DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-03040
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Emilio Jaksetic, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
December 29, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On June 9, 2008, 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 July 12, 2008, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on August 18, 2008. Applicant did not file a
response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on October 29, 2008. Based
upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 43 year old employee of a defense contractor.
Applicant admits that as of May 30, 2008, he was indebted to the following
creditors in the following approximate amounts: California BU/Medical $25.00; a medical
account $33.00; and OPN Credit/Old Point/Automobile $7,438.00. All three accounts
are delinquent and have been placed for collection.
As of May 2008, applicant was indebted to Meritech mortgage in the approximate
past-due amount of $5,759.00. Even if this debt was “taken over” by applicant’s ex-wife
as he claims in his SOR response, without a release from the creditor, he is still liable
for the debt.
Applicant is indebted to P******* R****** GE in the amount of $525.00 as a result
of a judgment entered against him in April 2007.
Applicant is indebted to Cap 1 Bank in the approximate amount of $825.00. This
debt is past-due.
Applicant is indebted to Prince Park /Triangle Rent A Car, Inc. in the approximate
amount of $136.00. This debt has been placed for collection.
As of March 2008, applicant owed the Commonwealth of Virginia at least
$2,222.09 in past-due child support.
Applicant is indebted to Jeffersncp in the approximate amount of $1,933.00. This
delinquent debt originated with Aspire Visa (Exhibits 5 and 7).
Applicant is indebted to Providian in the approximate amount of $1,724.00
(Exhibits 4 and 7).
Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in January 2003. His case was
dismissed in April 2006 for failure to make payments to the bankruptcy trustee.
Applicant provided a personal financial statement to DOHA in April 2008, which
showed he had approximately $428.00 in discretionary income. In his response to the
SOR, applicant stated this “extra” income is being used to “catch up on child support
payments.”
Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) in September 2007. In response to three questions on the e-QIP, applicant
denied that (1) in the prior seven years he had any judgments against him that he had
not paid, (2) in the prior seven years he had been over 180 days delinquent on any
debt, and (3) he was then over 90 days delinquent on any debts. In fact, at minimum,
applicant was over 180 days delinquent on his debts to California BU/Medical, OPN
Credit, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Jeffersncp, and Providian when he completed
the e-QIP. And, the $525.00 judgment debt, which remains unpaid, was entered against
3
him in April 2007. In his response to the SOR, applicant denied that he deliberately
provided the false information. I find that applicant’s false answers were intentional.
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
4
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.
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 history of an inability or
unwillingness to pay his 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 his
financial obligations is ongoing, and it casts doubt on his current reliability and
judgment. Accordingly, this mitigation condition is not applicable.
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
failed to provide any credible evidence to support application of this mitigating condition.
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. There is no evidence of counseling. And,
the problem is not being resolved and it is clearly not under control. Accordingly, 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.” This mitigating
condition does not apply.
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
5
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.
I considered the potentially mitigating conditions under this Guideline 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 2c, 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 has a history of not
meeting his financial obligations and not being truthful with the Government about his
financial delinquencies. With the possible exception of his child support debt, he failed
to offer any credible evidence that he is taking any meaningful action to repay his
delinquent debts. Under the circumstances, I have no choice but to 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:
Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
6
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