1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
                                                          )         ISCR Case No. 07-09265
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: D. Michael Lyles, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SCA), on October 16,
2006. On November 7, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under financial
considerations (Guideline F) and personal conduct (Guideline E). The action was taken
pursuant to 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 made effective within the Department of Defense
for SORs issued on or after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted his answer to the SOR on December 12, 2007. DOHA issued
a notice of hearing on April 8, 2008, and the hearing was held on May 29, 2008. At the
hearing, four exhibits (GE 1 through 4) were admitted in evidence without objection to
support the government’s case. Applicant testified. In the time allowed for Applicant to
submit additional documentation, he submitted AE A and AE B. AE A is an incomplete
portion of his Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition. AE B is a two-page ledger statement
 Applicant provided no documentation showing the unemployment office responsible for the training. 1
2
regarding payments on his Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lien for tax years 1996 and
1997, and verification of a zero balance as of June 9, 2008. (AE B) DOHA received a
copy of the transcript of the proceedings on June 5, 2008. Based upon a review of the
case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information
is denied.
Findings of Fact
The SOR lists 21 debts under the financial considerations guideline. The second
guideline (paragraph 2, personal conduct) lists two allegations. Applicant admitted all
financial allegations except the IRS lien owed the federal government. He denied both
allegations under paragraph 2. He thought the question in 2.a. of the SOR applied only
to current debts. In defense of his “No” answer to the 2.b. allegation, he did not have a
credit report when he answered the question. 
Applicant is 53 years old. He has been employed as a security officer since
August 2006. He seeks a security clearance.
Financial Considerations
In 1978, Applicant began working as a materials packer of trucks. In 1983, he
seriously injured his back. He could no longer pick up heavy items. The injury led to a
major deterioration of the discs in his back that he first discovered in 1993. The disc
problem has limited the types of work he can perform. 
Between 1993 and 1997, Applicant believed he was handling his finances suitably
because he was earning about $45,000.00 a year, and was building a house. Suddenly,
his back flared up and marital problems surfaced due to his wife’s worsening emotional
problems. He incurred federal tax problems for tax year 1997 (SOR 1.u.) after his wife
filed federal tax returns and kept the tax refund. In early 1998, their relationship became
so intolerable that he left her to live with his mother for a while in another part of the
Midwestern United States. 
While living with his mother or in the same locale between 1998 and 2003,
Applicant claims that an unemployment office official promised to finance his training to
become a truck driver. (SOR 1.q, $3,000.00)  Applicant successfully completed the1
course and tried to drive for several transport companies. Unfortunately, his back and/or
his nerves prevented him from keeping the jobs for very long. 
In 2003, Applicant settled in the area and began working for a national discount
store. A hurricane hit the area in September 2005, and forced Applicant, his girlfriend at
the time, and her disabled son, into a federal trailer for several months. 
 He stated he had his medical bills at home. He also was paying on these medical bills. No documentation2
was produced. 
 By combining her Social Security with his earnings, they should have a larger monthly remainder available3
to pay the past due debts than is reflected in GE 4. 
 AE B does not reveal what the amount of the original lien was and when the lien was filed. An amount of4
$1,600.00 is determined to be the original amount of the lien based on subtracting the withholding amount
($6,200.00) from the additional amount assessed ($7,800.00) that appears on the first page of AE B. 
3
In August 2006, Applicant began working for his current employer, but had to take
medical leave for various health problems. The back problems continued, and dental
pain/infection caused him to take a week off in October 2007 to have several teeth
removed. Then, he had to take two weeks off to obtain a diagnosis and proper treatment
for his eyes. Next, he discovered growths under his arms that had to be removed. Then,
after discovering he had diabetes, he found out his body could only tolerate certain kinds
of medication. After taking off work for another six weeks for surgical removal of
gallstones, he started back to work in March 2008.  Applicant receives most of his2
treatment from the Veteran’s Administration Hospital (VA) at the present time. 
Applicant has grossed approximately $11,000.00 since March 2008, even though
his current earnings fluctuate. After subtracting his expenses from earnings, he has a net
remainder of $100.00 to $200.00 a month. He allows his fiancé of 18 months to handle
the finances. Applicant’s participation in handling the finances entails turning over his
check to his fiancé, and she pools  his check with the $1,100 she receives monthly in3
Social Security to pay the bills and medical accounts. She is concentrating on his
medical bills from 2007 and early 2008. His fiancé did not assist him when he completed
the SCA in October 2006.
The number of past due accounts listed in the SOR decreases by one with
Applicant’s payoff of the IRS tax lien in June 2008. (AE B)  After subtracting $1,600.004
from 10,188.00, he still owes 20 creditors approximately $8588.00.
Personal Conduct
On October 16, 2006, Applicant filled out, certified, and signed a security
clearance application (SCA). Based on entries in GE 2 and GE 3, he falsified question
28.a. (SOR 2.a. of his SCA by answering “No” to having debts over 180 days delinquent
in the last 7 years), and by answering “No” to question 28.b. (over 90 days delinquent on
any debt). He also answered “No” to question 27.d. (SOR 2.b., judgments in the last 7
years). Though he denied falsifying either question in his answer to the SOR, he testified
that he knew he had debts over 180 days delinquent when he answered “No” to question
28.a. in October 2006. (Tr. 79) Regarding his negative response to question 27.d., I find
he intentionally falsified his answer on the security form in October 2006 because he
acknowledged the judgment in GE 4 and in his answers to the SOR. 
4
Character Evidence
Applicant served honorably in the Unites States Marine Corps (USMC) from 1973
to 1976. On April 16, 2008, Applicant filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and furnished the
Schedule F list of his unsecured creditors. However, he did not provide a complete copy
of the petition nor did he provide evidence of filing the petition. He also received a half
day of required financial counseling in advance of filing his Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
petition. Applicant likes his job because he does not have to put weight on his back. 
Applicant’s fiancé believes she and Applicant communicate well. She has found
Applicant to be honest, and someone she would trust with her life. Even though she is
paying on the current medical debt, she also tries to save about $50.00 a month. 
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 flexible rules of law. Recognizing the complexities of human
behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s ultimate adjudicative goal is a fair,
impartial and common sense decision. According to the AG, the entire process is a
careful, thorough evaluation 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 ¶ 2b.
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
is not restricted to normal duty hours. Rather, the relationship is an-around-the-clock
5
responsibility between an applicant and the federal government. 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.
Financial Considerations (FC)
A person who does not live within their means is at risk of engaging in illegal acts
to generate funds. 
Personal Conduct (PC)
Deliberately concealing information during the course of a security investigation
demonstrates dishonesty while representing a serious security concern.
Analysis
Financial Considerations (FC)
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.”
On November 7, 2007 (date of the SOR), Applicant owed 20 creditors $8588.00.
He also owed IRS for a tax lien he incurred in 1996 and 1997. (SOR 1.u.) Having
determined from AE B that the federal tax to be at least $1,500.00, Applicant’s total past
due indebtedness was about $10,000.00. FC disqualifying condition (DC) 19.a. (inability
or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and FC DC 19.c. (a history of not meeting financial
obligations) apply because the debts still exist, and they have fallen delinquent at various
times between 1997 (SOR 1.u, federal tax debt) and 2006. I have decided not to include
FC DC 19.g. (failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as required
or fraudulent filing of the same). There is insufficient evidence in the record to conclude
Applicant tried to defraud the government. Rather, Applicant was experiencing
relationship problems with his wife at the time that he could only rectify by leaving her,
and obtaining a divorce. 
The mitigating conditions have been evaluated. FC mitigating condition (MC) 20.a.
(the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
6
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) does not apply as Applicant still
owes for all the overdue accounts except SOR 1.u. The number, amount of the debt, and
age of some of the listed accounts, continues to cast doubt on Applicant’s current
reliability, and judgment. 
Applicant receives limited mitigation under FC MC 20.b. (the conditions that
resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control). Since 1993,
Applicant’s back problems prevented him from performing jobs requiring use of his back.
His medical problems were exacerbated by an array of other serious health problems
that kept him from work, and required hospitalization for varying periods of time until
March 2008. However, since March 2008, he has grossed about $11,00.00. He could
have applied some of his income to resolve smaller debt listed in the SOR. Alternatively,
he could have submitted some documentation supporting his claims he was paying on
the current medical debts. Without documentation that supports his claims of paying on
these current medical debts, it is difficult to conclude he acted responsibly under the
circumstances after he returned to work in March 2008. 
FC MC 20.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 under control)
receives limited favorable attention due to the fact he did not receive counseling until
required to by filing his Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition. Though the bankruptcy discharge
in June 2008 may extinguish Applicant’s immediate debts, there is insufficient evidence
to show Applicant has the financial tools to manage an encounter with similar financial
problems in the future.
FC MC 20.d. (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. While he paid off the IRS in June 2008 (10
years after incurring the debt in 1997), Applicant still owes 20 creditors $8,588.00.
Though a Chapter 7 discharge is a lawful way of extinguishing one’s debts when he
cannot repay them, a discharge in this fashion does not receive the same level of
mitigation because there is no sustained record of repaying debts. Rather, the debtor
has his debts eliminated, and is given a fresh start while the creditor is left without legal
recourse to recover the balance of a debt. The mitigation Applicant receives under FC
MC 20.b., FC MC 20.c., and FC MC 20.d. does not meet his ultimate burden of
persuasion under the FC guideline. 
Personal Conduct (PC)
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.” 
7
Applicant’s “No” answers to both debt questions (28.a., 28.b.) of his SCA in
October 2006 were deliberate falsifications of relevant facts as defined by PC DC 16.a.
(deliberate omission, falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security
questionnaire used to determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness)
Applicant knew that he was concealing information when he entered his “No” answers on
the form. 
I have carefully considered the following mitigating conditions to determine
whether Applicant’s intentional omissions are mitigated: PC MC 17.a. (the individual
made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission or falsification before being
confronted with the facts); PC MC 17.c. (the offense is so minor, or so much time has
passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment); and, PC MC 17.d. (the individual has
acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken
other steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused
untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely
to recur) 
PC MC 17. a. does not apply because Applicant did not disclose the falsification
until after he was confronted at the hearing about his “No” answers to both questions on
the security form. PC MC 17.b. (the offense was so minor, or such time passed, or the
behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment) does not apply as Applicant attempted to conceal 20 debts less than two
years ago. Finally, PC MC 17.d. (the individual has acknowledged the behavior and
obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other
inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur) applies in part as
Applicant admitted he deliberately omitted his debts from the form. However, he has not
presented enough mitigating evidence to confidently conclude his dishonesty is unlikely
to recur. In sum, Applicant’s evidence in mitigation falls short of overcoming the adverse
evidence under the PC guideline. 
Whole Person Concept (WPC) 
I have weighed the circumstances of this case under the general factors of the
whole person concept. Applicant was between 43 and 53 years old when he
accumulated his overdue debt. Though he has taken a step in the right direction with a
Chapter 7 discharge, there is a substantial lack of evidence indicating what his financial
practices are except that when he gets his check, he turns it over to his fiancé. Also, he
was advised that his claims of paying off certain medical creditors would be more
credible if he supplied documentation. Considering the evidence as a whole, the
absence of documentation showing that more than one out of 20 creditors has been
completely or partially satisfied militates against Applicant’s security clearance suitability.
SOR 2.a. is also resolved against Applicant. While he denied and/or could not remember
8
the judgment (SOR 1.a.) at the hearing, he admitted the debt in his answer to the SOR,
and he acknowledged the debt in his answers to interrogatories September 2007. (GE 4)
Accordingly, the FC and PC guidelines are found against Applicant. 
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 (Financial Considerations, 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. Against Applicant
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.k. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u. For Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Personal Conduct, Guideline E): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b. Against Applicant
9
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. 
                       
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge