DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 07-17830 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions (SF 86) on April 17, 
2007.  On August 5, 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.  Applicant provided a written response to the SOR on 
August 28, 2008.  He denied ten of the allegations and admitted one allegation.  He 
provided ten attachments to his response which appear to be letters from creditors that 
the ten debts had been paid.  The one debt not paid was being paid through 
garnishment of his wages.  DOHA issued an addendum to the SOR on January 8, 2009, 
alleging that the ten attachments to his response to the original SOR were false 
documents thereby raising a personal conduct security concern under Guideline E and 
a criminal conduct security concern under Guideline J for providing false information in 
the security clearance process.  The allegations in the Statement of Reasons 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 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for 
SORs issued after September 1, 2006.   
 
 Applicant answered the addendum to the SOR in writing on February 8, 2009.  
He admitted the documents he submitted were false as a result of an administrative 
error.  He denied the criminal conduct security concern since he did not provide the 
false documents with intent to deceive.  He requested a hearing before an 
administrative judge.  Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on February 12, 
2009, and the case was assigned to me on February 23, 2009.  DOHA issued a Notice 
of Hearing on February 24, 2009, for a hearing on March 19, 2009.  I convened the 
hearing as scheduled.  The government offered five exhibits, marked Government 
Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 5, which were received without objection.  Applicant 
testified on his behalf, and submitted ten exhibits marked Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex) A 
through J which were received without objection.  The record was left open for Applicant 
to submit additional documents.  Applicant timely submitted five documents marked 
App. Ex. K through O, on March 24, 2009.  The government did not object to the 
admission of the documents (See Gov. Ex. 6, Department Counsel Letter, dated April 6, 
2009), and the documents are admitted into the record.  DOHA received the transcript 
of the hearing (Tr.) on March 26, 2009.  Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, 
exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.  Applicant denied ten and admitted one of the 
allegations under Guideline F.  He admitted the ten allegations under Guideline E and 
denied the allegation under Guideline J.  He provided additional information to support 
his request for eligibility for a security clearance. 
 
Applicant is 41 years old and has worked for a defense contractor for about two 
years as a test instrumentation engineer.  He is a college graduate with a degree in 
engineering.  Applicant served on active duty in the Navy for twelve years, in the active 
Navy Reserve for five years, and in the inactive Navy Reserve for four years.  He held a 
security clearance while on active duty with the Navy but did not require access to 
classified information in the Navy Reserve.   
 
Applicant married in 1991 and divorced in 2001.  There were three children from 
this marriage.  He provides child support for the children to included paying arrearage 
on child support (App. Ex. A, Divorce decree, dated August 24, 2001).  The divorce was 
acrimonious (Tr. 39-42, 67-68, 73-76; Gov. Ex. 1, SF 86, dated April 17, 2007). 
 
Applicant recently married again and has no children from this marriage.  He and 
his wife work for the same defense contractor.  Their approximately monthly net pay is 
$8,000.  Applicant's pay is debited for child support and garnishment (App. Ex. K and 
App. Ex. L, Pay information, dated March 19, 2009).  The couple has monthly expenses 
of about $5,000, leaving approximately $3,000 in monthly disposable income (Tr.73-76). 
 
3 
 
 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Position (SF 86) in 
June 2006 as part of his employment with the defense contractor.  A subsequent 
security investigation shows the following delinquent debts for Applicant: a cell phone 
account in collection for $1,098 (SOR 1.a); a medical debt in collection for $65 (SOR 
1.b); a cable debt in collection for $121 (SOR 1.c); a mail order debt charged off for 
$393 (SOR 1.d); a car repossession judgment being collected by garnishment for 
$11,000 (SOR 1.e); a cell phone debt in collection for $292 (SOR 1.f); a loan in 
collection for $1,180 (SOR 1.g); a credit card debt in collection for $2,009 (SOR 1.h); 
another credit card debt in collection for $1,012 (SOR 1.i); a loan debt in collection for 
$2,237 (SOR 1.j); and a cable debt in collection for $517 (SOR 1.k) (See Gov. Ex. 3, 
Credit report, dated April 18, 2007; Gov. Ex. 4, Credit report, dated March 13, 2008; and 
Gov. Ex. 5, Credit report, dated February 11, 2009).   
 
Applicant noted that most of the debts started when he and his first wife were in 
the process of divorcing.  He noted that his wife during this time had the ability to open 
accounts in his name.  He presented no information to substantiate any illegal actions 
by his former wife or that she opened accounts in his name without his knowledge.  
Applicant also noted that during this time he moved frequently and was unemployed at 
times.  This made it hard for him to keep current with his debts.  Applicant was not sure 
of the origin of some of the debts, so he wrote the credit reporting agencies to dispute 
the debts at SOR 1.a, 1.f, 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, and 1.j (Tr. 67-69).   
 
Delinquent debts SOR 1.a and 1.f are the same debt for cell phone service from 
the same company in collection by different agencies.  The debt was disputed and 
resolved in Applicant's favor.  It is no longer considered by the credit reporting agencies 
as a debt for Applicant (Tr. 21-22, 30-31, 43-43; App. Ex. B, Letter resolving dispute, 
dated January 24, 2009).   
 
Delinquent debt SOR 1.b is a medical debt incurred by Applicant for treatment of 
his son in 2002.  The account was paid in full in 2009.  Applicant did not know of the 
debt until he received the original SOR.  He moved after his son received the treatment 
so he never received a bill from the medical facility (Tr. 34-35, 43-45; App. Ex. H, 
Receipt, dated January 29, 2009).   
 
Delinquent debt SOR 1.c is a cable bill in collection.  Applicant does not have any 
knowledge concerning this debt (Tr. 47). 
 
Delinquent debts SOR 1.d and 1.j are the same debt from a mail order company.  
Applicant transferred this debt to another credit card.  The transfer resolved the debts 
for the creditors listed in SOR 1.d and 1.j.  Applicant is current on his payments for the 
credit card and the present balance on the revolving account is $25 (Tr. 22-27, 47-49; 
App. Ex. C, Credit card statement, dated June. 21, 2008; App. Ex. D, Transfer letter, 
dated April 15, 2008). 
 
Delinquent debt SOR 1.e is for the remainder debt from an involuntary car 
repossession.  The debt was reduced to a judgment and his wages are garnished $200 
 
4 
 
 
per month to pay the judgment.  He has been paying on the debt for two years and the 
debt has been reduced.  Applicant does not know the current balance on the debt (Tr. 
49-51).   
 
Delinquent debts SOR 1. g and 1.h are the same and were originally from a 
credit card used during his first marriage.  He is not sure when the account was opened, 
by whom, and who used the card.  He tried to get some information on the accounts 
from the collection agencies but they were uncooperative.  This debt has not been 
resolved (Tr. 52-54).   
 
Delinquent debt SOR 1.i is a bank credit card.  Applicant believes it was the 
government travel credit card he used when he was in the Navy Reserve.  The credit 
card was opened in 1999 and Applicant started in the Navy Reserve in 1998.  He 
inquired about the card from the bank but has not received a reply (Tr. 54-55). 
 
Delinquent debt SOR 1.k is a debt for a cable company.  Applicant and his 
former wife had service from the cable company before their divorce.  He contacted the 
company but has not received information on the account (Tr. 56-57). 
 
Applicant responded to the August 5, 2008 SOR allegation of eleven delinquent 
debts on August 28, 2008.  Applicant admitted one of the debts, the car repossession, 
but noted it was being paid by wage garnishment.  He denied the other ten debts.  His 
response to each of the SOR allegations states "I deny remaining in debt to _ _ _ (the 
creditor)."  Applicant attached ten letters from creditors stating that the debts had been 
paid in full and the dates that the account was paid.  The attachment letters appeared to 
have the letterhead of the creditor, account numbers or account information, and the 
signatures of an official from the creditor.  The letterheads were created by Applicant 
from information on the creditors' web sites.  The signatures were computer generated 
(Response to SOR, dated August 28, 2008, Attachments 1-10). 
 
Applicant admits that he created the letters using the creditors' logos from the 
creditors' computer web site.  The account information is either created or made to 
match account information on credit reports.  The signatures were computer generated 
by Applicant.  In at least two letters, the signature name and signature of the creditor's 
official is the same for two different companies at two different locations (See Response 
to SOR, dated August 28, 2008, attachments 2 and 3).  Applicant stated that he tried to 
get information from the creditors but in many instances the creditor was uncooperative.  
He drafted the letters to send to the creditors as an example of a letter he wanted from 
them.  He stated that he sent the letters to the creditors with a cover letter explaining 
that he needed information on accounts in his name.  He told the creditors that the 
attached sample letter was an example of the letter he expected in return.  He did not 
include the cover letter in his August 28, 2008 Response to the SOR.  A cover letter 
was provided at the hearing.  The date on the cover letter provided at the hearing was 
August 20, 2009.  Applicant explained that the date was a typographical error and 
should have been August 20, 2008 (Tr. 36-39, 56-67, 71-73).  
 
 
5 
 
 
Applicant received some letters from creditors concerning his delinquent 
accounts.  He stated he received information in response to the debt at SOR 1.b, but he 
did not provide that response.  He received information concerning the status of the 
same debt listed at SOR 1.g and 1.h (App. Ex. M, Letter, dated March 13, 2009).  He 
received a reply concerning the same debt listed at SOR 1.d and 1.j (App. Ex. N, Letter, 
dated March 18, 2009).  There is no indication that these letters were in response to the 
cover letter dated August 20, 2009 (Tr. 71-73, 89; App. Ex. O, Applicant's letter, dated 
March 24, 2009). 
 
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 
 
6 
 
 
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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations: 
 
 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.  The delinquent debts that Applicant admits and are listed in credit reports 
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 debt after his 2001 
divorce, and some of the debts have yet to be resolved or paid according to a payment 
plan.  There are actually eight delinquent debts since three of the debts are the same 
debts listed under different creditors (SOR 1.a and 1f, SOR 1.d and 1.J, and SOR 1.g. 
and 1.h). 
 
 The government produced substantial evidence to establish the disqualifying 
conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and (c).  The burden shifts to Applicant to produce evidence 
to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the concerns raised under financial 
considerations (Directive ¶ E3.1.15).  An applicant has the burden to refute an 
established allegation or prove a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it 
never shifts to the government (See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 
2005)).   
 
 I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) ¶ 20(a) "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", and FC MC ¶ 20(b) "the 
conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the person’s 
 
7 
 
 
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"; and FC MC ¶ 20(d) "the individual has initiated a good-faith 
effort to repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts."  For FC MC ¶ 20(d) to 
apply, there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” 
of a good-faith effort to repay.  A systematic, concrete method of handling debts is 
needed.   
 
 The delinquent debts were incurred prior to Applicant's divorce from his first wife 
in 2001.  He disputed one of the debts and it was resolved in his favor by the credit 
reporting agency (SOR 1.a).  One debt has been paid in full (SOR 1.b).  One debt has 
been transferred to another credit card and that account is current (SOR 1.d).  One debt 
has been subject to garnishment after a judgment for over two years and the debt is 
being paid as agreed (SOR 1.e).  With regard to the debts alleged in SOR 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 
and 1.e, Applicant has established either payment of the debts or a good faith effort to 
pay them.  These debts are no lot of security concern. 
 
 Applicant stated he has no knowledge of the remaining four debts.  He has not 
inquired about one of the debts.  He inquired about three of the debts but received no 
reply  or inadequate responses from the creditors.  He has not followed up on any of his 
inquiries.  The debts are current debts since they have not been paid.  The conditions 
that led to his debts may have been beyond his control since they could have been 
incurred by his first wife without his knowledge or permission.  However, Applicant has 
presented no information to substantiate his claim that the debts were incurred by his 
first wife without his permission.  In addition, he did not establish that under the 
circumstances he acted responsibly towards his debts.  He made minimal inquires and 
has not followed up on his requests for information.  He is unsure of the amount owed 
on some of the debts.  Applicant has not presented sufficient information to meet his 
burden of establishing that he acted in good-faith and responsibly.  He still has 
significant current delinquent debts.  Applicant noted periods of unemployment.  
However, he presented no information to show how his lack of steady work affected his 
finances or caused financial problems.  He has not presented any information to show 
his financial problems will not recur.  None of the mitigating conditions (¶ 20 (a), ¶ 20(b), 
and ¶ 20 (d)) apply to the four debts still not being addressed by Applicant.  
 
 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" does not apply.  Applicant did not present any information on any financial 
counseling he has received.  He has not presented any information to establish that his 
finances are under control. 
 
Applicant has no concrete plan for how he will pay his remaining delinquent 
debts.  He has not contacted creditors to learn about his debts and arrange acceptable 
conditions for paying the debts.  In short, he has no plan of attack to stabilize his debts 
and be current with his payments.  He has not made any consistent payments on the 
debts.  He has not indicated a strong desire to pay the debts, and thus has not shown a 
 
8 
 
 
good-faith effort to pay them.  Applicant's actions do not establish that he is financially 
responsible.  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 provided false creditor letters 
showing debts were paid to security adjudicators.  This action raises security concerns 
under Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) AG ¶ 16(b) "deliberately 
providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, 
investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official government 
representative." 
 
 I have also considered Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions (PC MC) AG ¶ 
17(a) "the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, 
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts"; PC MC AG ¶ 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 
AG ¶ 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". 
 
 Applicant denied intentionally providing false or misleading information.  He 
admitted that the creditor letters he provided to a security adjudicator were false.  He 
stated he was having difficulty receiving information from creditors so he sent them the 
letters as an example of letters he should receive in response to his inquiry.  He stated 
he sent the letters with a cover letter outlining his desires.  He claims an administrative 
error led to the confusion with the security adjudicator.  He failed to send the adjudicator 
the cover letter.  Applicant's testimony on this issue was not credible.  It is inconceivable 
that an applicant would send sample letters on creditor letterhead complete with 
account numbers, account information, and the signatures of officials from the creditor 
stating debts were paid in full on a certain date as an example of letters that the person 
would like to receive in return.  It is also inconceivable that a person would send copies 
of ten separate letters to a security adjudicator without a full and complete explanation.  
 
9 
 
 
The response to the SOR letter to the security adjudicator only said that Applicant 
denied a debt to the creditor.  That letter together with the attached paid in full letters 
from creditors could only lead the security adjudicator to the conclusion that the debts 
had been paid in full.  A falsification must be deliberate and material.  It is deliberate if it 
is done knowingly and willfully.  I find Applicant deliberately sent false payment letters to 
the security adjudicator with the intent to deceive her into believing the debts had been 
paid.  The government established that Applicant acted deliberately with the intent to 
deceive the security adjudicator.  Applicant has not established that he did not 
deliberately provide the false information to the security adjudicator with intent to 
deceive.  I find against Applicant as to all ten allegations of Personal Conduct.   
 
Criminal Conduct 
 
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness.  By its very nature it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness 
to comply with laws, rules, and regulations (AG ¶ 30).  A federal criminal statute makes 
it a criminal act to deliberately provide false information during the security investigation 
process.  Applicant provided false letters to a security adjudicator in response to an 
SOR.  Applicant denied that his action in providing the false letters was a criminal act.  
The government must establish by substantial evidence controverted facts alleged in 
the SOR.  Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 
accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the 
record (See, directive ¶ E3.1.14, ISCR Case No. 04-11463 (App. Bd. Aug 4, 2006)).  
Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance (See v. 
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F. 3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994)).  Applicant 
admitted the letters were false.  Based on Applicant's admissions, the government 
established by substantial evidence the criminal offense alleged in the SOR.  These 
facts raise Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions (CC DC) ¶ 31(a) "a single serious 
crime or multiple lesser offenses", and CD DC ¶ 31(c) "allegation or admission of 
criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, formally 
prosecuted or convicted".  Deliberately providing false information to a government 
agent is a serious crime.  Even though charges may not have been prosecuted, they 
are still allegations of criminal conduct that raise a security concern.  
 
 As noted above, the government produced substantial evidence to establish the 
disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 31(a) and (c).  The burden shifts to Applicant to 
produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the criminal conduct 
concerns.  An applicant has the burden to refute an established allegation or prove a 
mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the government.   
 
 Appellant has raised by his testimony Criminal Conduct Mitigating Conditions 
(CC MC) ¶ 32 (a) "so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not 
cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment"; CC MC ¶ 
32(c) "evidence that the person did not commit the offense"; and CC MC ¶ 32(d) "there 
is evidence of successful rehabilitation, including but not limited to the passage of time 
 
10 
 
 
without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse, or restitution, job training or higher 
education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement".  
Applicant provided false information to the security adjudicator in August 2008, only a 
few months ago.  The criminal action was recent, deliberate and not under any unusual 
circumstance.  The criminal actions seriously cast doubt on his judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness.  The false and misleading letters he provided were an attempt to show 
his finances in a positive light.  This false conduct could recur at any time Applicant 
determined he had to show a positive image of himself.  Applicant admitted he provided 
the false letters but he intended to provide an explanatory cover letter.  His explanation 
lacked credibility.  The wording of his response to the SOR and the ten false letters can 
only lead to the conclusion he acted deliberately with the intent to deceive.  Since the 
crime happened recently, the passage of time is not sufficient to show that the acts are 
unlikely to recur and no longer cast doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness.  I am 
convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that Applicant deliberately intended to 
deceive the security adjudicator when he provided her with false and misleading creditor 
letters.  Applicant has not established that his actions were just an administrative error 
and that he is successfully rehabilitated.  Applicant has not mitigated or refuted the 
criminal conduct security concerns alleged under Guideline J. 
 
 “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):  
 
“(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 ¶ 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.  I considered that Applicant has 
served in the active or Reserve Navy for almost twenty years.  Applicant has paid some 
of his delinquent debts but not all of them.  He does not have a concrete plan for paying 
his remaining delinquent debts.  He has acted irresponsibly towards his finances by not 
inquiring about all of his debts and by not following through on attempts to reach 
creditors for account information and payment plans.  This indicates that he may be 
 
11 
 
 
irresponsible towards the obligation to safeguard classified information.  Applicant's lack 
of concrete management of his finances indicates poor self control, lack of judgment, 
and responsible action.  He deliberately provided false and misleading information to a 
security adjudicator with the intent to deceive her into believing that his debts had been 
paid in full.  Deliberately providing of false and misleading information to the 
government is a violation of federal criminal law.  Overall, on balance the record 
evidence leaves me with serious questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and 
suitability for a security clearance.  For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not 
mitigated the security concerns arising from financial considerations, personal conduct, 
and criminal conduct.  
 
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 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.c    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.d    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.e    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.f    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.g    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.h    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.i:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.j    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.k    Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.b:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.c:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.d:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.e:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.f:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.g:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.h:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.i:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.j:    Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 3, Guideline J:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.a:     Against Applicant 
 
12 
 
 
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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge