1
                                                             
                            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
             DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------, -------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-08431
SSN: ------ ---- -------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant owed more than $66,000 in delinquent child support in January 2008
when he applied for a security clearance. He also had state tax liens for more than
$3,700 in overpayment of unemployment compensation filed in 2003 and 2007. He
repaid almost $4,300 of these debts through garnishment and payroll deduction starting
in September 2008. He denied any delinquent debt on his security clearance
application, and failed to mitigate resulting financial and personal conduct security
concerns. Based upon a thorough review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted his Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions (SF 86), on
January 4, 2008. On November 14, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant 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
2
adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and
effective within the Department of Defense (DoD) for SORs issued after September 1,
2006. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on December 3, 2008. He answered
the SOR in writing on December 12, 2008, and requested a determination be made
without a hearing “unless further explanation or information is required.” On January 20,
2009, Department Counsel ascertained in a telephone conversation that Applicant
actually did desire a hearing and converted the case to request a hearing before an
administrative judge pursuant to Directive ¶ E3.1.8. Department Counsel was prepared
to proceed on January 30, 2009, and DOHA assigned the case to me on February 5,
2009.
DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on February 17, 2009, and I convened the
hearing as scheduled on March 10, 2009. Department Counsel offered Government
Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on
his own behalf, and offered Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A and B. I granted Applicant’s
request to leave the record open until March 24, 2009, to permit submission of
additional evidence. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on March 19,
2009. On April 9, 2009, Department Counsel forwarded Applicant’s additional
submissions without objection to their consideration. These documents were collectively
marked AE C, admitted, and the record was closed.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 41-year-old employee of a federal contractor, where he has worked
for two and a half years as a rigger and commercial truck driver. In his answer to the
SOR, he admitted all of the allegations were true, with some explanations. Applicant’s
admissions are incorporated into the following findings of fact.
Applicant served in the Navy from 1991 to 1995, and the Army from 1996 to 1998
when he was discharged with a disability. While in the Navy, he had a girlfriend for a
couple years who subsequently had a son and named him the father on official records.
She later filed for child support, which he only discovered when he first applied for his
commercial driver’s licence in 1998. He has not spoken to the mother since 1996, and
has never been able to make contact with his son. Between March 1996 and January
2008, he was under a county court order to pay the mother $341 per month in child
support. Over those years, he sporadically made payments totaling $8,786. With
assessed interest on delinquent payments, his total due to the county in January 2008
was $66,148. (AE C at 4-6; Tr. at 31-38, 57-59.) 
In September 2008, Applicant’s employer began deducting $203.22 from his
biweekly paychecks for payment of child support. This results in an average monthly
payment of $441, which Applicant understood to be $341 for current support and $100
toward the delinquent debt. (AE B at 2; Tr. at 36, 49.) The county reported a balance
due of $65,595 in November 2008. (GE 3 at 1.) Applicant provided an account
statement from the county prepared on March 13, 2009, purporting to show all of his
debts, that reflected no charges for child support or interest after January 2008, but
3
provided no other evidence concerning whether his child support obligations continue.
He was not aware of his son’s actual age. (AE C at 4-6; Tr. at 59.) Between September
2008 and February 2009, a total of $2,642 was garnished from his wages for child
support. (AE B at 2.)
Applicant’s current state of residence filed tax liens against him in the amounts of
$985 in April 2003, $2,739 in June 2007, and $2,193 in September 2008. It is unclear
from the evidence whether these represent three distinct debts, or updated amounts on
the same outstanding debt. Applicant explained his understanding that these liens
resulted from his receipt of more unemployment compensation than he was entitled to
during periods he was briefly out of work with previous employers as a truck driver. His
girlfriend, with whom he lived for ten years, was handling their joint finances at the time.
He was unaware the state had obtained the judgments against him on which the liens
were based until his employer began garnishing his wages for them in November 2008.
(GE 2 at 3; GE 4; Tr. at 34, 38-39.) That garnishment is also $203.22 per paycheck.
Applicant’s payroll clerk annotated, on the printout showing these deductions, that the
initial amount requested in this garnishment action was $2,254, and after the February
2009 payments he had paid $1,626 and still owed $628. (AE B at 1.) 
Applicant stopped living with the woman who had been handling their finances
and her two children in October 2008 due to her dissatisfaction with his income after his
child support garnishment of over $400 per month began. He moved in with a long-time
friend and the friend’s wife, and currently pays about $1,400 per month in rent and
vehicle expenses. His income varies based on number of hours worked, but he
estimated his net take home after all deductions at $1,600 to $1,800 per month, plus an
additional $974 in monthly VA disability payments. Other than child support and the tax
liens, Applicant’s other debts have been generally paid on time. He said he would
complete a Personal Financial Statement form provided to him by Department Counsel
and submit it after the hearing, but did not do so. (GE 3; AE C at 2, 3; Tr. at 44-47, 54.)  
When Applicant completed his SF 86 in January 2008, he said he had not had
any debts delinquent by 180 days during the last 7 years, and had no debts currently
90-days delinquent. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant explained:
I admit that I answered no to [Questions 28a and 28b]. I was not
intentionally misleading or un-truthful. I have been making payments on
the account brought into question which I thought meant I was current in
my payments. I did not understand that neither the arrears amount for
child support nor the tax liens would be considered to be past due as I
have been making these payments via payroll deduction and was unaware
that any amounts in arrears would be considered as past due amounts.
Prior to October 2008 I was not handling my personal finances and did not
know that the debt(s) to [state] Employment Security Department had not
and were not being paid. I understand it is my responsibility to have
knowledge and insure that my financial obligations are handled properly. I
have remedied this situation and am making payments as necessary to
4
resolve the issue that have been brought forth as part of your
investigation.
During the hearing, he reiterated that he did not know about the tax liens until his
employer began garnishing his wages for them in November 2008. However, he
admitted that he did know about the child support delinquency, and had not been
making recent payments toward it around the time he completed his SF 86. He
explained, “I guess this is just something that I was trying to get through it at work, trying
to make it as easy as possible to go through the stuff at work with my bosses sitting
there.” (Tr. at 40-42; 51.) The county account printout confirms that his last payment
before January 2008 was in May 2006, and the two payments before that were in March
and May of 2005. (AE C at 5-6.) Applicant further clarified that he had been informed
about the overpayment of unemployment benefits during three different years, but
“when I received notice of that, I just basically gave it to my ex to take care of to pay
back because I didn’t want that as a lien or a judgment on me.” He continued, “then
when they said there was an overpayment, I was like, ‘Okay. No problem. I’ll take care
of it.’ And it never got taken care of.” (Tr. at 54-56.)
Applicant’s supervisor wrote that they have worked closely together for 16
months, and commented on his professionalism, dedication, strong work ethic,
timeliness, conscientiousness, and willingness to help others. His longtime friend and
current landlord wrote that Applicant is an upstanding individual who is only trying to live
his life in a respectable way. He further commented that Applicant views his current
work as a way of supporting his country after having been discharged from military
service for medical reasons. (AE C at 3.) Applicant offered no evidence of financial
counseling, and did not demonstrate a knowledgeable grasp of his budget or other
financial circumstances.
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 used to evaluate
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(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in
the context 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.
5
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified
information will be resolved in favor of the 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides that “Any determination under this order adverse to
an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no
sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” 
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
AG ¶ 18 expresses the security concern pertaining to 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 over-
extended 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.
AG ¶ 19 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Department Counsel asserted, and the evidence supports, the applicability
6
of two of these potentially disqualifying conditions: “(a) inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts;” and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” (Tr. at 62.) One
other disqualifying condition could also be implicated by the existence of tax liens: “(g)
failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as required, or fraudulent
filing of the same.” Applicant admitted the existence of the tax liens, but they do not
correspond to any failure to file or pay taxes so AG ¶ 19(g) is inapplicable. The
undisputed evidence demonstrated Applicant’s inability to pay delinquent child support
debt in excess of $65,000, and unwillingness to do so until his wages were garnished,
thus raising security concerns under AG ¶ 19(a). The evidence also established a
lengthy history of not meeting these financial obligations that supports security concerns
under AG ¶ 19(c). The evidence of record raises questions about Applicant’s self-
control, judgment, and willingness to abide by rules and regulations under which people
are expected to fulfill their lawful financial obligations.
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from
financial considerations. The only potentially applicable conditions are:
(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;
(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;
(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;
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(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.
AG ¶ 20(a) provides no mitigation because more than $65,000 in delinquent
debt, incurred regularly over the past ten to twelve years, continues to be outstanding.
The past ten years’ worth of child support went largely unpaid because Applicant chose
to support his girlfriend and her children rather than comply with the court order to
provide support for his son. This pattern and the amount of remaining debt support
substantial doubt about his current reliability, trustworthiness and good judgment. AG ¶
20(b) also provides little to no mitigation since he did not act responsibly toward either
7
his ongoing child support obligations or his receipt of unwarranted unemployment
compensation after becoming aware of them. There is no evidence of counseling and
little indication the problems will be resolved anytime soon. At the $100 per month rate
that Applicant testified he is repaying back child support, it would take more than 54
years to repay $65,000 in debt. Furthermore, Applicant did not initiate any effort to
repay or resolve any of these debts, all of which are being addressed through recently
obtained involuntary garnishments. Thus, no mitigation is established under AG ¶¶
20(c) or (d). Finally, Applicant neither asserted nor provided evidence to support
application of AG ¶ 20(e).
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.
The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or
administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility:
(a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or
cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to
meeting with a security investigator for subject interview,
completing security forms or releases, and cooperation with
medical or psychological evaluation; and,
(b) refusal to provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful
questions of investigators, security officials, or other official
representatives in connection with a personnel security or
trustworthiness determination.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The Government asserted that Applicant’s statements and actions support
concerns under AG ¶ 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 employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.
8
Applicant completed his SF 86 personnel security questionnaire in January 2008.
On the two questions that asked whether he had experienced financial delinquencies he
responded “No,” and did not report what he then knew to be substantial delinquent child
support debt. He did this because he did not want to reveal this adverse information,
either to his bosses or to the Government. This was a deliberate omission,
concealment, and falsification of relevant facts from his SF 86, establishing security
concerns under AG ¶ 16(a), as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.a.  
AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate personal conduct security
concerns:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was
caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of
authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual
specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made
aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the
individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(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;
(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;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable
reliability; and
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity has ceased or
occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules
and regulations.
AG ¶¶ 17(a), (c) and (f) are not supported by the evidence in this case. Applicant
acknowledged the relevant facts concerning his financial history and present debts only
in response to specific confrontation. His claim in response to the SOR that he thought
the debts were not delinquent because he had begun repayment agreements is patently
9
false, since he completed the SF 86 in January 2008 and the repayments, through
involuntary garnishment actions, did not begin until September and November 2008,
respectively. Finally, the falsification occurred recently and in connection with seeking
the clearance that is currently under adjudication, reflecting directly on his reliability and
trustworthiness in security-related matters. 
Applicant neither asserted nor offered evidence that he was advised to falsify his
SF 86, or has taken any positive steps to lessen the likelihood of recurrence or reduce
his vulnerability to exploitation and duress. Accordingly, no mitigation under AG ¶¶
17(b), (d) or (e) was established. Finally, AG ¶ 17(g) relates to personal conduct
concerns not alleged in this case.
 
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
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.  
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s conduct of security
concern involves more than ten years of failure to pay court ordered child support
resulting in more than $65,000 in delinquent debt. Even with ongoing garnishment at
present rates, it will be many years before this debt is resolved so continuation and
recurrence are likely. He did not initiate actions to repay either this debt or his several
debts that arose from collecting more unemployment compensation than he was entitled
to receive. Both are being recouped through creditor garnishment actions. He offered no
evidence negating his ongoing potential for pressure, coercion or duress. His deliberate
falsification of his security clearance application, by denying the existence of his
delinquent child support debt, further demonstrates his susceptibility to conceal
important security-related information that might entail personally detrimental
consequences, and willingness to compromise his integrity.  
10
On balance, Applicant presented insufficient evidence to mitigate the significant
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness security concerns arising from his history of
financial irresponsibility, inability to pay his debts, and falsification of his SF 86. The
record evidence leaves substantial doubt as to his present eligibility and suitability for a
security clearance. For all these reasons, Applicant has not mitigated security concerns
related to 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: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a
security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                  
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge