1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-05014
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On January 12, 2010, 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). DOHA
acted 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 (AG) effective within the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
 
On February 3, 2010, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing.
DOHA assigned the case to me on March 4, 2010. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on
March 16, 2010, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on April 7, 2010. Department
Counsel offered eight exhibits, which were admitted as Government Exhibits (GE) 1-8,
without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of
four witnesses. He offered 17 exhibits, which were admitted as Applicant Exhibits (AE)
A-Q, without objection. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on April 21, 2010. Based
2
upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a
through 1.g, and 1.i through 2.b. He denied the factual allegation in ¶ 1.h. 
Applicant is a 35-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He graduated from
high school in 1993, and attended college from 1997 until 1999. He is married and has
three children. (GE 1) He has been with his current employer since February 2009. (Tr.
45)
Before Applicant’s current employment, he worked in the construction field. He
and his family moved frequently due to the nature of the work. He describes the pay as
“really good.” However, he realized that the constant moves created higher expenses.
He explained that he and his family lived in hotels. He also noted that they always ate
their meals at a restaurant. (Tr. 39) Sometimes, they would rent an apartment for a few
months, but when the job ended they would move. He was not able to save any money.
He also was paying student loans and other debts that his wife had acquired before
they were married. (Tr. 39) He left the construction field for more stable employment
(with less income) in 1997, but he acknowledged that they lived above their means. He
also explained that he was never taught how to budget money. (Tr. 38) He explained
that they filed bankruptcy in 1999 due to financial difficulties, and a surgery needed for
his son. (Tr. 40) The bankruptcy was discharged in April 2000. (GE 8)
Applicant returned to the construction field after the bankruptcy in 2000. He
admits being irresponsible with money. (Tr. 40) He and his family traveled from site to
site and again found themselves in debt. He was unemployed from late 2003 to early
2004. (Tr. 56) He paid some debts but acknowledged that he acquired new debt from
2000 until 2005. Part of the new debt resulted from a failed attempt to purchase a home.
In 2005, Applicant could not obtain a debt consolidation loan from his bank to resolve
his delinquent debts. (AE M)  
At the hearing, Applicant explained that he had paid some debts that do not
appear on the SOR. He maintained that he was also trying to buy a house for his family
so that they could stop renting. (Tr. 62) He attempted to save some money for a down
payment. His mother had a medical emergency in October 2009, and Applicant traveled
to another state to help her. (Tr. 63) He was also denied a loan to consolidate debt in
2009. 
The SOR alleges ten delinquent debts. The approximate total for Applicant’s
debts is $10,445 (GE 6). The current status of Applicant’s delinquent debts is described
below.
3
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a is for a charged-off credit card account in the
amount of $520. Applicant paid the account in full on February 8, 2010. (AE A)
Applicant resolved the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b for $7,649. He is making
monthly payments of $630 on the account that was settled for $3,124. (AE B) The
account will be paid by June 30, 2010. (Tr. 19)
Applicant admits the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c. for $79. The account is for a
medical bill. The account is now paid in full. (AE C)
Applicant resolved the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d for $102. This medical account
is paid.(AE D) 
Applicant resolved the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e for $601. The account is now
paid. (AE E)
Applicant resolved the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f for $121. This account is
paid.(AE F) 
Applicant resolved the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g for a dental bill in the amount of
$383. He paid the account on February 5, 2010. (AE G)
Applicant denied the debt alleged in SOR 1.h for a medical bill in the amount of
$78 because the account had been paid in September 2009. (AE H)
Applicant resolved the debt alleged in SOR 1.I for a cell phone bill in the amount
of $791. He paid the account on January 25, 2010. (AE I)
Applicant admits the debt alleged in SOR 1.j for $121. He paid the account on
January 21, 2010. (AE J)
When Applicant received the SOR, he worked with his supervisor to develop a
Financial Monitoring Plan. (AE N) He explained that he did not know about some of the
small medical bills before receiving the SOR. He also did not believe that he owed on
the “Progressive account.” (Tr. 90) He asked his supervisor for advice and assistance to
ensure that he would have an adequate plan to resolve his delinquent debts.
Applicant’s current annual income is approximately $65,000. (GE 2) He is current
with his monthly expenses. He has no car payment. His net monthly remainder is
approximately $1,500. He has a savings account. Applicant has one credit card. (Tr. 76)
He has obtained financial counseling. He follows a budget. (Tr. 91)
When Applicant completed his February 24, 2009 security clearance application,
he read section 26(g) and 26(h) concerning financial records. In that application, he
answered “No” to question 26(g) concerning any debts turned over to a collection
agency, and “No” to question 26(h) concerning any accounts or credit cards suspended,
4
charged-off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed. (GE 1) Applicant denied any
deliberate intent to mislead the government. He apologized for answering the questions
incorrectly. He claimed he answered the questions to the best of his ability at the time.
At the hearing, Applicant was forthright and candid about his answers on the
2009 security clearance application. He was unable to complete the form online. He
brought the security clearance application to work. He was advised by his supervisor to
complete it as quickly as possible so that he could start work. (Tr. 69) At the time he
completed the application, he did not have any information with him concerning any
outstanding accounts. He admits that he copied information from his 2004 form. On that
form, he did list his 2000 bankruptcy. He explained that “not having specific information
requested on the form, it would be better to provide that to the investigator that
performed the interview.” (Tr 70)
Applicant referred to the directions on the application form. He stated that he
knew he could “update or provide clarification details for any information he provided in
the form.” He explained that during the interview with the investigator in May 2009, they
went over a credit report and the various accounts in question. In answer to questions at
the hearing, Applicant explained that when he and his family were traveling, he did not
receive collection notices from collection agencies. He admitted it was the wrong
approach, but he believed he was answering the questions to the best of his ability. I
find his testimony credible.
Applicant’s current supervisor describes him as a professional who exhibits
excellent conduct. Applicant is a valuable asset to the company, and he has held an
interim security clearance with no difficulties. (Tr. 106) 
Applicant’s supervisor submitted a letter of reference in addition to testifying at
the hearing. (AE O) He acknowledged that he would monitor Applicant in the future for
any problems that may arise. He described Applicant’s good judgment and maturity. He
also noted that Applicant spoke to him after completing his 2009 security clearance
application about the delinquent debts. (Tr. 113) He offered that Applicant did not
thoroughly understand the questions concerning the financial records on his security
clearance application. His supervisor did not believe Applicant’s intent was to deceive
especially since he was paying on all the delinquent debts. (Tr. 117)
Applicant’s team lead from 2004 until 2008, testified that Applicant is a
responsible employee. (Tr. 121) He gets the job done. Applicant’s team lead also
recommended him for a supervisory position. He testified that he is honest and
trustworthy. The team lead also submitted a letter of reference recommending Applicant
for a top secret clearance. (AE P)
Applicant’s brother-in-law described him as a family man who takes responsibility
for providing for his family. He testified that Applicant works very hard and has often
taken multiple jobs. (Tr. 126)
5
Applicant’s brother testified that they worked together on certain jobs. He
attested to his brother’s integrity. (Tr. 132)
Applicant submitted a letter of reference from his Bishop who described him as
honest, upright and fair. He has known Applicant for several years. He believes that
Applicant works hard to “keep his priorities in line.” (AE Q)
Applicant’s system administrator described Applicant as having a high degree of
integrity. He recommended him for a top secret clearance. (AE Q)
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 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,
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 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.
6
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of or about
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 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 filed for bankruptcy in 1999, for which the debts were
discharged in 2000. Applicant accumulated delinquent debts on various accounts by his
own admission from 2000 until 2005. His credit reports confirm the debts. The evidence
is sufficient to raise these disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes 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 still has
some unresolved delinquent debts. He is in a stable financial situation and has a plan
for the unresolved debt. This mitigating condition applies in part.  
Under AG & 20(b), the disqualifying condition may be mitigated 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.@ Applicant had some unemployment in 2003-2004. He also
changed employment from the construction field to the computer industry with a lower
rate of pay. However, he acknowledged not curtailing his spending habits. He
acknowledged that his son’s surgery was only part of the reason that he filed for
7
bankruptcy in 1999. Applicant has addressed his delinquent debts beginning in 2009.
This mitigating condition applies in part.
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 received formal financial counseling. He has
resolved the majority of his delinquent debts. He has a payment plan for the last
delinquent debt. He follows a budget. He sought guidance from his employer and
developed an action plan. He could not obtain a consolidation loan in 2005 or 2009 to
address his delinquent debts earlier in time. His efforts are sufficient to carry his burden
in this case. I conclude these mitigating conditions apply.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The security concern 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 February 2009 security application,
he did not answer “yes” to section 26(g) or 26(h) concerning his financial record. He
denied the allegation concerning a falsification of his answer to delinquent debts. He
admitted that he should have answered differently. He was candid, forthright, and
credible in his testimony that he would explain and clarify his financial record to the
investigator when interviewed. He had already listed the 1999 bankruptcy in an earlier
security clearance application.  I find that he did not deliberately falsify his 2009 security
clearance 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
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
8
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 and 2.b.
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 must 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 sufficient to
overcome the government’s case. Applicant has worked all his life. He worked in the
construction field for many years so that he could support his wife and family. He also
recognized the problems with a transient life. He attempted to enter the computer field
but had to accept a much reduced level of pay. Applicant filed for bankruptcy in 1999,
and the delinquent debts were discharged in 2000. This was a legal means of resolving
his debt.
Applicant paid the student loans that his wife had incurred before their marriage.
He also paid her other debts. He helped his mother when she was ill. He tried to obtain
a loan consolidation but was denied.
Applicant admits that he did not curb his spending when he changed jobs. He
also had a few months of unemployment in 2003-2004. He acknowledged that he
incurred more debt until 2005. During that time, he also tried to purchase a house and
he supported his wife and three children. He is a hard worker. He received a well paying
job in 2009 and again tried to obtain a loan to consolidate his debts. He was denied.
Applicant resolved to pay his delinquent debts and has done so. He paid all the debts
alleged in the SOR except one. The last debt is in a payment plan which ends in June
2010. He is more mature and is now financially stable. He now understands how to
budget and is serious about his employment future. He is recommended by his
9
employer and team lead. He has letters of reference from various individuals who have
known him for a period of time. He was candid and forthright at the hearing. 
Applicant explained why he answered the questions concerning his financial
record with a “No.” I found his explanations credible. He did not falsify his February
2009 security clearance application.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts about
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising under financial
considerations and personal conduct. 
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a: through 1.g: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
_________________
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge