1
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  ) ISCR Case No. 09-01570 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
 
 
For Government: Stephanie C. Hess, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
DAM, Shari, Administrative Judge: 
 
 Based upon a review of the record evidence as a whole, eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied. 
 
On November 8, 2006, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). On September 9, 2009, the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 
detailing security concerns 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 
Adjudicative Guidelines effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued 
after September 1, 2006.  
 
 
 
 
 
2
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing on October 5, 2009, and requested a 
hearing. On January 22, 2010, DOHA assigned the case to me. On February 3, 2010, 
DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the case for February 23, 2010. The case 
was heard as scheduled. Department Counsel offered Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5 into 
evidence without objection. Applicant testified, but did not provide any documentary 
evidence. The record remained open until March 12, 2010, to give Applicant an 
opportunity to submit information. He timely submitted documents that I marked as 
Applicant Exhibits (AE) A, B, and C, and admitted into the record without objection from 
Department Counsel. DOHA received the hearing transcript on March 3, 2010. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations contained in ¶¶ 1.a 
through 1.g, and denied ¶¶ 1.h, 2.a, and 2.b.  
 
 Applicant is 59 years old. In March 2005, he earned a Master of Business 
Administration degree. In December 2005, he began a position as a software engineer 
with his current employer, a defense contractor. From November 2004 until December 
2005, he worked for another defense contractor. He was unemployed from September 
2002 until November 2004, after being laid off. During that two-year period, he had a 
short-term consulting contract and attended school. (GE 2 at 148.) Prior to September 
2002, he was self-employed. (Id.) He recently completed one year of law school with the 
assistance of educational benefits from his employer. (Tr. 48; GE 1.) 
 
 Prior to losing his position in late 2002, Applicant earned $175,000 annually. In 
2003, he was unemployed and received about $1,000 per month in unemployment 
benefits. (Tr. 26.) In 2004 and 2005, he earned about $10,000. In 2006, he began 
earning $90,000 annually at his current position. In 2009, he earned about $101,500. As 
of March 19, 2010, his gross income increased to $117,500, annually. His past two 
yearly performance evaluations noted that he “exceeded expectations.” (Tr. 77.) 
 
 Applicant is twice divorced. He married his first wife in June 1979 and they 
divorced in January 1984. He has a 29-year-old daughter from that marriage. In October 
1984, he married his second wife. They filed for a divorce in 2001, which was finalized 
in September 2003, while he was unemployed. He has eight children from that 
marriage, ages 10 to 26 years old. Six of those children reside with his former spouse in 
another state and two children are independent. His 17-year-old son is severely 
disabled.  
 
 According to the final divorce decree, Applicant is required to pay $1,000 per 
week in child support, which amount was based on his high earnings from 2001 to 
2002. During the two-year period of unemployment, he accrued $48,000 in arrearage. 
His current support payments are $1,250 per week and include $250 for arrears. 
Depending on the amount of money he earns in overtime, he pays approximately 
$4,333 to $5,500 in child support each month through a state garnishment order. (Tr. 
39-41; AE C.) He chose not to seek a modification of the child support payments while 
 
 
 
 
3
he was unemployed because he felt strongly about his obligation to support his children. 
(Tr. 43.) The divorce agreement does not contain any provision for a decrease in 
support as his children become independent, which is the situation for his 26 and 24-
year-old children. (Tr. 66.) 
 
 Applicant acknowledged that he has experienced significant financial problems 
and accrued delinquent debts since late 2002. He attributed the situation to the two-year 
period of unemployment from 2002 to 2004, a litigious divorce between 2002 and 2003, 
and high medical and educational expenses related to his son’s disabilities. (GE 3 at 
118; Tr. 22-25.)  
 
 Based on credit bureau reports (CBR) dated July 2009 and December 2008, the 
SOR alleged security concerns related to the accumulation of eight delinquent debts 
totaling $30,749. The status of each of those debts is as follows:  
   
1. (¶ 1.a) In February 2008, the federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed a 
$20,661 tax lien against Applicant for the tax years of 2000 and 2001, relating 
to his child support deductions, and garnished his wages. In May 2009, he 
entered into a $298 monthly repayment plan with the IRS and the 
garnishment order was lifted. As of February 2010, the balance on the tax 
debt is $12,295 and includes a small liability amount for 2006 and 2007. (Tr. 
32-34; AE A.) The debt is being resolved.  
 
2. (¶¶ 1.b through 1.g) These six delinquent debts total $7,800 and remain 
unpaid because Applicant has not had enough money at the end of the month 
to negotiate payments with the creditors. (Tr. 44-45.)  
 
3. (¶ 1.h.) The $2,285 debt is owed to an electric company for his former wife’s 
residence. According to Applicant’s divorce agreement, the debt is not his 
responsibility. (Tr. 45; AE B.) This debt is resolved.   
 
According to a March 2010 budget, Applicant has a gross monthly income of 
approximately $9,795. After deducting child support payments, taxes, and insurance, 
his net income is $2,640 and expenses are $1,637. He makes approximately $818 in 
payments on debts, consisting of the $298 payment to the IRS, and minimal payments 
on credit cards, personal loans, and to department stores.1 He has about $185 
remaining that he could use to make small payments to the six unpaid creditors listed in 
the SOR. (AE C.) Until his recent salary increase, he could not afford to make any 
amount of a monthly payment toward those debts. (Tr. 74.)  
 
 In November 2006, Applicant completed an e-QIP. In response to “Section 24. 
Your Use of Illegal Drugs and Drug Activity: a. Since the age of 16 or in the last 7 years, 
whichever is shorter, have you illegally used any controlled substance, for example, 
                                            
1Applicant’s $41,848 student loan is deferred, but is included in his list of outstanding debts 
attached to a March 2009 Personal Financial Statement. (GE 2 at 134.)  
 
 
 
 
4
marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, 
heroin, etc.), amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, 
etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs,” he answered, “Yes,” and 
disclosed that he used marijuana twice between December 2001 and January 2002. He 
noted that he had not used it since that time. (GE 1.)  
  
 In December 2008, a Government investigator interviewed Applicant. During that 
interview, the investigator asked him about his marijuana use. Applicant indicated that 
he used it on two occasions in 1969 and then not again until he separated from his wife 
in December 2001. After reviewing his 2006 e-QIP with the investigator, he noted that 
he made an error in listing his use of marijuana as two times between December 2001 
and January 2002. He indicated that he used it more than that and did not intend to 
mislead the government. The investigator recorded that Applicant was uncertain of the 
exact number of times he used it but estimated about 15 times. He smoked it with a 
friend who purchased it. He used it to relieve stress. (GE 3 at 110.) 
 
 On May 27, 2009, Applicant completed a set of Interrogatories concerning his 
drug usage. In response to Question 1a, regarding the history of his marijuana use, 
Applicant estimated that he had a “few puffs per day” from October 1970 to November 
1970. He estimated that he smoked it on “2 occasions” between December 2001 and 
January 2002. (GE 2 at 126.)  
 
 In July 2009, the Government sent Applicant another set of Interrogatories along 
with a copy of his December 2008 interview. In a written response to the accuracy of 
that interview, Applicant wrote, “Regarding marijuana usage, my use on social 
occasions was casual enough to not remember specifics of usage and events in 
10/1970-11/1970 and 12/2001-10/2002.” (GE 3 at 118.) 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied that he intentionally falsified his 
response to Section 24 of the e-QIP or to Question 1a in the May 2009 Interrogatories 
by failing to disclose the extent of his marijuana use. He stated that he was going 
through a litigious divorce at the time he used marijuana and he did not have an “exact 
recollection of the specific number of incidences.” (Answer.) 
 
During his testimony, Applicant denied telling the investigator that he used 
marijuana 15 times between December 2001 and January 2002. He thinks the 
investigator prompted him for an estimated number and arrived at 15 without input from 
him. He reiterated that he believed he used marijuana about two times, but cannot recall 
with certainty. (Tr. 56-58.) 
   
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 AG list potentially disqualifying 
 
 
 
 
5
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(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. 
 
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. 
 
According to Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to 
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, 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 and 
has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtaining a favorable clearance 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 
an 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.”  
  
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern relating to this guideline 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 
 
 
 
 
6
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 potentially raise security 
concerns. Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” is potentially 
disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations” 
may raise security concerns. Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies that 
began in late 2002 and continue to the present, as he does not have the financial ability 
to pay all of his debts. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying 
conditions.  
AG ¶ 20 provides six conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising 
under this guideline: 
(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; 
(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; and 
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income. 
AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply because Applicant’s numerous financial problems 
have been ongoing for the past seven or eight years. AG ¶ 20(b) has partial application. 
Applicant’s delinquent debts accrued as a result of two years of unemployment, a 
litigious divorce, significant medical and educational bills for one child, and large child 
support obligations. Those were circumstances beyond his control. However, he did not 
present evidence that he attempted to responsibly resolve or manage all of the debts 
 
 
 
 
7
during those times, which is necessary for full application of the mitigating condition. 
Applicant has not obtained credit counseling, but did present his budget, which indicates 
that many of his obligations, including the alleged IRS debt, are being paid and coming 
under control. Those facts support the application of AG ¶ 20(c) to that debt. Applicant 
has not made a good-faith effort to resolve six delinquent because he does not have 
sufficient income; hence, AG ¶ 20(d) cannot apply. Applicant provided proof that the 
$2,285 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g is not his responsibility, but rather his former wife’s. 
AG ¶ 20(e) applies to that debt. There is no evidence to support the application of AG ¶ 
20(f).     
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
The security concern pertaining to this guideline 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 provide truthful 
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other 
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process. 
 
The Government alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b that Applicant falsified his 
answers to a question on his e-QIP and a question on the May 2009 Interrogatories, 
regarding the extent of his marijuana use between December 2001 and January 2002. 
The Government contended that his omissions may raise a security concern and be 
disqualifying 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. 
 
Applicant denied that he intentionally falsified two answers about the frequency 
of his marijuana usage during said time. 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 a whole to 
determine whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning an applicant’s 
state of mind at the time the omission occurred. See 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)). 
Applicant disclosed in the November 2006 e-QIP that he used marijuana twice 
between December 2001 and January 2002. During a December 2008 interview, he 
indicated that he used it more than twice. The investigator recorded Applicant’s usage 
as being about 15 times. Applicant also disclosed during the interview that he used it 
 
 
 
 
8
twice in 1969. In the May 2009 Interrogatories, Applicant stated again that he used it 
twice between December 2001 and January 2002. He disclosed that he used it daily 
between October and November 1970. In July 2009, he had an opportunity to review 
the accuracy of the summary of the December 2008 interview. He noted that he could 
not accurately recall the specifics of either time because he used it casually for social 
purposes. In his October 2009 Answer, he reiterated that he did not have a specific 
recollection of the number of times he used it between December 2001 and January 
2002. During his February 2010 testimony, he denied telling the investigator that he 
used it 15 times during that time frame, but could not recall the number of times he did 
use it.  
 
Although the full extent of Applicant’s marijuana usage is unclear, it is apparent 
that he smoked marijuana more than twice between December 2001 and January 2002. 
His testimony that he cannot recall or that he only used it twice is not credible. In May 
2009, he specifically recalled daily use between October and November 1970, some 
forty years ago, but in July 2009, he could not recall his usage from seven years prior. 
Instead of acknowledging that he used marijuana more than twice, as he told the 
investigator in December 2008, he equivocated during the hearing and attempted to 
minimize his usage. While the number of times he smoked marijuana for one month 
seven or eight years ago would not normally be a great security concern at this time, his 
lack of candor about the incident raises a significant concern about his trustworthiness 
and reliability. Hence, the evidence establishes deliberate falsification.  
AG ¶ 17 provides four conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising 
under this guideline: 
(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; 
 
 
 
 
9
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; 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. 
 
Applicant did not initiate any effort to correct his omission of information until 
confronted by an investigator in December 2008. There is no evidence that Applicant 
received inadequate advice or instruction during the clearance process about the 
necessity for full disclosure. He continues to deny that he intentionally concealed 
information throughout this investigation, to such an extent that the offense is not minor 
and does cast doubt about his reliability and trustworthiness. He has not acknowledged 
his omissions or taken other steps to assure the Government that similar behavior is 
unlikely to recur or that his susceptibility to exploitation has diminished as a result of his 
previous conduct and current lack of candor. None of the above four mitigating 
conditions 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). They include the following:  
 
(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 include 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 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a 59-year-old educated man 
and father of nine children. As a consequence of a divorce from his second wife, a two-
year period of unemployment, and financial obligations for a large family, he has 
experienced significant financial obligations and difficulties for the past seven years. 
While he is unable to pay $7,800 of debt alleged in the SOR, he is resolving the 
$20,000 debt owed to the IRS and has successfully disputed $2,280. According to his 
 
 
 
 
10
budget, he carefully manages his finances and acknowledges his obligations. He 
calculated that there may now be money in his budget for small monthly payments to 
the six unpaid creditors listed in the SOR. His delinquent debts no longer pose a 
security concern. However, his equivocating about the extent of his marijuana use 
seven years ago does raise a personal conduct concern. After disclosing in December 
2008 that he intended to be truthful about his past marijuana usage, which occurred 
more than the two times which he disclosed in the e-QIP, he subsequently decided that 
he could not specifically recall the number of times or asserted that it was no more than 
twice. Unfortunately, that lack of forthright disclosure is precisely the type of conduct 
that raises a potential risk which the Government cannot assume. If Applicant cannot be 
fully candid about incidents in his past, he may not be truthful about future conduct, 
especially as it may relate to his access or handling of classified information.     
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For these reasons, I 
conclude that he mitigated the security concerns raised under financial considerations, 
but did not mitigate those raised under 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:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.h:  For 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 national interests to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
                                                     
_________________ 
SHARI DAM 
Administrative Judge