1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-09609
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant certified his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on June 4, 2008. On January 24, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns
arising under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal
Conduct). 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 for SORs
issued after September 1, 2006. 
In a response signed on February 18, 2009, Applicant admitted 2 of 10 Guideline
F allegations and denied the single Guideline E allegation. He declined a hearing on the
record in favor of an administrative determination. On March 13, 2009, Department
Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Materials (FORM), including 6 attached items.
Applicant received the FORM on March 26, 2009. He chose not to submit any
 The limited record does not reveal what Applicant did between 1996 and 2002.      1
 FORM, Item 3, SOR Response at 1.      2
2
additional information in response to the FORM within the 30 days provided. The case
was forwarded for assignment to an Administrative Judge on June 16, 2009. I was
assigned the case on June 17, 2009. Based upon a review of the case file,
submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant mitigated the security issue raised under
Guideline E, but failed to meet his burden with regard to security issues arising under
Guideline F. Security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 64-year-old security specialist working for a defense contractor. He
earned a bachelor of business administration degree in management and received an
honorable discharge from the United States military after four years of service. Married
for 30 years, he has two grown children.
The facts of record are scant. Applicant lives in a two-bedroom apartment with
his wife and two grown children. He owns a nine-year-old truck and a four-year-old
vehicle. Applicant submitted evidence regarding two of the allegations contained in the
SOR, 1.a and 1.j. In opting not to have a hearing, Applicant chose that an
administrative determination be made solely on the written record. 
In 1995, Applicant required a quintuple bypass heart surgery and a 30-day
recuperation period. When he returned to his workplace, it was at a reduced salary. His
health insurance covered all medical expenses. The time off and reduced income,
however, led him to default on some credit cards.
From September 2002 until April 2004, Applicant held a string of often short-term
positions, often as a courier or in security.  In 2004, he began working for his current1
employer. In January 2008, he suffered a heart attack, followed by subsequent heart
attacks in February 2008 and in April 2008. He was treated at the same hospital for all
three incidents. His health insurance coverage was not as comprehensive as it was in
1995 and he was unable to pay all of his hospital bills. Other bills were incurred as he
was away from work. He has only been able to address his current bills with the aid of
his two grown children, both of whom are employed.2
The January 2009 SOR references 10 allegations, each representing a
delinquent debt or lien noted in either Applicant’s June 17, 2008, or October 17, 2008,
credit report. Those allegations, Applicant’s comments in his SOR Response, and
pertinent information from the credit reports referenced in the SOR are as follows:
 FORM, Item 3, SOR Response at 5, Attachment A (IRS Monthly Statement, dated Jan. 21, 2009).      3
 It is unclear how Applicant concluded the “scope of investigation” is limited to a seven year window. The      4
e-QIP, Section 28(a), inquires “In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s),”
but Section 28(b) inquires “”Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s) (emphasis added)?”
There is no absolute bar to consideration of delinquent obligations originating outside that seven year window
of inquiry that remain delinquent. Additionally, there is no general law or policy that references to a non-lien
account are automatically deleted after appearing on a credit report for 7 or 12 years. The Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) states that past due accounts can only continue on a credit report for seven years past
delinquency. Generally speaking, with regard to Equifax, a delinquent account becomes poised for removal
seven years from the date of last activity, not necessarily from the date the account was opened. That is its
method of establishing its FCRA Compliance Date. In contrast, TransUnion and Experian now note an
established removal date, which is typically seven years after the FCRA Compliance Date.
3
1.a – 2006 Tax Lien (approximately $11,914) – IN REPAYMENT – Applicant admits
this allegation. He demonstrated, however, that he has paid the balance owed down to
approximately $3,900 as of February 1, 2009, through a repayment plan.3
1.b – 2008 Medical Balance (approximately $11,948) – UNADDRESSED – Applicant
admits this balance from his 2008 hospitalizations. Currently unable to make payments
toward this balance, he plans to address it once his payments to the IRS are complete.
1.c – Collection Entity (approximately $445) – UNADDRESSED – Applicant denies
this allegation, noting that he has never heard of the collection agent named in the
SOR. The SOR fails to plead the matter with specificity inasmuch as it does not identify
that the account is a medical collection, but that fact is clearly noted in the underlying
credit reports. The account referenced reflects that it was opened in September 2002
and shows a date of last activity in April 2002.
1.d – Credit Card Collection (approximately $2,864) – UNADDRESSED – Applicant
denies this allegation, writing the “account is at least twelve years old. It should not be
on my credit report and should not be considered since it is well beyond the seven year
scope of the investigation.” The credit report notes that the account was opened in
1998 and reflects a date of last activity in March 2002.  4
1.e – Credit Card Collection (approximately $5,432) – UNADDRESSED – Applicant
denied this allegation with the same comment noted above. The credit report notes that
the account was opened in 1998 and also reflects a date of last activity in March 2002.
1.f – Credit Card Collection (approximately $2,666) – UNADDRESSED – Applicant
denied this allegation with the same comment noted above. The credit report notes that
the account was opened in 1999 and reflects a date of last activity in August 2002.
1.g – Creditor (approximately $1,755) – UNADDRESSED – In denying this allegation,
Applicant wrote “This account is not on my credit report. I don’t know what it is and as
 This allegation is generic and has not been pled with sufficient specificity. Consequently, it fails to give      5
Applicant sufficient notice as to whom he owe the amount alleged.
 FORM, Item 3, SOR Response at 6, Attachment B (Account Summary).      6
 FORM, Item 4 (e-QIP) at 29-30.      7
4
far as I know I do not owe it.” No evidence was provided showing this account has been
deleted. The date of last activity on the account is shown as September 2002.5
1.h – Telecommunications Provider (approximately $699) – UNADDRESSED –
Applicant denies this allegation, but admits having had an account with the noted
provider’s predecessor. He wrote that he requested his service be cancelled because of
poor reception, but that a customer retention specialist would not comply. He asserts
that the company kept the account open “until a sizeable debt was incurred and then
cancelled the service and began collection proceedings. This is an artificial debt
incurred through unscrupulous business practices and I do not owe it. In any case, this
debt is over seven years and should not be considered since it is beyond the seven
year scope of this investigation.” The account, however, is shown as opened in May
2007 with a date of last activity in June 2007.
1.i – Credit Card Collection (approximately $3,097) – UNADDRESSED – Applicant
denies this allegations, noting “I have never done business with this [entity] and do not
know if I incurred this or not. If I did, this account is at least twelve years old. It should
not be on my credit report and should not be considered since it is well beyond the
seven year scope of this investigation.” Applicant provided no evidence that he has
disputed this account’s inclusion on his credit report. The account is shown as opened
in September 1997 with a date of last activity in October 2002.
1.j – Telecommunications/Cable Provider (approximately $103) – PAID – Applicant
denies this allegation, showing that the account balance was previously paid and that
he is currently a customer in good standing with this provider.6
In executing his June 2008 e-QIP, Section 28(a) and (b) (“Your Financial
Delinquencies”), Applicant denied currently being over 90 days delinquent on any
debt(s). He similarly denied having been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s) in the
last seven years. In response to Section 27(c) (“Your Financial Record”), he answered
affirmatively that he had a lien placed against his property for failing to pay taxes or
other debts in the last seven years. He supplemented this admission with a full
description of the action, noting that he was in repayment on an installment agreement.7
In concluding his four page SOR Response, Applicant wrote: “I am a financially
responsible person. If you consider only my indebtedness within the last seven years
specified in the e-QIP questionnaire, the only problem I have encountered is with [the
hospital in which he thrice received treatment in 2008] and I will start paying that as
soon as I am financially able.” He concluded by noting: “In short, I do not pose a
security risk and my application for a security clearance should be approved.”
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      8
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      9
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      10
5
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. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this 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 the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a8
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  9 10
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
 Id.      11
 Id.      12
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.      13
 Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18.      14
6
for access to classified or sensitive information). “The clearly consistent standard
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 sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.  The decision to deny a security clearance is not necessarily a12
determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  Nor does it reflect badly on that13
person’s character. It is merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict
guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a
clearance.
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) to be the most pertinent to the
case. Conditions pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines that could raise a security
concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which would mitigate such
concerns, are set forth where applicable and discussed below.
Analysis
Guideline F – Financial Considerations
Under Guideline F, failure or an inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts,
and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or an
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.14
The Directive sets out several potentially disqualifying conditions under this guideline. 
Here, Applicant’s credit reports reflect a number of delinquent accounts which
represent approximately $40,000. He demonstrated substantial repayment on the debt
noted in allegation 1.a for $11,914 and full payment of a prior delinquent balance on the
account noted in allegation 1.j for $103. That leaves approximately $27,900 left
unaddressed, including approximately $12,000 in 2008 medical bills. Applicant admits
he is currently unable to make payments on other accounts until he has completed
paying off the IRS lien noted in allegation 1.a. Such facts and such an inability give rise
to Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts”) and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting
financial obligations”). With such conditions raised, the burden shifts to Applicant to
overcome the case against him and mitigate security concerns. 
 W hile Applicant’s 1995 multiple bypass surgery, protracted recovery, and reduced salary were clearly      15
beyond his control, Applicant provided no nexus between these events and the debts at issue in the SOR. 
 Contrary to Applicant’s comments and assertions, none have a date of last activity within seven years of      16
the SOR and none were over a dozen years old at that time. 
 AG ¶ 15.      17
7
The facts present situations tending to mitigate Applicant’s acquisition of debt.15
Although he held a string of mostly short term positions from 2002 through 2004, there
is no indication of adverse conditions or unemployment during this period. In 2008,
however, he faced three successive heart attacks and related hospitalizations. This also
required time away from work and from generating income. Financial Considerations
Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (“the conditions that resulted in the behavior
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”) applies to debts related to this
period and his subsequent ability to honor his obligations. 
Aside from his 2008 medical bills and his tax lien, toward which Applicant has
been in repayment, Applicant still has about $17,000 in delinquent debt. Most of that
$17,000 is in credit card debt and have dates of last activity in 2002.  There is no16
evidence he sought financial counseling. Moreover, having chosen an administrative
determination, there was no opportunity to elicit testimony as to what occurred in 2002
to cause their delinquency. Based on the facts presented, however, it is clear that they
significantly post-date his 1995 hospitalization, pre-date his recent 2008 medical
emergencies, and remain unaddressed. Also lacking is information tending to mitigate
the fact that his delinquent debts continued to be unaddressed through 2008.
Consequently, FC MC AG ¶ 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”)
does not apply. 
In light of Applicant’s success in diligently repaying his IRS tax lien, FC MC AG ¶
20(d) (“the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts”) applies to a limited degree.
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 any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security
clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance
process.  17
8
On his e-QIP, Applicant denied being currently over 90 days delinquent on any
debts. He also denied having had any debts that were delinquent for over 180 days in
the past seven years. His SOR response indicates he answered “no” based on an
incorrect understanding of either the questions, credit bureau reporting, his personal
financial situation, or the scope of the security clearance application investigation when
he completed the e-QIP. A misunderstanding, however, is not the equivalent of an
intent to mislead, falsify, or conceal. This is especially true in light of his comprehensive
answer to Section 27, which gave notice of financial issues and evidenced both candor
and an attention to detail. Similarly, there is no indication that he yet understands why,
given his misconceptions, his answer was incorrect. Therefore, none of the available
disqualifying conditions apply and security concerns are mitigated. 
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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance.
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole person”
factors. Applicant is a mature man who earned a college degree, maintained a marriage
of 30 years, and raised two children. He lives simply and exercises parsimony. Several
serious medical conditions have demanded immediate medical care and protracted
periods of recovery. Each such bout was costly and impacted both his ability to work
and to generate income. Related debt is a significant percentage of his overall
delinquent debt. It is apparent that he is not unwilling to meet his obligations, but is
simply unable. 
What stands in stark contrast to Applicant’s 2008 medical debt and his IRS tax
lien, on which he has been making regular payments, is the balance of his delinquent
9
debt. It represents nearly half of the delinquent debt at issue. Either because of his
inability to identify some of the accounts noted in his credit report, or because he
believes debts older than seven years are somehow barred from consideration, the
origin of those delinquent debts is unstated. Also unstated is why they were neglected
from the time they first became delinquent in 2002 until, at least, his 2008
hospitalizations. Unexplained, those delinquent debts remain enigmatic and financial
security concerns remain unmitigated. 
Applicant’s SOR response indicates he misunderstands the provisions of FCRA
or fails to appreciate the parameters of the security clearance application process.
Based on that response, Applicant did not indicate his delinquent debts because he
thought they were outside the scope of the investigation. Given that incorrect belief, his
negative answers in Section 28 were appropriate. There is no indication of fraud.
Indeed, his answer to Section 27 provided detailed information regarding his tax lien,
thus providing investigators sufficient information upon which to conclude finances were
an issue. In light of these facts, Applicant mitigated personal conduct security concerns.
The ultimate burden is on an applicant to mitigate security concerns raised in the
SOR. As noted, this is a difficult task to accomplish through an administrative
determination. While Applicant mitigated personal conduct security concerns, financial
concerns remain. Consequently, it is not clearly consistent with national security to
grant him a security clearance. As previously stated, a security clearance denial is not
necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant, nor does it reflect badly on
that person’s character. It is merely an indication that the applicant failed to meet the
strict guidelines established for issuing a security clearance. Clearance is denied. 
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: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
10
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge