Item 8.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------, --------- ------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-00351
SSN: ------ ---- -------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant owes 14 delinquent debts totaling more than $60,000, including
substantial child support and student loan balances. He demonstrated no voluntary
action to resolve any of these debts despite continuous employment for the past three
years. He falsely denied the existence of these debts on his security clearance
application, and provided insufficient evidence to mitigate the resulting security
concerns. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) on September 16,
2008.  On July 27, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a1
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guideline
F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).  The action was2
taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
Items 6 and 7.3
The Government submitted 14 Items in support of the SOR allegations.4
Item 5; Item 7 at 10.5
2
(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 effective within the Department of
Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on August 28, 2009, and again on
September 28, 2009, and requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge
on the written record without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the3
Government’s written case on October 27, 2009. A complete copy of the File of
Relevant Material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an4
opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation
within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on November 4, 2009, and returned it to DOHA. He provided no further response to the
FORM within the 30-day period, did not request additional time to respond, and made
no objection to consideration of any evidence submitted by Department Counsel. I
received the case assignment on February 17, 2010.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 38-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he was hired
in August 2008. He reported receiving an honorable discharge in 1994 from the inactive
reserve after nine months of enlisted military service. This is his first application for a
security clearance. He and his wife have two children living with them. He also has
three children living with his former wife and one living with a former girlfriend. Applicant
earned a degree in computer network engineering from a college of technology in 2002.
He also earned additional class certificates from another technology school that he
attended in 2005 and 2006.  In his responses to the SOR, he formally admitted the5
allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.n, and denied that the falsifications on his security
clearance application, alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b, were intentional. Applicant’s
admissions, including his responses to the SOR, to the FORM, and to DOHA
interrogatories, are incorporated in the following findings.
Applicant admitted owing each of the 14 delinquent debts alleged in SOR ¶ 1,
totaling $60,484. He claimed to be paying off the $1,480 debt from a judgment entered
against him in February 2004, alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a, through garnishment of his pay.
However, he provided no documents to substantiate such payments, and the
Item 7 at 1; Item 10 at 2; Items 11 through 14.6
Item 7 at 8-9; Item 10 at 3; Items 11 through 14.7
Item 8 at 11-17; Item 9 at 3.8
Items 11 through 14.9
Item 8 at 38.10
Item 6 at 16; Item 7 at 15-17; Item 10 at 6.11
Item 9 at 3-6.12
3
outstanding balance remains unchanged on all record credit reports.  He similarly6
claimed to be making payments toward his two delinquent child support accounts,
totaling $25,531, alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.i, through payroll deductions and tax
refunds. He provided no substantiation of these claims, and the total due actually
increased from his October 2008 credit report to the June 2009 credit report in the
record.  He admitted making no payments toward any of the remaining debts, and7
provided no documentation of any progress in his claimed “plan” to make repayment
arrangements with the creditors involved. 
Applicant provided no evidence of financial counseling, and no budget
information from which to determine his present or future solvency. Applicant was hired
by a cellular telephone company in 2002 upon completion of his computer engineering
degree program. He worked there for two years, then was laid off. He did not explain
the reason for losing his job. He remained unemployed for two and a half years, but has
been continuously employed since February 2007.  Some of his debts first became8
delinquent during each year between 2002 and 2008, except 2003.   9
Applicant answered “No” in response to questions 28a and 28b on his security
clearance application. The former asked whether he had been over 180 days delinquent
on any debts in the past 7 years, and the latter asked if he was currently over 90 days
delinquent on any debts.  He subsequently admitted these answers were false, but10
denied that he intended to falsify the answers or to deceive anyone. He claimed to have
been unaware of the existence of these debts.  During his interview with an investigator11
from the Office of Personnel Management, conducted about six weeks after he signed
and certified the truth of his answers on the SF 86, he displayed his knowledge of most
of his delinquent debts, including all of the large ones, by describing how they arose.  12
Applicant submitted no evidence describing character, trustworthiness, or work
performance. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person
since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing.
  
4
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense 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.
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 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, “[t]he 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: “[a]ny 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.
FORM at 4.13
5
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are 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. 
Department Counsel argued that the evidence established security concerns
under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.  13
Applicant has been unable or unwilling to satisfy 14 delinquent debts, totaling
more than $60,000, which arose between 2002 and 2008. DC 19(a) and (c) were clearly
established, thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate the
resulting security concerns. 
The guideline includes four conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(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; and 
ISCR Case No. 08-06058 at 6 (App. Bd. Sep 21, 2009).14
ISCR Case No. 06-12930 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 17, 2008) (quoting ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2-3 (App.15
Bd. Jul. 6, 2006)). 
6
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
Applicant’s financial irresponsibility involves 14 different accounts, spans the past
seven years, and continues to date. He did not demonstrate that these obligations will
be fulfilled anytime soon, or that he can avoid additional delinquencies in the future. The
evidence does not support application of MC 20(a). 
Applicant was unemployed for about a third of the time since he left school in
2002, but he provided no evidence tending to show that the causes of this
unemployment were largely beyond his control. Similarly, he made no showing that the
medical, educational, and child support debts arose from conditions that were beyond
his control. Finally, he provided nothing to substantiate that he acted responsibly under
the circumstances, so no mitigation under MC 20(b) was established.
Applicant documented neither financial counseling nor any good-faith effort to
resolve any of his outstanding debts. His claimed involuntary garnishments for the child
support and judgment debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.h, and 1.i, even if true, do not
qualify as good-faith efforts at resolution.  Accordingly, Applicant failed to establish14
mitigation under MC 20(c) or MC 20(d). “An applicant is not required to show that [he]
has completely paid off [his] indebtedness, only that [he] has established a reasonable
plan to resolve [his] debts and has ‘taken significant actions to implement that plan.’”15
Applicant demonstrated neither a reasonable plan nor significant actions to implement
one.
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.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The potentially disqualifying condition alleged in this case is:
(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
7
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.
Applicant falsely answered “No” to two questions on his security clearance
application. His explanation for denying the existence of his numerous and substantial
delinquent debts was unconvincing. He admitted knowledge of the circumstances giving
rise to most the debts shortly after certifying the truth of his false answers denying their
existence. Appellant is highly educated, and did not claim to misunderstand the
questions. His possible, and plausible, ignorance of the existence or particulars of a few
of his smaller delinquencies does not justify his affirmative denial of any delinquent
debt. He knew that he had a large amount of significantly delinquent debt, including
more than $25,000 in child support arrears and almost $30,000 in student loans, yet
denied that fact twice on his SF 86. Serious security concerns under AG ¶ 16(a) were
raised by these facts.
Other than self-serving statements that his falsifications were not intended to
deceive the government, Applicant offered no evidence that would tend to support any
mitigating condition under Guideline E. After careful review of the record, I find that
none of them apply. 
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 relevant 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
relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature,
educated, and experienced individual, who is responsible for his voluntary choices and
conduct that underlie the security concerns expressed in the SOR. His financial
irresponsibility spans the past seven years, including two and a half years of
unemployment, and continue at present. He demonstrated little, if any, voluntary effort
8
to resolve his debts since regaining employment more than three years ago. He
remains subject to coercion and duress from his financial obligations, and made no
showing that such problems are unlikely to continue or recur. 
Applicant’s deliberate attempt to conceal relevant information about his
delinquent debts on his SF 86 also raises serious and unmitigated security concerns.
The record contains insufficient other evidence about his character, trustworthiness, or
responsibility to mitigate these concerns. Recurrence of this disregard for the
fundamental integrity of security procedures and requirements was not shown to be
unlikely.
Overall, the record evidence creates substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present
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. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.n: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a and 2.b: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the 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