DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
  
  
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 09-00228 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Alison O'Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant gave a false answer on a Questionnaire for National Security Positions. 
Applicant had four accounts placed for collection and three other delinquent debts, 
which totaled approximately $19,000. Applicant has failed to rebut or mitigate the 
Government’s security concerns under personal conduct and financial considerations. 
Clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 Applicant contests the Defense Department’s (DoD) intent to deny or revoke his 
eligibility for an industrial security clearance. Acting under the relevant Executive Order 
and DoD Directive,1 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a 
                                                          
1 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 adjudicative guidelines (AG) 
effective within the DoD on September 1, 2006. 
 
1 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) on July 27, 2009, detailing security concerns under 
personal conduct and financial considerations. 
  
 On August 19, 2009, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing. On 
October 13, 2009, I was assigned the case. On November 5, 2009, DOHA issued a 
notice of hearing for the hearing held on November 19, 2009. At the hearing, the 
Government offered Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 9, which were admitted into evidence. 
Applicant testified on his own behalf. The record was kept open to allow Applicant to 
submit information related to the payment of his debts. No additional information was 
received. On November 30, 2009, DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.). 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
In Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, he admitted all of the factual allegations, with 
explanations. Applicant’s admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated herein. 
After a thorough review of the record, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the 
following additional findings of fact: 
 
 Applicant is a 31-year-old cybersecurity manager of critical infrastructure 
protection for a government contractor where he has worked since June 2008, and he is 
seeking to obtain a security clearance. (Tr. 47) Applicant has previously held a 
clearance. He first obtained a clearance in 1999. (Answer to SOR)  
 
 In September 2006 and in July 2007, Applicant was interviewed about his 
finances and the debts now listed in the SOR. (Ex. 2) He was also asked about his 
misuse of a government credit card, which he admitted. (Tr. 30) In September 2006, 
Applicant used his government credit card to purchase an airline ticket for personal use. 
(Tr. 52) He was counseled on the proper use of a government credit card and his card 
was taken from him for three months. (Tr. 53) The card was returned when he had to 
make a government trip. Shortly after the card was returned to him, in December 2006 
and January 2007, he misused his card for personal expenses. (Ex. 4, Tr. 54)  
 
Applicant was again counseled about the proper use of his government credit 
card. (Tr. 31) Applicant was given the choice to resign or to be fired. (Tr. 59) Applicant 
chose to resign. The company security officer told him if he resigned he would never 
have to indicate he was fired from a job requiring a security clearance. (Answer to SOR) 
 
 In March 2009, Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). (Ex. 1) In response to section 26, Financial Record, 
he indicated he had used a credit card without authorization while working for a 
government agency. (Ex. 1) In response to section 13C, Employment Record, Applicant 
failed to indicate he had left a job by mutual agreement following charges or allegations 
of misconduct. (Ex. 1) Applicant acknowledged his answer to the question was 
dishonest. (Tr. 61)  
 
 
2 
 In 1999, Applicant entered the military. Applicant acknowledges when he first 
entered the military, he was careless financially. (Tr. 32) While in the military, he 
received a letter of counseling related to his finances. He was in the military from 1999 
to 2004. (Tr. 34) In April 2000, he married another military member he met when both 
were attending language school. (Tr. 35) They divorced in March 2001. (Ex. 1) In 2001, 
he purchased a motorcycle that was repossessed. (Tr. 68) While in the military, his 
military loan account was delinquent. (Tr. 69)  
 
After leaving the military, Applicant went back to school. (Tr. 37) He incurred a 
$7,350 debt (SOR ¶ 2. b) to the university. Applicant asserts that he has worked out a 
repayment arrangement with the university. (Tr. 37) He did not provide the terms of the 
arrangement or any documentation related to the agreement.  
   
Applicant’s annual income is over $90,000. (Tr. 46) In September 2006, 
Applicant’s gross monthly income was $7,700 and his monthly net remainder (gross 
income less deductions and expenses) was $2,650. (Ex. 2) As of March 2009, his 
monthly net remainder was $3,300. Applicant asserts that over the last two years he 
has significantly improved his financial responsibility. (Tr. 32) At hearing, Applicant’s 
monthly net remainder was $950. (Tr. 71) He has $5,000 in a savings account and 
$27,000 in his 401(k) retirement plan. (Tr. 72) He contributes ten percent of his salary to 
his 401(k), which is matched by his employer. (Tr. 72) He is current on his monthly car 
payments.  
 
 In September 2008, Applicant purchased a home. Prior to obtaining a mortgage, 
he had to correct a number of financial delinquencies. (Tr. 45) He is current on his 
$2,400 monthly mortgage payments.  
 
 Applicant asserts his “credit is nowhere near perfect,” but he is current on his 
credit cards and mortgage. (Tr. 76) He manages his finances more thoroughly than 
before. (Tr. 76) He is motivated to stay on top of his finances. (Tr. 77) He is not 
receiving calls from creditors demanding payment. (Tr. 86)  
 
 A summary of Applicant’s accounts, placed for collection and other unpaid 
obligations, and their current status follows: 
 
SOR ¶ 2.b, a $7,350 university debt placed for collection remains unpaid. 
(Ex.3, 6) In March 2009, he asserts he established a repayment plan. (Ex. 
3) At the hearing, he said he had worked out a deal with the university, but 
provided no documentation as to the arrangement. (Tr. 37) 
 
SOR ¶ 2.c, a $52 medical bill placed for collection remains unpaid. (Ex. 3) 
Applicant has done nothing to satisfy the debt. (Tr. 39) 
 
SOR ¶ 2.d, a $340 cable account placed for collection remains unpaid. 
Applicant failed to return a cable box. (Ex. 2, 3, 6, 8) The cable company 
sold the account to a collection agency. (Tr. 62) Applicant asserts he paid 
 
3 
the bill in full in 2007, but provided no documentation. (Ex. 2) In March 
2009, he indicated he had disputed the debt with the credit bureaus. (Ex. 
3) Applicant currently has service with this provider. (Tr. 39, 63) 
 
SOR ¶ 2.e, a $50 copayment for medical care remains unpaid. (Ex. 7, 8) 
In July 2008, Applicant stated he would pay the debt if it was his. At the 
time of hearing, he was waiting for a response from the creditor. (Tr. 40) 
 
SOR ¶ 2.f, a $4,225 debt from a computer purchase, which was placed for 
collection, remains unpaid. (Ex. 7, 8) Applicant asserts he paid $3,169 in 
August 2007, to satisfy this adverse account, but provided no 
documentation supporting his assertion. (Ex. 2, Ex 3 Applicant asserts his 
recent credit bureau reports (CBRs) show this debt has a zero balance. 
 
SOR ¶ 2.g is an unpaid $150 electrical utility bill. (Ex. 8, 9) Applicant 
asserts his recent CBRs show this debt has a zero balance, but provided 
no documentation supporting his assertion. (Ex. 3) Applicant currently 
receives electricity from the creditor. (Tr. 41) 
 
SOR ¶ 2.h is a $7,110 vehicle debt. Applicant cosigned with the individual 
who purchased the car from him. In 2002, the car was involuntarily 
repossessed. In 2003 or 2004, he learned of the reposession. (Tr. 67) 
Applicant has been unsuccessful in his attempts to locate the cosigner. 
(Ex. 7, 8, 9, Tr. 43) At some undisclosed date, Applicant asserts he paid 
$4,500 to settle the debt, but provided no documentation supporting his 
assertion. (Ex. 3, Tr. 67) Applicant asserts his recent CBRs show this debt 
has a zero balance. 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 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(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. 
 
 
4 
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. 
 
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 to obtain 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 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 
 
Personal Conduct  
 
Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 15 articulates the security concerns relating 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 Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition under AG ¶ 16 is potentially 
applicable: 
 
 (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from 
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or 
 
5 
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment 
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance 
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities . . .  
 
In April 2009, when Applicant completed his e-QIP, he failed to indicate he had 
left a job by mutual agreement following charges or allegations of misconduct. In 
September 2006, Applicant misused his government credit card by purchasing an airline 
ticket for personal use. He was counseled about his misconduct and lost the use of his 
government credit card for three months. Shortly after the card was returned, he again 
misused the card by purchasing items for personal use. He was given the option to 
resign or to be fired. Applicant admits his answer on the e-QIP was dishonest. To 
Applicant’s credit, in response to a financial question on the same e-QIP, he indicated 
he made unauthorized purchases with his government credit card.  
 
AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could potentially mitigate 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 
 
6 
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules 
and regulations.  
 
 None of the mitigating factors apply. There was no prompt good-faith effort to 
correct the falsification. AG ¶ 17(a) does not apply. Applicant was told that if he 
resigned he would not have to list the firing. He was never told he would not have to 
indicate he had been terminated by mutual agreement following misconduct. AG ¶ 17(b) 
does not apply. The offense was not minor and occurred only one year ago. AG ¶ 17(c) 
does not apply even though the falsification was limited to a single section of the e-QIP. 
There is no indication Applicant has obtained counseling to change the behavior or 
alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused the untrustworthy, 
unreliable, or inappropriate behavior. AG ¶ 17(d) does not apply. There is no evidence 
of positive steps taken to reduce or eliminate vulnerability. AG ¶ 17(e) does not apply. 
AG ¶ 17(f) does not apply because the falsification was substantiated. Applicant admits 
his e-QIP answer was dishonest. AG ¶ 17(g) does not apply because association with 
persons involved in criminal activity was not an issue.  
 
 Applicant’s failure to disclose his adverse employment history demonstrates a 
lack of candor required of public trust personnel. The Government has an interest in 
examining all relevant and material adverse information about an applicant before 
making a security clearance decision. The Government relies on applicants to truthfully 
disclose that adverse information in a timely fashion, not when it is perceived to be 
prudent or convenient. Further, an applicant’s willingness to report adverse information 
about himself provides some indication of his willingness to report inadvertent security 
violations or other concerns in the future, something the Government relies on to 
perform damage assessments and limit the compromise of classified information. 
Applicant’s conduct suggests he is willing to put his personal needs ahead of legitimate 
government interests.  
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concerns relating to financial problems: 
 
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. 
 
Additionally, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and 
safeguarding 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.  
 
 
7 
A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts as agreed. Absent 
substantial evidence of extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant with a 
history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a position of risk that is 
inconsistent with holding a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be debt 
free, but is required to manage his finances to meet his financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant has a history of financial problems. Applicant had four accounts placed 
for collection and three other delinquent accounts, which total approximately $19,000. 
Three of Applicant’s debts were under $200 each and remain unpaid. Disqualifying 
Conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a 
history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply.  
 
 Five Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions under AG ¶¶ 20 are 
potentially applicable: 
 
(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. 
 
 Applicant has failed to document payment of any of the delinquent obligations. 
Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors. His financial difficulties are both recent 
and multiple, and they occurred under circumstances that are likely to recur. (AG ¶ 
20(a)) He failed to demonstrate that his debts were largely due to circumstances 
beyond his control, or that he has acted responsibly in addressing his debts. (AG & 
20(b)) Further, he has not sought credit counseling, or otherwise brought the problem 
under control as his circumstances permitted. (AG & 20(c)) AG & 20(d) does not apply 
 
8 
because there is no good-faith effort to repay the creditors or otherwise resolve the 
debts.  
 
 For AG & 20(e) to apply there must be a reasonable basis to dispute the 
legitimacy of the past-due debt and documented proof to substantiate the basis of the 
dispute. Applicant asserted that he paid the three debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.f, 1.g, and 
1.h, but he provided no documentation showing the debts have been paid. His failure to 
submit documentation supporting his claim of payment, such as court records, receipts, 
copies of canceled checks, or letters from creditors verifying the status of delinquent 
accounts, makes AG & 20(e) inapplicable.  
 
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. The debts remain unpaid. It is noted 
that two of the debts are approximately $50 and one is $150. Applicant was asked 
about his financial problems in September 2006. He was specifically asked about the 
$150 utility bill and also other debts. In the three years since that interview, he has failed 
to pay the debts or to provide documentation showing payment. Approximately one year 
ago, Applicant was again questioned about his delinquent obligations in two written 
interrogatories. The obligations were not paid, nor was documentation provided showing 
they have been addressed. As to the personal conduct, Applicant admitted his answer 
on the e-QIP was dishonest. 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about 
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.  
 
9 
 
10 
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, Personal Conduct:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a —1.d:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Financial Considerations:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a —2.h:  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.  
 
 
_______________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge