DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 08-07694 
            ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP), on December 11, 2006 (Item 5).  He previously submitted a Public Trust 
Position Application (SF 85P) on April 27, 2004 (Item 10).  On October 6, 2008, the 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 
for Applicant detailing security concerns for financial considerations under Guideline F, 
and for personal conduct under Guideline E (Item 1).  Two of the allegations under 
Guideline E concerned falsification of answers to financial questions on the Public Trust 
Position Application.  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 
acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 10, 2008 (Item 3). 
  
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing on October 27, 2008, admitting all of the 
allegations under both Guideline F and Guideline E.  He elected to have the matter 
decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
Government’s written case on December 30, 2008.  Applicant received a complete file 
of relevant material (FORM) on January 7, 2009, and was provided the opportunity to 
file objections, and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying 
conditions.  Applicant did not respond to the FORM or provide additional material.  The 
case was assigned to me on March 3, 2009.  Based on a review of the case file and 
pleadings, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant is 49 years old and submitted his security clearance application as a 
pre-employment requirement for a position with a defense contractor.  He served 20 
years on active duty as an avionic mechanic with the Army and retired on July 31, 1999 
(Case file, DD 214, date July 31, 1999).  Since retiring from active duty, he has worked 
at various positions as a contract employee for defense contractors.  He also was a full 
time student.  He anticipates employment in the defense industry.  He was married and 
divorced, and has one child from that marriage that he supports through payment to a 
state agency.  He remarried and has two children from that marriage. The children live 
in Panama with their grandparents.  Applicant and his wife are attempting to bring the 
children to the United States.  Applicant provides support for the children in Panama 
(Item 5, e-QIP, and Item 6, Answer to Interrogatories, dated August 19, 2008; Case file, 
Personal Subject Interview, dated August 10, 2007).   
 
Credit reports (Item 7, Credit report, dated July 2, 2007; Item 8, Credit report, 
dated January 3, 2007; and Item 9, Credit report, dated November 26, 2001) show 24 
delinquent debts for Applicant to include the following: an account placed in collection in 
May 2005 for $921 (SOR 1.a); two medical debts placed in collection in October 2005 
for $260 (SOR 1.b) and $283 (SOR 1.c); a cable company debt placed in collection in 
April 2004 for $341 (SOR 1.d); two debts placed in collection by the same creditor in 
October 2003 for $30 (SOR 1.e), and in July 2003 for $12 (SOR 1.f); a judgment in the 
amount of $521 entered in December 2003 (SOR 1.g); a lien for $623 placed in July 
2007 (SOR 1.h); an account past due 120 days for over $1,000 on a balance of $3,714 
in July 2008 (SOR 1.i); an account placed in collection for $136 in June 2008 (SOR 1.j); 
a car repossession in June 2006 (SOR 1.k); an account past due over 180 days or more 
for $1,000 on a balance of $1,235 (SOR 1.l); an account charged off for $815 in January 
2005 (SOR 1.m); a utility account charged off in January 2005 for $448 (SOR 1.n); an 
account for a car placed in collection for $12,418 in June 2005 (SOR 1.o); an account 
placed in collection for $1,948 in February 2004 (SOR 1.p); an account placed in 
collection for $2,113 in June 2007 (SOR 1.q); an account placed in collection for $268 in 
June 2007 (SOR 1.r); a cable account placed in collection for $268 in July 2002 (SOR 
1.s); a medical account for $30 placed in collection in February 2002 (SOR 1.t); a credit 
card account past due over 120 days for $295 on a balance of $2,116 (SOR 1.u); an 
account placed in collection for $695 in August 2001 (SOR 1.v); an account placed in 
collection for $110 in January 2007 (SOR 1.w); and an account placed in collection for 
$51 in July 2000 (SOR 1.x).  Applicant admits all of these debts (Item 4, Response to 
SOR, dated October 27, 2008). 
 
3 
 
 
In response to interrogatories, Applicant stated that he has been a contract 
worker for defense contractors since retiring from the Army in July 1999.  As a contract 
worker, he is required to move when jobs become available.  He never became a 
permanent worker for the defense contractors.  The frequent moves required him to 
leave his family behind and set up two households.  He had other additional expenses 
from moving to new locations.  He also notes the requirement to support his two 
children in Panama, and his daughter from his first marriage who is in college.  In a 
personal financial statement attached to the Answer to Interrogatories, Applicant lists 
net monthly income of $5,023, from a net salary of $3,748, and retired military pay of 
$1,275.  He lists recurring monthly expenses of $3,772, and debt payments of $860.95.  
This leaves $390.05 in net remainder for discretionary or disposable funds each month 
(Item 6, at 7-9).   
 
Applicant was interviewed by a security investigator on August 9, 2007.  He 
stated concerning the debt at SOR 1.u, that he paid on the account for a short time, but 
did not have the funds to continue paying after sometime in 2003.  In March 2007, he 
started paying $70 per month on the account.  However, he presented no information to 
show the payments or any continuing payments.  Applicant also stated he is aware of 
the debts listed on his credit report.  However, he claims they are not his debts.  After 
learning in early 2007 of the debts on the credit report, he began to dispute the debts.  
He can only dispute one a month and has to wait until he receives a response from the 
creditor.  He believes his identity has been compromised and he anticipates hiring an 
attorney to assist him.  Applicant also did not know the person who obtained the 
judgment against him listed in SOR 1.g.  He presented no information on previous 
action taken on any of these debts (Case file, Interview, dated August 9, 2007, at 1).  
Applicant did not present any information on any anticipated action to be taken by him 
on any of these debts. 
 
In response to financial questions on his e-QIP, Applicant responded "NO" to 
question 27b asking whether in the last seven years he had any property repossessed.  
Applicant admits the June 2006 car repossession at SOR 1.k.  Applicant responded 
"NO" to question 27d asking if in the last seven years he had any judgments placed 
against him.  He admits the judgment placed against him in December 2003 at SOR 
1.g.  Applicant responded "NO" to question 28a asking if in the last seven years he had 
any debt more than 180 days past due.  At the time, he had at least 17 debts more than 
180 days past due as noted in the SOR.  He answered "YES" to question 28b asking if 
he presently had any debt more than 90 days past due.  He listed only one of his debts 
that were currently more than 90 days past due (Item 5, e-QIP, dated December 11, 
2006).  Applicant admits he provided false information in response to these questions. 
 
In response to financial questions on the SF 85P he submitted on April 27, 2004, 
Applicant answered "NO" to question 19 asking if in the last seven years there were any 
judgments against him.  He did not list the judgment at SOR 1.g.  Applicant answered 
"YES" to question 20 asking about delinquent debts more than 180 days past due, 
Applicant listed only one debt but had at least ten delinquent debts at the time more 
 
4 
 
 
than 180 days past due.  Applicant admits he provided false information in response to 
these questions. 
 
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 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(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny 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 “[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 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. 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Consideration: 
 
 Under 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 overextended is at risk of having to engage 
in illegal acts to generate funds. (AG ¶ 18)  Similarly, an individual who is financially 
irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligations to 
protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life 
provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
 A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms.  Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance.  An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations.  Applicant’s 24 delinquent debts established by credit reports and 
Applicant's admissions are a security concern raising Financial Consideration 
Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) ¶ 19(a) "inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts"; and 
FC DC ¶ 19(c) "a history of not meeting financial obligations".  Applicant accumulated 
delinquent debts because he made little if any effort to pay his financial obligations.  
While Applicant noted that he had not been steadily employed by his employers since 
he retired from active military duty in 1999, and had to move frequently, he presented 
no information to establish how these circumstances hindered his ability to make some 
payments toward his delinquent debts.  The delinquent debts appear to be from normal 
consumer spending rather than under unusual circumstances.   
 
 I considered all of the Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) 
and none apply.  The debts have not been paid and are still outstanding, making them 
current debts which cast doubt on Applicant's current reliability, trustworthiness, and 
good judgment (AG ¶ 20(a)).  Applicant claims he was required to move frequently to 
maintain employment, had to maintain two households, and had to provide support for 
his children at another location.  He presented no information on how or why these 
events impacted his ability to make some payments on his debts.  In fact, Applicant 
seems to have been gainfully employed for significant periods, and he has a monthly 
positive cash flow indicating some ability to pay delinquent debts (AG ¶ 20(b)).  He 
presented no information indicating he sought or received financial counseling to assist 
him in his delinquent debt management (AG ¶ 20(c)).  He presented no information on 
any attempts to pay past due obligations which indicates he is not trying to resolve his 
indebtedness.  He did not establish that he acted responsibly under the circumstances 
of his employment by at least attempting to pay some of his small debts.  His actions 
not to pay debts were within his control.  His actions in not paying delinquent debts 
 
6 
 
 
shows he has not acted responsibly in managing his finances (AG ¶ 20(d)).  This shows 
he will not act responsibly when handling of classified information.  The government 
established that Applicant's delinquent debts are a security concern.  The Applicant has 
the burden to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concern.  The information 
presented by Applicant is not sufficient to verify his claims and establish that he acted 
responsibly towards his debts.  He has not mitigated security concerns raised by his 
financial situation. 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 A security concern is raised because conduct involving questionable judgment, 
untrustworthiness, unreliability, 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. (AG ¶ 15)  Personal conduct is always a security concern 
because it asks the central question does the person’s past conduct justify confidence 
the person can be entrusted to properly safeguard classified information.  The security 
clearance system depends on the individual providing correct and accurate information.  
If a person conceals or provides false information, the security clearance process 
cannot function properly to ensure that granting access to classified information is in the 
best interest of the United States Government.  Applicant’s incomplete answers on his 
security clearance application concerning financial issues involving a judgment, a 
repossession, a lien, and debts past due more than 180 days or 90 days raise a security 
concern under Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) AG ¶ 16(a) "the 
deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any 
personnel security questionnaire, personal history, or similar form used to conduct 
investigations, to determine security eligibility or trustworthiness." 
 
 Applicant admitted that he deliberately failed to answer financial questions 
correctly and accurately on his December 11, 2006 e-QIP security clearance 
application, and his April 27, 2004 Public Trust Position application.  While there is a 
security concern for an omission, concealment, or falsification of a material fact in any 
written document or oral statement to the government when applying for a security 
clearance, every omission, concealment, or inaccurate statement is not a falsification.  
A falsification must be deliberate and material.  It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and 
willfully.  Applicant admits he knowingly and willfully provide false financial information 
on his security clearance application and public trust position application.  I find against 
Applicant as to Personal Conduct.   
 
“Whole Person” Analysis  
 
 Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative 
process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
 
7 
 
 
(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) the 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 a security clearance 
must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole person concept.  
 
 Applicant has not taken sufficient action to resolve his past due debts.  His 
indifferent attitude and lack of action show he is not trustworthy, responsible, or 
exercises good judgment.  Applicant has been irresponsible towards his delinquent 
debts and financial obligations.  This is an indication that he might be irresponsible 
towards the protection and handling of classified information.  He also deliberately 
provided incomplete and false information on security clearance applications.  This 
course of conduct indicates he may not be truthful and careful in protecting classified 
information.  Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances 
and personal conduct.  Clearance is denied. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.x:   Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.e:   Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge