DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 08-07432 
            ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Sensitive Position (SF 86) on April 1, 
2008 (Item 5).  On January 7, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) for Applicant detailing security concerns 
for financial considerations under Guideline F and personal conduct under Guideline E 
(Item 1).  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 answered the SOR in writing on February 19, 2009, admitting all of the 
allegations in the SOR with some explanation (Item 4).  He elected to have the matter 
decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the 
Government’s written case on March 17, 2009.  Applicant received a complete file of 
relevant material (FORM) on March 25, 2009, and was provided the opportunity to file 
objections, and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying 
conditions within 30 days of receipt.  Applicant did not respond to the FORM or provide 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
additional material.  The case was assigned to me on June 16, 2009.  Based on a 
review of the case file and pleadings, eligibility for access to classified information is 
denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 I thoroughly reviewed the case file, and the pleadings.  I make the following 
findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is 32 years old and an analyst for a defense contractor.  He is divorced 
with one child for whom he pays child support.  He attended college for approximately 
three years but did not earn a degree.  He served seven years on active duty in the 
Army (Item 5).   He lists his current monthly net income as $2,843.08 with monthly 
expenses of $2,705.  His monthly net remainder is $138 (Item 6 at 16).  Applicant to the 
best of his knowledge has not incurred delinquent debt in seven years.  He feels he is 
barely living within his means at this time (Item 6 at 7). 
 
Credit reports, Applicant's admissions, and the SOR list the following delinquent 
debts: a credit card account debt of $1,263 past due since August 2001 (SOR 1.a); a 
debt in collection to a property management company of $1,100 (SOR 1.b); a student 
loan debt in collection with the Department of Education for $8,472 (SOR 1.c); a 
collection account for another  property management company for $10,134 (SOR 1.d); 
and a collection account for a cell phone for $1,072 (SOR 1.e; See Item 6, Answer to 
Interrogatories, dated September 23, 2008, Item 6, Credit Report, dated April 1, 2008; 
and Item 8, Credit Report, dated November 19, 2008).  The delinquent debts total 
$22,040. 
 
Applicant's financial problems started when he attended college from 1994 to 
1997.  He obtained credit cards and opened student loans.  He did not understand how 
credit worked and he was financially irresponsible.  He got behind on his payments.  He 
did not receive financial guidance or assistance from his family.  He joined the Army in 
August 1997.  He purchased a truck and again got behind on payments.  He did not 
understand finances and he and his wife incurred expenses they could not meet.  They 
paid what bills they could when they could.  His wife did not work steadily particularly 
after their child was born (Item 6 at 5-6).   
 
Applicant admitted the debts listed in the SOR.  Applicant admits the debt at 
SOR 1.a for a credit card he opened while in college.  He has not made payments on 
this account for a number of years and does not plan to make payments since he does 
not have the means to make payments (Item 6 at 4). 
 
Applicant admits the debt to a property management company at SOR 1.b.  He 
left an apartment he rented from the company damaged and dirty.  He tried to settle 
with the company but was not successful.  He has not contacted the company in a few 
years to settle the account (Item 6 at 4). 
 
 
3 
 
 
Applicant admits he owes the Department of Education for student loans as listed 
at SOR 1.c.  The initial debt was for $10,869.  His tax return was used to pay $1,800.  
He would like to get it settled and paid in five years, but he did not provide specific plans 
for payment (Item 6 at 4).  
 
Applicant admitted that he left another apartment he rented damaged and dirty 
but disputed the amount owed the property management company (SOR 1.d).  He 
believes the damage was minor and should have been taken from his $600 security 
deposit.  He tried to negotiate the amount of damage with the property management 
company but they insisted the damage was significant.  He would like to settle the 
account for approximately $2,000.  He has not followed up with the property 
management company nor had contact with them in a number of years (Item 6 at 3). 
 
Applicant admits the cell phone debt in collection for $1,072 at SOR 1.e.  He 
stopped making payments on the account when he left the Army and moved.  This 
account was not one of his priorities when he moved.  Applicant plans to contact the 
creditor and settle the account and pay the creditor $100 monthly (Item 6 at 4-5). 
 
Applicant admits that the omission of delinquent debts on his security clearance 
application was intentional.  He generally knew of his debt listed in the credit bureau 
reports at the time he completed his security clearance application but did not know the 
specific details.  He did not believe it was important to list his debts.  He had adequate 
time to research the information and complete the form.  He did not ask his security 
manager or supervisor for guidance in completing the forms (Item 6 at 7).   
 
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 
 
4 
 
 
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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Consideration: 
 
 Under financial considerations, failure or inability to live within one’s means, 
satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of 
judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise 
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified 
information.  An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage 
in illegal acts to generate funds. (AG ¶ 18)  Similarly, an individual who is financially 
irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligations to 
protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life 
provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
 A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms.  Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an Applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance.  An Applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations.  Applicant’s delinquent debts as established by credit reports and his 
admissions raise Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) 
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not 
meeting financial obligations).  The record from credit reports and responses to 
interrogatories shows his inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts and shows a history 
of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
5 
 
 
 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).  Applicant has taken no action to 
pay the delinquent debts, so the debts are current.  The debts are from various sources, 
credit cards, delinquent debts to two property management companies, student loans, 
and a phone bill, so the debts are not infrequent.  Since the debts are current and not 
paid, they cast doubt on Applicant’s current reliability, trustworthiness, and good 
judgment.  The mitigating condition does not apply. 
 
 I considered FC MC ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problems 
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 admits to financial 
problems in college and his wife's inability to find steady employment as reasons for his 
financial problems.  However, Applicant was on active duty in the Army for over seven 
years.  Since then the only period of unemployment seems to be shortly after he left 
active duty.  He presented no information concerning any attempt to pay past due 
obligations since he has been employed.  He has not established he acted responsibly 
in managing his finances and making payments on his obligations. 
 
 I considered 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.  
Applicant presented no information to show he has a plan to pay the debts or any action 
that he has taken to pay his debts.  Applicant appears to have sufficient income to make 
some payments on his delinquent debts since he has been steadily employed for almost 
twelve years.  He has not presented a concrete plan to pay his delinquent debts or 
established any attempt to pay them.  He has not presented sufficient information to 
indicate a good-faith effort to pay creditors or resolve debts.  Even though he states he 
has not incurred delinquent debt in seven years, he has not established that his 
finances are under control and he acted responsibly towards his delinquent debts.  He 
has not presented sufficient information to mitigate security concerns for financial 
considerations. 
 
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 
 
6 
 
 
clearance system depends on the individual providing correct and accurate information.  
If a person conceals or provides false information, the security clearance process 
cannot function properly to ensure that granting access to classified information is in the 
best interest of the United States Government.  Applicant’s incomplete answers on his 
security clearance application concerning debts past due more than 180 days or 90 
days raise a security concern under Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) 
AG ¶ 16(a) "the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and 
material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history, or similar 
form used to conduct investigations, to determine security eligibility or trustworthiness." 
 
 Applicant admitted that he deliberately failed to answer financial questions 
correctly and accurately on his April 1, 2008 security clearance application.  While there 
is a security concern for an omission, concealment, or falsification of a material fact in 
any written document or oral statement to the government when applying for a security 
clearance, every omission, concealment, or inaccurate statement is not a falsification.  
A falsification must be deliberate and material.  It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and 
willfully.  Applicant admits that he knowingly and willfully provided false financial 
information on his security clearance application.  I find none of the Personal Conduct 
Mitigating conditions at AG ¶ 17 apply.  I find against Applicant as to Personal Conduct.   
 
“Whole Person” Analysis  
 
 Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative 
process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance 
must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole person concept.  
 
 Applicant has not taken sufficient action to resolve his past due debts.  His 
indifferent attitude and lack of action show he does not exercise good judgment, and is 
not trustworthy or responsible.  Applicant has been irresponsible towards his delinquent 
debts and financial obligations.  This is an indication that he might be irresponsible 
towards the protection and handling of classified information.  He also deliberately 
provided incomplete and false information on a security clearance application.  This 
 
7 
 
 
course of conduct indicates he may not be truthful and careful in protecting classified 
information.  Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances 
and personal conduct.  Clearance is denied. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.e:   Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a - 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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge