1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 08-01722
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Stephanie C. Hess, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted her Security Clearance Application (SCA, Item 4), on April
24, 2007. On April 17, 2008, 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 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.
2
Applicant submitted her answer to the SOR on May 13, 2008. She requested a
decision be made on the record in lieu of a hearing. A copy of the Government’s File of
Relevant Material (FORM, the government’s evidence in support of the allegations of
the SOR) was sent to Applicant on February 19, 2009. Applicant received the FORM on
March 3, 2009. Her response was due by April 2, 2009. No response was received by
DOHA. The case file was assigned to me on April 23, 2009. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR contains 13 allegations under the financial considerations guideline.
SOR 1.a. and 1.b. are federal and state tax liens. SOR 1.c. is a judgment. The next
seven allegations identify delinquent credit card or medical accounts. The eighth
creditor (SOR 1.l.) was deleted from Applicant’s credit report. SOR 1.m. alleges that
Applicant did not show how she is using her net monthly remainder of $216.00 to pay
off her overdue debts. Applicant admitted all allegations and provided explanations. She
is 44 years old and single. In June 1987, she received her college degree in business
administration. She is currently employed as a technician for a defense contractor that
she has worked for since April 2007. Applicant has changed residence twice since April
2004. She seeks a security clearance. 
Financial Considerations
SOR 1.a., $8,913, federal tax lien. The lien was filed in April 2007. Though
Applicant technically denied the allegation, she furnished an undated copy of an Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) amended tax return (1040X) for calendar year 2002. Her
computations reflect she owes $2418 in additional federal taxes. The amended tax
return, the proof of payment documentation for SOR allegations 1.c. through 1.k., and
documentation showing that the SOR 1.l. account was deleted from her credit report,
are attached to Applicant’s answer to the SOR. See, Item 3.
SOR 1.b., $4,028, state tax lien. Applicant supplied the same explanation in
response to this allegation as she did for SOR 1.a. This allegation refers to a state tax
lien filed three years before the federal tax lien in SOR 1.a. Applicant is still responsible
for this lien.  
SOR 1.c., $6,429, judgment. The collection agency received a judgment against
Applicant in October 2007 for medical services. On April 7, 2008, Applicant provided
documentation showing she paid the debt in full. 
SOR 1.d., $1,622, credit card. Applicant provided documentation showing she
settled with this collection agency in May 2008 for $1,400. 
SOR 1.e., $1,578, medical account. On May 8, 2008, Applicant paid $1,597 to
settle the account in full.
SOR 1.f., $116, medical account. On May 8, 2008, Applicant paid this account.  
 SOR 1.l. was deleted from Applicant’s credit report. 1
3
SOR 1.g., $583, medical account. Applicant settled the account for $528 on May
9, 2008.
SOR 1.h., $513, medical account. Applicant resolved this account on March 31,
2008 with a payment of $528. On April 7, 2008, Applicant was notified this account paid.
See, documentation attached to Item 3.
SOR 1.i., $127, medical account. Applicant was notified in March 2008 the
account had been paid in full.
SOR 1.j., $315, medical account. Applicant also paid this account in full on March
25, 2008. 
SOR 1.k., $453, medical account. On March 25, 2008, Applicant satisfied this
account in full.
SOR 1.l., $8,345, credit card. On April 22, 2008, Applicant was notified by the
credit agency that the account had been deleted from her credit record. The account
number in the credit agency’s investigative response is the same as the account
number in Item 8 (credit report dated August 24, 2007). 
SOR 1.m. In Applicant’s personal financial statement (PFS), she did not show
whether she was using any part of her net monthly remainder of $216 to pay her
delinquent debts. The documentation attached to her answer (Item 3) reflects
considerable activity in March and April 2008 in resolving her delinquent accounts. I find
all allegations under paragraph 1 for Applicant. The listed debts became delinquent
between 2002 and 2007. 
Personal Conduct
On August 24, 2007, Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA).
In response to question 27 requiring information about having liens placed against
Applicant’s property in the last 7 years, she answered “No,” even though a lien was
placed against her in December 2004 and one in April 2007. Applicant also answered
“No” to question 28A, requiring information about having any debts over 180 days
delinquent in the last 7 years. Though Applicant does not believe she intentionally
omitted information about her financial problems, I am unable to agree with her.
Considering the two liens ($12,941), and nine debts ($11,736) in the SOR total
$24,677,  I find Applicant intentionally omitted financial information on her SCA. My1
finding is also based on her inconsistent explanations in section 4 of Item 5
(Interrogatories and Responses), and her answer to the SOR. After intimating she may
have not wanted to remember her past due debts, her statement indicating she did not
remember some of the debt, indicates to me that she remembered some of the other
debts. Then, in noting she had never looked at her credit report, she commented that
4
she probably did not want to see the information in the credit report. Yet, in her answer
to the SOR, she mentioned the lack of a credit report in reinforcing her claim she had
unequivocally forgotten about the delinquent debts. 
Character Evidence
Applicant provided no independent evidence regarding her job performance or
reputation in the community where she lives. 
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.
Reasonable 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
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
5
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 (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.”
FC disqualifying condition (DC) ¶19.a. (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts)
and FC DC ¶19.c. (a history not meeting financial obligations) apply as the SOR shows
Applicant owes the state and federal government $12,941 in tax liens. She owes a total
of $11,736 to nine creditors/collection agencies. The total amount of Applicant’s
delinquency is $24, 677. 
Evidence of financial problems may be mitigated by FC mitigating condition (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
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment); FC MC ¶20.b. (the conditions that
resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control and individual
acted responsibly under the circumstances); 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 is under control); and, FC MC ¶20.d. (the individual
initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts).
Applicant receives some mitigation under the third element of FC MC ¶20.a. (“or
occurred under circumstances that is unlikely to recur”) as she has satisfied most of the
debts except the federal and state liens. Her documented evidence of filing an amended
federal tax return for 2002, showing how much she believes she owes in taxes, gives
me complete confidence she will pay the additional amount in federal taxes. Though
she provided no documentation regarding the state tax lien, her successful efforts in
paying or settling the nine remaining debts in the SOR affirm my belief she will follow
through on the state lien as she has with the federal lien. 
FC MC ¶20.b., which mitigates when unforeseen events impede an applicant’s
efforts to honor his current or delinquent financial obligations, is unavailable. 
6
Applicant receives some mitigation under FC MC ¶20.c., even though there is no
evidence of financial counseling. Paying off or settling with nine creditors in 2008,
successfully removing SOR 1.l. from her financial record, and taking responsive action
to eliminate her federal tax lien, show clear indications that Applicant’s financial
problems are being resolved. 
The significant mitigation Applicant receives under FC MC ¶20.d. is based on her
documentation provided in SOR 1.a., and her documented pay offs of 1.c., 1.d., 1.e.,
1.f., 1.g., 1.h., 1.i., 1.j., and 1.k. After being advised she owed the liens and debts, she
paid nine debts, filed documentation to address the federal lien, and successfully
removed SOR 1.l. from her credit report. The FC guideline is resolved in her favor.  
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.” 
This guideline applies to intentional attempts to conceal or omit information from
an SCA. I am unable to find in Applicant’s favor under this guideline because there is
not just one or two or three debts in the SOR. Rather, the SOR contains 11 debts
totaling $24,677. Not having a credit report when she filled out the SCA, or not wanting
to think about her delinquent debts, or not wanting to see what her credit report said,
does not excuse her intentional behavior. PC DC ¶16.a. (deliberate omission or
falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire to determine
security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness) applies.
There are three mitigating conditions (MC) that are potentially applicable to the
circumstances in this case. Those conditions are: PC MC ¶17.a. (the individual made
prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment or falsification, before
being confronted with the facts); PC MC ¶17.c. (the offense was 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 positive steps to alleviate stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused
untrustworthy, unreliable or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely
to recur). PC MC 17.a. is not applicable as Applicant did not disclose her delinquent
debt history until she was confronted with the debts in March 2008 in Item 5
(Interrogatories and Responses). PC MC ¶17.b. is inapplicable because Applicant tried
to conceal $24,677 in debt owed to 11 creditors. Only two years have passed since
Applicant’s intentional omission of her delinquent indebtedness. Applicant’s intentional
7
omission of material financial information in April 2007 continues to cast doubt on her
reliability and judgment. 
Though Applicant continues to deny she intentionally omitted material financial
information from her SCA in April 2007, the number of delinquent accounts and the
amount of the debt convince me she knew she had some delinquent debt when she
filled out the security form. Her lack of candor in not simply admitting she intentionally
omitted the information removes PC MC ¶17.d. from consideration. The PC guideline is
found against Applicant. 
Whole Person Concept (WPC) 
I have examined the evidence with the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in
my ultimate finding for Applicant under the FC guideline, but against her under the PC
guideline. The case still must be weighed within the context of nine variables known as
the whole person concept. In evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the
administrative judge should consider the following factors: 
(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 the participation was 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. AG ¶ 2(a)
Applicant is 44 years old and single. She received a college degree in June 1987.
She began working for her current employer in April 2007. She provided no character
evidence regarding her job performance or lifestyle. She furnished very credible
evidence showing she has resolved nine out of 11 creditors, and that she has taken
appropriate steps to resolve her federal tax lien. The actions she took to resolve her
debts demonstrate she is an intelligent woman. When Applicant filled out her SCA in
April 2007, she was 42 years old, clearly responsible for her actions. Her inability to
acknowledge her intentional omission continues to raise questions about her reliability.
Accordingly, Applicant has established her case under the FC guideline, but she has
failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under the PC guideline. 
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): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. through 1.m. For Applicant
8
Paragraph 2 (Personal Conduct, Guideline E): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b. 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. 
                       
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge