1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 08-08387
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant answered and signed his Security Clearance Application (SF-86) on
May 6, 2008. On April 3, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the 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. 
 
On April 21, 2009, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing.
DOHA received the request and assigned the case to me on August 5, 2009. On August
27, 2009, a Notice of Hearing scheduled the hearing for September 30, 2009. The
hearing was convened as scheduled. Department Counsel submitted five exhibits (GE)
1-5, without objection. Applicant did not present any documents. He testified on his own
behalf. The transcript (Tr.) was received on October 8, 2009. Based upon a review of
2
the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a
through 1.m of the SOR. He did not admit the allegation in ¶ 2.a of the SOR. 
Applicant is a 44-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He graduated from
high school in 1985, and attended college for two years. He served in the U.S. Army
from 1986 until 1987(Tr. 34). Applicant’s first marriage ended in divorce in 1994. He
remarried in 1999, and has two children from his second marriage (GE 1). He has
worked for his current employer since August 2006, but he has worked steadily since
high school (Tr. 21).
In 2005, Applicant suffered financial difficulties after Hurricane Katrina. He left the
state and lived with relatives. He and his wife returned several months later. In 2007,
Applicant’s wife left him and took their son with her. Her income which contributed to the
family household, was lost. Applicant had several months of unemployment (Tr. 23).
Applicant’s wife promised to pay for the delinquent debts that occurred during the
marriage (Tr. 71; GE 2). She has not done so. Applicant firmly believes she is
responsible for paying them. After the 2007 separation, Applicant’s wife continued to
charge items on the accounts (Tr. 79).
Applicant suffered a heart attack in 2007. He also has medical issues relating to
high blood pressure (Tr. 55). Applicant acknowledged that some of the bills were
delinquent before 2005 (Tr. 54). He acknowledged that he fell behind in paying his bills
due to his wife’s part-time work and the several weeks of unemployment that he had
over the years. He contacted some of the creditors, but claimed that many went out of
business after Katrina. He states that he has not received any bills from them.
The SOR alleges 13 delinquent debts, including medical accounts. The
approximate total for Applicant’s debts is $30,000 (GE 3). The current status of
Applicant’s delinquent debts is as follows:
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a is for a cell phone in the amount of $342.
Applicant has not paid the account.
Applicant states the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.b is $4,000 for another cell phone
account. He states that the account is closed. He claims the bill is in his wife’s name (Tr.
41). 
Applicant states the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.c is a medical bill for $143 and that it
was paid by insurance (Tr. 43). 
3
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d for $1,500 is a collection account for a credit
account. According to Applicant, this account was paid in 2008 (Tr. 43). He did not
provide any documentation.
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e for $600 is for another cell phone account.
Applicant could not contact them. The bill is unpaid. 
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f for $7,540 is unknown to Applicant (Tr. 47).
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g is for $2,409. This is a credit card account. He
made attempts to pay, but he has not received a bill (Tr. 48). The account remains
unpaid.
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h is a credit card account for $2,877. This account
was for home repairs. Applicant contacted the company, but he has not made any
payments (Tr. 48).
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.i is an automobile repossession of his wife’s car.
The 2004 vehicle was repossessed in 2007, after Applicant and his wife separated. He
believes the amount of $8,341 is not accurate (Tr. 49). He has not paid the account as
he believes his wife will do so. 
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.j is for a phone bill in the amount of $362. Applicant
does not recognize this account. 
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.k for $20 is a medical account for a medical visit for
his wife. It is unpaid. Applicant stated that his wife agreed to pay the amount (Tr. 50).
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.l is a past due account in the amount of $836.
Applicant believes this belongs to his wife (Tr. 50). He believes she has made some
payments on the account.
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.m is for a collection account in the amount of $781.
Applicant states this is an account that his wife opened. He believes she has paid $200
on the account (Tr. 51).
Applicant earns approximately $35,000 a year. His net monthly income is
approximately $1,300 (Tr. 38). He is current with his monthly expenses. He pays
monthly child support of $680. His two cars are paid for. His net monthly remainder is
approximately $200. He has a savings account (GE 2). He has no credit cards (Tr. 64).
He receives approximately $800 a month in rent from a house that he owns (Tr. 25). He
estimates that over the past three years he has paid $1,500 on delinquent accounts (Tr.
57). He hopes to use his income tax refund to pay more creditors (Tr. 27).
Applicant completed his May 6, 2008 security clearance application. In that
application he answered “No” to question 28a concerning financial delinquencies in the
4
last seven years over 180 days, and “No” to question 28b concerning financial
delinquencies over 90 days (GE 1). Applicant’s wife helped him with the application. He
orally answered the questions and she filled out the application. She made a mistake by
answering the question in the negative (Tr. 67). He believed the form was very
complicated. He relied on her help to complete the application (Tr. 14). Since his wife
was a teacher and used to completing paper work, Applicant thought it best for his wife
to actually complete the application. 
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 overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2,
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
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
5
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 (EO) 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
security concerns. Applicant accumulated delinquent debts on many accounts for a
period of time. His credit reports confirm the debts. The evidence is sufficient to raise
these 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
acknowledged that he and his wife had delinquent debts before Hurricane Katrina. He
acknowledged that they were both working. He has not paid any of the accounts. 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.@ I find this a factor for
consideration in this case. As noted above, the separation that occurred in 2007
impacted Applicant financially. Also, Katrina exacerbated the Applicant’s financial
situation. In addition, Applicant has some unemployment. However, he has not acted
responsibly in paying his accounts.
6
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 has not received financial counseling. He has not
resolved the delinquent accounts. He relied on his wife’s promise to pay the accounts.
His efforts are insufficient to carry his burden in this case. I conclude these mitigating
conditions do not apply.
AG ¶ 20(e) applies where the evidence shows “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.” In this case, Applicant stated that he did not
believe he owed some accounts. He provided no documentation for this assertion. I
conclude this mitigating condition applies in part.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in
AG ¶ 15:
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 cooperate with
the security clearance process.
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG ¶ 16(a), “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel 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” is potentially disqualifying.
In this case, when Applicant completed his 2008 security application, he did not
answer “yes” to questions 28a or 28b. He denied the allegation concerning a
falsification of his answers. At the hearing, he stated that he answered the questions to
the best of his ability and did not know about the incorrect answers. His wife helped him
complete the application because he found it confusing. He incorrectly answered the
question but he did not intentionally falsify his application. 
When a falsification allegation is controverted or denied, the Government has the
burden of proving it. Proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove
an applicant’s state of mind when the omission occurred. An administrative judge must
consider the record evidence as whole to determine whether there is direct or
7
circumstantial evidence concerning an applicant’s state of mind at the time the omission
occurred. ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004) (explaining holding in
ISCR Case No. 02-23133 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)). Thus, AG ¶ 16(a) does not
apply in this case. I find for Applicant on SOR ¶ 2.a.
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 commonsense 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 and conclude they are insufficient to
overcome the government’s case. Applicant has worked all his life. He supported his
family. He was in the military. Separation and Katrina was the partial cause of the
delinquent accounts. He has not acted responsibly in handling the delinquent debts. He
acknowledged that he had some delinquent debts before his separation and Katrina.
He answered question 28a concerning financial delinquencies in the last 7 years to the
best of his ability. He did not intentionally falsify his SF 86.  
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 under financial consideration
guideline. He has mitigated the concerns under the personal conduct guideline. 
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
8
Subparagraphs 1.a:  1.m: AGAINST Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
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 eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
_________________
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge