a history of not meeting financial obligations” may
raise security concerns. The evidence shows applicant has a long history of an inability
or unwillingness to pay her debts. Accordingly, these disqualifying conditions are
applicable.
The guidelines also set out mitigating conditions. Paragraph 20.a. may apply
where “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.” Applicant’s failure to honor her
financial obligations is both recent and frequent. This fact, and the fact the evidence
does not support a finding that her financial difficulties are likely to be resolved anytime
soon, precludes application of this mitigation condition.
Under Paragraph 20.b., it may be mitigating where “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.”
Applicant’s financial difficulties were arguably largely the result of factors beyond her
control; namely, her divorce and numerous periods of unemployment. However, it is
impossible to conclude she acted responsibly under the circumstances for at least two
reasons. First, she has made no payments on any of her long-standing past-due debts
even though she has been gainfully employed since 2003. Second, in 2006 she either
purchased a new home or refinanced her then current home by taking out two new
mortgages. These two mortgages total approximately $350,000.00, and require
applicant to make monthly payments totaling approximately $2,500.00. According to a
July 2007 financial statement completed by applicant, when these mortgage payments
are factored in, she has a net monthly cash flow of less than $60.00, and this $60.00
figure assumes a monthly $200.00 to $400.00 contribution from her mother and no
payments to her delinquent creditors. Under the circumstances, obtaining these two
mortgages does not evince responsibility. This mitigating condition does not apply.
Evidence that “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”
is potentially mitigating under Paragraph 20.c. This mitigation condition does not apply.
Paragraph 20.d. applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant has
made statements that she will begin making payments on her delinquent debts but has
not provided any proof that she has actually done so. This mitigating condition does not
apply.
5
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set forth in
Paragraph 15 of the AG, and is as follows:
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.
Paragraph16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Under Paragraph 16.a., 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,” may be disqualifying. This
disqualifying condition is applicable because applicant intentionally provided false,
material information on an EQNSP.
Paragraph 17 sets forth conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I
considered each of them and conclude none apply.
“Whole Person” Analysis 
Under the whole person concept, the AJ must evaluate an applicant’s security
eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances.
An AJ should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG Paragraph
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 Paragraph 2(c), the ultimate
determination of whether to grant 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 is a mature woman who
has a history of not meeting her financial obligations. In addition, she lied to the
Government in July 2006 when she denied any delinquent debt. Applicant’s inability or
unwillingness to honor her financial obligations and to be truthful about them is serious
6
and recent. Her failure to offer credible evidence that her financial difficulties are unlikely
to continue, and her incredible denial of an intent to deceive the Government about her
financial condition when completing the EQNSP, preclude findings that her financial
difficulties will not recur and she is unlikely to provide false information to the
Government in the future. Based on the foregoing, I conclude applicant failed to mitigate
the security concerns arising from Guidelines E and F.
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
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
_________________
JOSEPH TESTAN
Administrative Judge