1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-01190
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Francisco Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,  I
conclude that Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on June 1, 2007. On February 5, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns
under Guidelines F and E. 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 February 11, 2009. He answered
the SOR in writing on March 1, 2009, and requested a hearing before an administrative
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient1
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. That burden has two components. First, the
government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern. See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009), (concurring
and dissenting, in part).
GE 2 (Applicant’s security clearance application) at 5, 11; AE B; AE C; AE D; AE E; Tr. 44, 49, 67.2
GE 2, supra note 2, at 24, 26-27; GE 3 (Applicant’s military discharge paper - DD form 214); Tr. 44.3
2
judge. DOHA received the request shortly thereafter. Department Counsel was
prepared to proceed on April 15, 2009, and I received the case assignment on April 16,
2009. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on April 24, 2009, and I convened the hearing
as scheduled on May 28, 2009. The government offered 15 exhibits (GE) 1 through 15,
which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified on
his own behalf. He submitted five exhibits (AE) A through E, which were received and
admitted into evidence without objection. The record closed on May 28, 2009. DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on June 5, 2009.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a
through 1.s of the SOR, with explanations. He denied the factual allegations in ¶¶ 2.a
and 2.b of the SOR.  He also provided additional information to support his request for1
eligibility for a security clearance.  
Applicant, who is 31 years old, works as technician for a Department of Defense
contractor. He began working for this contractor in August 2005. Applicant’s supervisors
and managers describe him as an excellent employee, who is dependable, reliable and
honest. All state that he properly handles classified information and that he is
trustworthy. They recommend him for a security clearance.2
Applicant served in the Unites States (U.S.) Army for more than seven years. His
service included a tour of duty in Korea and in Iraq. The Army awarded him a number of
medals and ribbons, including two good conduct medals, Army Commendation Medal,
National Defense Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Korean
Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and others. While in
the Army, he held a security clearance without any violations.3
Applicant and his fiancee have lived together since 2000. They have two sons,
ages 7 and 2. Her 11-year-old daughter lives with them. His fiancee does not receive
child support from her daughter’s father. Applicant attended college and is now taking
on-line college courses, working towards his bachelor’s degree. His fiancee worked as a
cook until she was laid off in January 2009. She is not receiving unemployment
Tr. 46, 48, 50-52.4
Id. at 45-46, 49.5
GE 6 (Applicant’s response to Interrogatories, including credit report, dated August 2, 2008)  at 6; Tr. 59-61.6
GE 4 (Credit report, dated July 12, 2007); GE 6, supra note 6, credit report, dated August 2, 2008); GE 77
(Credit report, dated August 8, 2008); GE 8 (Credit report, dated January 17, 2009); GE 9 (Credit report, dated
February 25, 2009).
3
compensation nor has she returned to work. His fiancee is also attending college
through an on-line program and has applied for financial benefits under the GI bill.4
After his discharge from the Army, Applicant sought employment where he lived
on the west coast, but could not find employment. He did not work for three or four
months. His current employer offered him a job in July 2005. He moved, with his family,
to the east coast at a significant cost, which he paid.5
Applicant completed a financial statement on August 1, 2008. His personal
financial statement showed a net monthly income of $5,226. With the loss of his wife’s
monthly income and his travel pay, his current net monthly income is $3,200. He has
incurred a net monthly income loss of $2,000. Applicant listed his monthly expenses at
$3,850 on his personal financial statement. He no longer pays child care expenses, so
his net monthly expenses now total about $3,550. He acknowledged that he does not
have enough money each month to pay his expenses. Applicant will complete his truck
payments by the end of 2009. He anticipates applying that $500 a month to debt
payment.  6
The SOR lists numerous debts, which are listed at least once on each credit
report and sometimes more than once because the debt is under other creditor’s
names. After reviewing the credit reports dated July 12, 2007, July 29, 2008, August 8,
2008, January 17, 2009, February 25, 2009,  and the SOR, I have compiled a list of the
total debts owed, excluding any duplicate entries. I find that Appellant’s actual debts are
as follows:7
SOR ¶ TYPE AMOUNT STATUS EVIDENCE
1.a Medical bill $     50 Paid Attachment to
SOR response
1.b Electric bill $   565 Payment plan,
paid $50
Id; Tr. 54-55
1.c Medical bill $     50 Paid Attachment to
SOR response
1.d Electric bill $   245 Paid Id.
Department counsel raised a question about a judgement entered again Applicant in 1998. The judgment is8
not listed in the SOR and the July 2002 credit report shows this debt as paid. GE 15 at 4.
Tr. 62-66, 69.9
4
1.e Cell phone bill $   331 Paid Id.
1.f. Store account $   630 Unpaid Response to SOR
Tr. 56
1.g Store account $   370 Unpaid Id.
1.h Telephone bill $   151 Paid Attachment to
SOR response
1.i Jewelry store $1,473 Unpaid Response to SOR
Tr. 56
1.j Credit debt $   945 Unpaid Id.
1.k Credit card $   738 Unpaid Id.
1.l Bank debt $1,125 Unpaid Id.
1.m Store account $3,353 Unpaid Id.
1.n Credit card $   301 Unpaid Id.
1.o Cable bill $     70 Unpaid Id.
1.p Credit account $   234 Unpaid Id.
1.q Credit account $   352 Unpaid Id.
1.r Cell phone $   240 Unpaid Id.
1.s Cell phone $   377 Unpaid Id.
Applicant met with a financial counselor once. His stepmother helped him
develop a budget and suggested that he pay some of his smaller debts, which he has
done.  He does not want to file for bankruptcy as a way to resolve his debts. He knows8
he needs to improve his credit by paying his debts. 9
When he completed his e-QIP, Applicant answered “no” to the following
questions:
Section 28. Your Financial Delinquencies
a. In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days
delinquent on any debt(s)?
Id. at 14, 36-37, 69, 76-77, 79, 80-83.10
Id.; GE 5 (Interview summary); GE 10 (SF-86, dated April 2000) at 10; GE 13 (SF-86, dated December 2001)11
at 9.
5
b. Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?
Applicant acknowledges that he knew he was 90 days past due on his truck
payments and had two other unpaid debts at the time he completed his security
clearance application. He did not know about most of his debts as he was not receiving
any letters from creditors. He admitted that he did not start his e-QIP until near the end
of  the 30 days in which he had to complete it. Because he had little time to complete
his e-QIP, he could not obtain his credit report and complete all the information on his
debts. He states that after calling his security officer and explaining his problem, the
security officer told him to answer “no” to these questions and advised that he could
provide information to the investigator. The employer’s assistant facility security officer
denied providing this instruction to Applicant, but had no recall of a telephone call from
Applicant on this issue.  10
Applicant met with the investigator. He states that he gave his credit report to the
investigator. The investigator’s report indicates that the investigator reviewed
Applicant’s debts with him during the interview. The report does not reflect the source of
the information about Applicant’s debts or who provided the information. However, the
investigator noted that Applicant planned to request his credit report to address certain
debts about which Applicant was unclear. When he completed his SF-86 in 2001,
Applicant identified existing financial problems, but did not in his SF-86 completed 18
months earlier in 2000.11
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.
6
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.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
AG ¶¶ 20(e) and 20(f) are not raised in this case.12
7
security concerns. Applicant accumulated delinquent debts and has been unable to pay
many of these debts for a period of time. The evidence is sufficient to raise these
potentially disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer examination.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or
occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt
on the individual=s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.@ Applicant has a
long history of accumulating debts, many of which remain unpaid. His debts are old and
recent, and did not occur under unusual circumstances. This mitigating condition does
not apply. 
Under AG & 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe conditions that resulted in the
financial problem were largely beyond the person=s control (e.g., loss of employment, a
business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation),
and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.” Applicant’s wife lost her
job in January 2009 and remains unemployed. He no longer travels for his employer.
The loss of her income and his travel pay has reduced their net monthly income.
Applicant currently pays his monthly bills, but without his wife’s income he cannot pay
his old debts. He acts responsibly by paying his monthly expenses and by making an
effort to keep these expenses current. This mitigating condition has partial applicability
in this case. 
Evidence that Athe person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control@
is potentially mitigating under AG & 20(c). Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the
evidence shows Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.@ Applicant met with a financial counselor once. With the help of
his stepmother, he developed a budget and paid some of his small debts. His current
expenses are under control, but he has not resolved many of the debts listed in the
SOR. I conclude these potentially mitigating conditions have some applicability.12
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to 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 any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov.17, 2004)(explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-2313313
at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)).
8
Under AG ¶ 16, the following conditions could raise a security concern in this
case and may be disqualifying:
(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 employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;
For AG ¶ 16(a) to apply, Applicant’s omission must be deliberate. The
government established that Applicant omitted a material fact from his SF-86 when he
answered “no” to the questions about debts currently delinquent over 90 days and debts
delinquent over 180 days in the last seven years. This information is material to the
evaluation of Applicant’s trustworthiness to hold a security clearance and to his honesty.
In his response and at the hearing, Applicant strongly denies, however, that he had an
intent to hide information about his finances. When a falsification allegation is
controverted, the government has the burden of proving the omission was deliberate.
Proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s intent
or state of mind when the omission occurred. An administrative judge must consider the
record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial
evidence concerning an applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the omission
occurred.  For DC ¶ 16(a) to apply, the government must establish that Applicant’s13
omission, concealment or falsification in his answer was deliberate.
Applicant denied intentionally leaving out information about his past due debts
and current financial problems. At the time he completed his e-QIP, Applicant had
knowledge of some past due debts and he has so admitted. Because Applicant knew he
owed debts, the government has established that Applicant intentionally hid his debt
problems. The disqualifying condition in AG ¶ 16(a)  applies.
I have reviewed the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 and find that none are
applicable in this case. He has not mitigated the government’s security concerns under
Guideline E. 
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The 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
9
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 eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant
served honorably in the Army and is highly respected by his supervisors for his work.
He is an excellent and reliable employee. He paid a few small debts. However, since his
wife lost her job in January 2009, household income has declined significantly. While
routine monthly bills are paid, Applicant has no resources to repay his past debts until
he completes his payments on his truck or his wife returns to work. The issue is not
simply whether all his debts are paidBit is whether his financial circumstances raise
concerns about his fitness to hold a security clearance. At this time, the amount of his
unpaid debts raises security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(1).) In addition, his failure to be
forthright about his finances when completing his e-QIP, raises a security concern.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or 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 his financial
considerations and personal 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: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
10
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge