This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992,1
as amended and modified (Directive), and revised adjudicative guidelines which became effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.
                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                              
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-08983
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert E. Coacher, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                              
______________
Decision
______________
LAZZARO, Henry, Administrative Judge
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns that arise from his outstanding
delinquent debts and his failure to disclose those debts in the security clearance
application he submitted on May 21, 2008.
On December 22, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant stating it was unable to find it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.1
The SOR alleges security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and
Guideline E (personal conduct). Applicant submitted a response to the SOR, dated
January 21, 2009, and requested a decision based on the written record without a hearing.
He denied all allegations listed in the SOR.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
2
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on February 19,
2009, that was mailed to Applicant on February 20, 2009. Applicant was informed he had
30 days from receipt of the FORM to submit his objections to any information contained
in the FORM or to submit any additional information he wanted considered. It is unclear
when Applicant actually received the FORM. However, on March 25, 2009, Applicant
requested additional time to respond to the FORM. Although the file does not contain any
information that anyone connected with DOHA approved Applicant’s request for additional
time, it does contain Applicant’s response to the FORM, dated April 25, 2009. On May 1,
2009, Department Counsel executed a memorandum indicating he did not object to the
admissibility of Applicant’s submissions. The case was assigned to me on May 11, 2009.
Findings of Fact
After a thorough review of the pleadings and exhibits, I make the following findings
of fact:
Applicant is a 57-year-old man who has been employed by a defense contractor as
a project manager since May 2008. From February 2004 until May 2008, he was employed
by a hospital as a project manager. From June 2001 until January 2004, he was employed
by a construction company as a project manager. 
Applicant has been married since August 1978. He was previously married in May
1972, but that marriage ended in divorce in May 1977. He did not list any children in the
security clearance application he submitted on May 21, 2008. 
The SOR alleges 12 delinquent accounts, totaling $26,649, that have been
submitted for collection, charged off as bad debts, or reported as past due. Applicant
denied each of these debts in his response to the SOR with notations that they were either
“Pending Insurance Settlement” or “Pending Agreed Settlement Offer.” In response to
interrogatories propounded to him by DOHA, Applicant submitted various documents that
purported to show the status of some of the accounts. In response to the FORM, Applicant
submitted more documents which he asserted showed the majority of the accounts had
been satisfied. 
SOR subparagraph 1.a alleges a medical debt owing in the amount of $937.
Applicant’s June and November Credit Bureau Reports (CBR) disclose this account was
opened by the listed collection agency in June 2004. In his response to interrogatories,
Applicant stated he was disputing this account with an insurance carrier. In his response
to the FORM, Applicant stated he is still disputing this account with an insurance carrier,
that the balance listed is incorrect, and that once the insurance carrier acknowledges the
balance owing should only be $401 he will set up a payment plan and satisfy the debt in
four installments. The record does not contain information from which a conclusion can be
drawn that the documentation Applicant submitted relates to the debt listed in
subparagraph 1.a.
SOR subparagraph 1.b alleges a medical debt owing in the amount of $755. The
June and November CBRs disclose this account was opened by the listed collection
agency in December 2003. In his response to interrogatories, Applicant stated he was
3
disputing this account with an insurance carrier. In his response to the FORM, Applicant
stated he had found the records that show the account was satisfied. In support thereof,
he included a hospital bill, dated June 20, 2001, that disclosed charges due in the amount
of $526.39, with all but $75 having been paid by insurance. Hand written on the bill is a
notation that the $75 had been paid. The record does not contain information from which
a conclusion can be drawn that the documentation Applicant submitted relates to the debt
listed in subparagraph 1.b.
SOR subparagraph 1.c alleges a medical debt owing in the amount of $393. The
June and November CBRs disclose this account was opened by the listed collection
agency in August 2004. Applicant did not address this debt in his response to
interrogatories or in his response to the FORM.
SOR subparagraph 1.d alleges a medical debt owing in the amount of $915.
Applicant’s June and November Credit Bureau Reports (CBR) disclose this account was
opened by the listed collection agency in June 2003. In his response to interrogatories,
Applicant stated he was disputing this account with an insurance carrier. In his response
to the FORM, Applicant stated he had found the records to show the account was satisfied.
In support thereof, he submitted copies of two checks, both dated June 2, 2002, one
payable to a hospital in the amount of $540, and the second payable to a physician’s group
in the amount of $52.60. The record does not contain information from which a conclusion
can be drawn that the documentation Applicant submitted relates to the debt listed in
subparagraph 1.d.
SOR subparagraph 1.e alleges a credit card account owing in the amount of $470.
In his response to interrogatories, Applicant stated this account was paid in full. He
attached to his response a letter from a collection agency indicating the account had been
transferred to another collection agency, letters from another firm with an offer to settle an
account that lists the original collection agency on this account but with different account
numbers and balances due, and a cashier’s check payable to the last listed firm payable
in an amount that is different from that listed in any of the other letters. In his response to
the FORM, Applicant again stated the account was paid in full but that he is unable to find
documents to support that assertion.
SOR subparagraph 1.f alleges a debt owing in the amount of $5,055 that is listed
in Applicant’s June 2008 CBR as “unknown loan type.” In his response to interrogatories,
Applicant stated this account was the result of fraud and that he was disputing the account
in anticipation of eventual arbitration. He attached to his response a letter from the original
account holder, dated April 14, 2005, which indicate Applicant had submitted a forgery
claim to the bank and was required to close the account which may have caused the return
of checks that had been written on the account. In his response to the FORM, Applicant
stated the bank had charged off this account based on his claim of fraud and that his CBR,
dated March 5, 2009, listed a zero balance owing. Actually, the March 2009 CBR, lists the
creditor alleged in subparagraph 1.f with a current balance owing in the amount of $5,286.
There is no evidence in the record to conclude this delinquency in any way relates to the
forgery claim made to the bank.  
4
SOR subparagraph 1.g alleges a debt owing for cellular telephone service in the
amount of $192. Applicant’s June and November 2008 CBRs disclose the last activity on
this account occurred in May 2002, and the date of the report listed by the collection
agency is June 2004. In his response to interrogatories, Applicant asserted this account
had been paid in full. He did not submit any proof of payment at that time. In his response
to the FORM, Applicant again asserted the account had been paid in full and included two
checks, dated January 16, 2002 and December 16, 2002, in the total amount of $254.39
that were made payable to the cellular phone company. This account is not listed in
Applicant’s March 2009 CBR. It is impossible to tell from the record if the checks submitted
by Applicant represent the total amount owed on the account at the time, and, if so, why
the account would have been submitted for collection a year and a half after the last
payment was made on the account.  
SOR subparagraph 1.h alleges the balance owing on a repossessed automobile in
the amount of $14,025. Applicant’s June and November 2008 CBRs disclose this account
was opened in November 2004, and the date of last activity on the account was May 2006.
In his response to interrogatories, Applicant stated the account was being disputed
because the car had been auctioned for more than was owed on the account. He also
asserted it was “Under legal counsel.” In his response to the FORM, Applicant repeated
the assertions he had made in his response to interrogatories. He also submitted checks
made payable to the creditor which again appear to relate to the debt alleged in
subparagraph 1.i. 
SOR subparagraph 1.I alleges late automobile payments owing in the amount of
$2,382. Applicant’s June and November 2008 CBRs disclose this account was opened in
November 1999, and the date of last activity on the account was August 2002. In his
response to interrogatories, Applicant asserted that this account had been paid in full and
his payment had been returned after the car was repossessed. However, he inexplicably
also asserted that he was disputing the account because the balance was incorrect and
he was requesting arbitration. In his response to the FORM, Applicant again asserted the
account had been paid in full and went on to note it no longer appeared in his March 2009
CBR. He also enclosed two checks, dated October 15, 2002, and December 16, 2002, that
were made payable to this creditor.   
Applicant submitted documents from the creditor listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.h
and 1.I that do not appear to relate to either account based on the January and March
2006 dates on those documents. However, because he obliterated the account numbers
on the documents it is impossible to state with certainty to what account(s) they relate. 
SOR subparagraph 1.j alleges a medical bill owing in the amount of $739.
Applicant’s June 2008 CBR discloses this account was opened in May 2003, and the date
of last activity was May 2008. In his response to interrogatories, Applicant stated he was
disputing this account with an insurance carrier. He submitted a number of medical
statements and other documents pertaining to medical bills that may or may not be
connected to this bill. In his response to the FORM, Applicant asserted this bill had been
paid in full by insurance paying a portion of the bill and him paying the balance. He
attached four checks, three of which are dated June 2, 2002, with the fourth check being
dated August 8, 2002, that appear to be made payable to two radiology practices. The total
 Applicant actually listed his monthly payments as being $3,005. However, the math makes clear that he2
combined his recurring monthly expenses and debts payments to arrive at that figure. 
5
amount paid by those checks is $101.88. While it is impossible to determine with certainty
from the record evidence if those checks relate to the account alleged in subparagraph 1.j,
it must be noted that Applicant’s March 2009 CBR does indicate the account arose from
radiologic services provided by a creditor with a name similar to that listed on the checks
submitted by Applicant. However, the March 2009 CBR also discloses the account was
updated in January 2009, and remains in a collection status with a balance owing of $739.
SOR subparagraph 1.k alleges a medical bill owing in the amount of $561.
Applicant’s June 2008 CBR discloses this account was opened in August 2003, and the
date of last activity was May 2008. In his response to interrogatories, Applicant asserted
this account was in dispute with an insurance carrier. This account is also listed in
Applicant’s March 2009 CBR, which also lists the name of the medical provider who
submitted the claim. Applicant included two statements with his response to interrogatories
and with his response to the FORM that indicated Applicant and his wife owed the provider
$401 after insurance payments were applied to the account. Applicant provided a
somewhat lengthy explanation in his response to the FORM in which he asserted he was
unable to find a check to verify he had made a payment on this account and the insurance
carrier had merged with another carrier preventing him from obtaining information from the
insurance company. 
    
SOR subparagraph 1.l alleges a medical bill owing in the amount of $92. Applicant’s
June 2008 CBR discloses this account was opened in September 2003, and the date of
last activity was May 2008. In his response to interrogatories, Applicant again asserted he
was in dispute with an insurance carrier over this bill. This account is also listed in
Applicant’s March 2009 CBR, which identifies the original creditor as an anesthesiology
practice. Applicant submitted a statement, dated June 2003, from this creditor with his
response to interrogatories. That statement indicates Applicant owed a balance of $92.35
for services provided to his wife after insurance payments in the amount of $1,180.65 had
been applied to the account. In his response to the FORM, Applicant stated this account
had been paid as part of the claim submitted in connection with the debt alleged in
subparagraph 1.k, and was an example of “double dipping” which is an example of why he
is disputing the medical bills alleged in the SOR.
Applicant submitted wage statements, dated June 3, 2008, and June 17, 2008,  with
his response to interrogatories that establish his net bi-weekly earnings at that time were
$2,616.13. He also submitted a personal financial statement at the same time in which he
only claimed to have a net monthly income of $4,369. He listed his recurring monthly
expenses at $1,450, his monthly debt payments at $1,555 and his net remainder at
$1,364.  He also listed his total assets as being $955,000, of which $700,000 was asserted2
to consist of stocks and/or bonds.
Applicant’s only explanations for his delinquent indebtedness was contained in his
response to the SOR wherein he attributed his financial problems to a medical emergency
and loss of a job. He did not elaborate on how these incidents affected his ability to pay his
debts, especially in consideration of the substantial assets he claims to possess, or what
 ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (July 11, 1997) at p. 2.3
 ISCR Case No. 97-0016 (December 31, 1997) at p. 3; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.14. 4
 Department of the Navy v. Egan 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).5
6
actions he took to mitigate the problems other that to assert “the records will also show
where we were able to request relief from the creditors until such time we could recover
and begin to make restitution.”
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) in May 2008. In response to applicable questions, he failed to disclose, as required,
that he had been over 180 days delinquent on any debt in the preceding seven years or
that he was then currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt. His June and November
2008 CBRs disclose he had numerous accounts that should have been disclosed in
response to those questions, most dating back several years. 
In his response to the SOR, Applicant denied both personal conduct allegations by
incredibly claiming that because he had “ongoing communication of settlement offers” from
some creditors he did not deem the accounts to be delinquent. The settlement offers he
was referring to are apparently those he included with his response to interrogatories that
date from January 2006 to March 2007. In his response to interrogatories, he justified his
failure to disclose the delinquent accounts by asserting he considers the accounts
“unresolved and therefore not of final record.” He reasserted this position in his response
to the FORM, along with the additional claim that in his opinion “until such time full
resolution has been accomplished they are not of final record.”     
 
POLICIES
The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to consider when evaluating a
person’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. Chief among them are the disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions for each applicable guideline. Additionally, each
clearance decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based upon the
relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole person concept, and the factors
listed in ¶ 6.3.1 through ¶ 6.3.6 of the Directive. Although the presence or absence of a
particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not outcome determinative, the
adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against this
policy guidance. Considering the evidence as a whole, Guideline F (financial
considerations) and Guideline E (personal conduct), with their disqualifying and mitigating
conditions, are most relevant in this case. 
  
The sole purpose of a security clearance decision is to decide if it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an
applicant.  The government has the burden of proving controverted facts.  The burden of3 4
proof in a security clearance case is something less than a preponderance of evidence,5
although the government is required to present substantial evidence to meet its burden of
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 (December 19, 2002) at p. 3 (citations omitted).6
 ISCR Case No. 98-0761 (December 27, 1999) at p. 2.7
 ISCR Case No. 94-1075 (August 10, 1995) at pp. 3-4; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.15.8
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 (January 27, 1995) at pp. 7-8; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.15.9
 Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.10
 Id. at 531.11
 Egan, Executive Order 10865, and the Directive.12
7
proof.  “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance of the6
evidence.”  Once the government has met its burden, the burden shifts to an applicant to7
present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against
him.  Additionally, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable8
clearance decision.9
No one has a right to a security clearance  and “the clearly consistent standard10
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”   Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access11
to classified information must be resolved in favor of protecting national security.      12
Analysis
Guideline F, 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. . . .
(Adjudicative Guideline [AG] 18)
Applicant’s June and November 2008 CBRs disclose 12 delinquent accounts, owing
in the total amount of over $26,000, that have been submitted for collection, charged off
as bad debts, or reported as being severely delinquent. Those CBRs and the statements
and the documents Applicant submitted in response to the SOR, the FORM and the
interrogatories propounded to him by the Government clearly establish that the
Government has met it’s burden of proof and shown that Disqualifying Conditions (DC)
19(a): inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and DC 19C(c): a history of not meeting
financial obligations apply.
 On the other hand, Applicant failed to meet his burden to present evidence of
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against him. An exhaustive
review of Applicant’s assertions and the evidence he submitted fails to prove he has
satisfied any of the debts listed in the SOR. While some of the documents he submitted
8
may or may not relate to specified debts as he alleges, there is no record evidence that
permits a definitive conclusion they relate to those debts. Further, and most compelling,
is that even if they do relate to the debts as alleged by Applicant, the record is devoid of
evidence from which a conclusion can be reached that those debts have been satisfied.
As a result, Mitigating Condition (MC) 20(d): the individual initiated a good-faith effort to
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts does not apply.  
As to the medical debts, Applicant repeatedly asserted he was in dispute with
insurance carriers over those debts. However, the documentary evidence he submitted in
connection with those debts generally established that the insurance company had paid
the majority of the debts leaving comparatively small portions of the debt to be paid by
Applicant. There is nothing in the record to provide any basis for concluding the insurance
company did not pay the amount of the debts it was contractually obligated to pay.
Applicant also disputed the largest debt that resulted from a repossessed automobile, but
he failed to provide any documentation in support of his claims, including evidence that he
had retained legal counsel to dispute the claim as he asserted in his response to the
FORM. Thus, MC 20(e): the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of
the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to
substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue
does not apply.
Applicant attributes the financial problems evidenced by the delinquent debts to a
medical emergency and loss of employment. While the record clearly establishes his wife
experienced some serious medical problem in or about early-2003, and that he may also
have had some medical issues about that time, there is no record evidence other than
delinquent medical bills to indicate how this affected his ability to remain current on his
accounts. As to the loss of employment, the e-QIP Applicant submitted indicates he has
been continuously employed since at least June 2001. Additionally, the large assets and
the amount of discretionary income Applicant claimed in the personal financial statement
he submitted indicates he has the ability to satisfy all listed delinquent accounts when and
if he so chooses. Therefore, MC 20(b): 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 does not apply.
Finally, there is no record evidence from which to find that  either of the remaining
potentially applicable mitigating conditions, i.e., MC 20(a): the behavior . . . 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; or 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 apply.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
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
9
any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process
or any failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
In response to applicable questions contained in the e-QIP he submitted in May
2008, Applicant failed to disclose, as required, that he had been over 180 days delinquent
on any debt in the preceding seven years or that he was then currently over 90 days
delinquent on any debt. His June and November 2008 CBRs disclose he had numerous
accounts that should have been disclosed in response to those questions, most dating
back several years. 
In his response to the SOR, Applicant asserted that because he had “ongoing
communication of settlement offers” from some creditors he did not deem the accounts to
be delinquent. The settlement offers he attached to his response to interrogatories were
sent to him by a few of his creditors between January 2006 and March 2007. His assertion
to the effect that all of his delinquent accounts, most of which had been delinquent for
years, somehow in his mind became no longer delinquent because a few of his delinquent
creditors made settlement offers which he chose to ignore is not credible.
In his response to interrogatories, Applicant claimed he did not disclose the
accounts because he considered them “unresolved and therefore not of final record.” He
essentially reasserted this last justification in his response to the FORM. Applicant’s failure
to resolve his accounts and to instead permit them to remain in a collection status for years
can hardly be considered a basis for asserting that they are not delinquent. Like his
response to the SOR, these attempted justifications are not credible. 
    
Accordingly, DC 16(a): deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant
facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form
used to conduct investigations, determine qualifications, award benefits or status,
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities
applies. I have considered all potential mitigating conditions and conclude that none apply.
The objective of the security-clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense
assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.
Indeed, the “whole person” concept recognizes we should view a person by the totality of
their acts and omissions. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking,
and careful analysis.   
Considering all relevant and material facts and circumstances present in this case,
the whole person concept, the factors listed in ¶ 6.3.1 through ¶6.3.6 of the Directive, and
the applicable disqualifying and mitigating conditions, I find Applicant has failed to mitigate
the financial considerations and personal conduct security concerns. He has not overcome
the case against him nor satisfied his ultimate burden of persuasion. It is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. Guidelines F
and E are decided against Applicant. 
10
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-l: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a & b: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
Clearance is denied.
Henry Lazzaro
Administrative Judge