Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-7, and Applicant exhibits (AE) A-B (submitted1
post hearing). 
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February2
20, 1990), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) 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 1 September 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-03785
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  Applicant’s clearance is denied.1
On 15 January 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guidelines F, Financial Considerations and E, Personal Conduct.  Applicant timely2
answered the SOR, requesting a  hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 12 March
2010, and I convened a hearing 29 April 2010. DOHA received the transcript 10 May
2010.
 
Accordingly, I find SOR 1.e for Applicant.3
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant denied the SOR allegations. He is a 42-year-old operations manager
employed by a defense contractor since January 2007. He seeks to retain the security
clearance he has held since at least 2001.
The SOR alleges, and government exhibits confirm, five delinquent debts totaling
nearly $56,000. However, record evidence (Answer) shows, and Department Counsel
concedes (Tr. 18), that the judgment alleged in SOR 1.e. was paid within months of the
judgment.  Consequently, the four debts in dispute total just over $38,000. Over3
$37,000 of that figure is for an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lien filed in September
2002. Applicant also remains indebted to the IRS for unpaid taxes, penalties, and
interest for tax year 2003.
Applicant’s financial problems began in 1995. He was self-employed that year,
and did not make estimated quarterly payments to the IRS to cover his anticipated
federal income tax liability for the year. Consequently, when he filed his 1995 tax return
in 1996, he owed the IRS $25,000 that he was unable to pay. Applicant claims, without
documentation, to have filed several Offers-in-Compromise (OIC) over the next three
years (including 1997 and 1999), each of which was denied. Applicant did not try to
arrange a repayment plan because he believed his income inadequate to make
payments satisfactory to the IRS (Tr. 96-101). In February 1998, the IRS assessed
Applicant $37,426 for unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest, and filed a tax lien against
him for that amount in August 2002. The lien remains unresolved on Applicant’s credit
reports. Applicant believes, based on undocumented conversations with the IRS, that
the amount owed is uncollectible as time-barred. Any payments for 1995 have been the
result of IRS seizure of Applicant’s income tax refunds, but Applicant has no
documentation that refunds were seized for the 1995 debt. Nor has he documented that
the debt is uncollectable.
Applicant also owes the IRS for tax year 2003, for which he submitted partial
documentation. Applicant’s Answer included a May 2008 IRS letter recalculating
Applicant’s 2003 tax return to reflect $9,814.38 in taxes, late fees, and interest. The IRS
continued to assess interest on his unpaid 2003 balance. In May 2009, the IRS wrote
Applicant to inform him that recalculating his 2008 taxes resulted in a $2,323.26
overpayment, which was applied to his 2003 balance, now $8,013.95 (AE A). Similarly,
in 2010, the IRS seized a $5,135.15 overpayment, reducing the 2003 balance to
$3,182.93 (AE B). Applicant has no other plan for paying the IRS than for the IRS to
continue to seize any overpayment until the 2003 balance is paid.
The remaining three debts total less than $1,000. Applicant claims to either not
recognize them or to be disputing them as paid. However, he has provided no
documentation of his efforts to dispute the debts or confirm their payment.
3
On Applicant’s January 2009 clearance application (GE 1), he failed to disclose
the 2002 IRS lien, which he claims to have been unaware of until 2006. He denies any
intent to falsify his clearance application, claiming that he got hung up on the word
“property” in the question rather than the words “lien” . . . “for failing to file taxes.” As
corroboration for his claim, he submitted a photocopy of the financial questions from an
earlier edition of the clearance application that he used as a draft for collecting the
information required by his clearance application. He answered “no” to a nearly identical
lien question, but answered “yes” to a question (not on his clearance application) that
asked whether he had ever failed to pay taxes when required. However, he answered
both “yes” and “no” to whether he was currently delinquent on any federal debt—also
not on the clearance application he was preparing. Further, he answered “no” on both
forms to questions requiring him to disclose debts currently 90, or ever 180, days past
due.
I find Applicant’s claim of innocent mistake incredible, and his reasoning
improbable. When he sat down to complete his clearance application, even with the
draft in front of him, he knew he had a tax lien against him and he knew that he had
past due taxes for 2003. Further, he knew in a broad sense that the government was
interested in his financial condition, and disclosed no information that would put the
Government on notice of his financial problems.
In January 2003, Applicant was charged with a domestic violence offense.
Applicant adamantly denies the charge. However, the disposition of the offense placed
him on 12 months supervised probation, and required completion of an anger-
management program. According to Applicant, the program required him to
acknowledge that he committed the crime, something he could not do. He was told not
to return to the program. Applicant considered this to negate the requirement to
complete a program, but the program reported his dismissal from the program as a
violation of his probation. Applicant also moved to another state, and failed to report to
his probation officer. In February 2004, a warrant for his arrest was issued. When
Applicant discovered the warrant, he attempted to have it recalled, and his probation
dismissed. His motion was denied in March 2006, and the warrant remains outstanding.
Applicant called no witnesses other than himself, and produced no work or
character references.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability
for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to
classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
¶ 19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (b) indebtedness caused by frivolous or irresponsible5
spending and the absence of any evidence of willingness or intent to pay the debt or establish a realistic plan
to pay the debt; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; . . . (e) consistent spending beyond one’s
means, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-
income ratio, and/or other financial analysis;
¶ 20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that6
it is  unlikely to recur . . . 
¶ 20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and7
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
4
the relevant adjudicative guidelines are Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.4
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant failed to plan for his 1995
federal income tax liability, and had an initial debt of $25,000, which he could not pay.
His sole effort to address the debt was several OICs, which were denied. He made no
attempt to arrange a repayment schedule.  He also had a significant tax liability for5
2003, that he is addressing only by having the IRS seize any income-tax refunds he
may be entitled to. Although the gravamen of this case is his tax liabilities to the IRS, he
also has three small debts for which he has produced no proof of dispute or resolution.
Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. His
financial difficulties are both recent and multiple.  He produced no evidence of6
circumstances beyond his control, and he has not acted responsibly in addressing his
debts.  He has received no credit or financial counseling, nor has he demonstrated that7
his financial problems are under control, or that he has a plan to bring them under
¶ 20.(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications8
that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶ 20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.9
¶ 16.(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel10
security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, . . . [or]
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . .;
¶ 16.(c)  credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse11
determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-
person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness
to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly
safeguard protected information; (d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other
guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all
available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics
indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information. . . ;
¶ 17(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification12
before being confronted with the facts;
5
control.  He has not made a good-faith effort to satisfy his debts.  I conclude Guideline F8 9
against Applicant.
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline E, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicants are expected to give full and
frank answers during the clearance process. Applicant’s failure to disclose any
information about his financial problems on his clearance application, specifically a tax
lien he knew about, and his parsing of words to justify his omission, constitute a
deliberate falsification or evasiveness inconsistent with the candor required of
applicants.   Applicant’s submission of the draft clearance application he used to collect10
his financial information only highlights how deliberate his falsification was. 
In addition to his falsification of his clearance application, Applicant’s failure to
resolve an outstanding warrant in another state demonstrates poor judgment
inconsistent with access to classified information.  Applicant failed to complete the11
stated requirements of his probation, and failed to pursue alternate means of meeting
those requirements. He made a long-distance attempt to have the warrant dismissed,
but has taken no action to resolve the warrant since the attempt was unsuccessful.
None of the Guideline E mitigating conditions apply. The concealed information
was relevant to a clearance decision. Applicant did not disclose this adverse information
until his subject interview.  Applicant’s failure to disclose this information demonstrates12
a lack of candor required of cleared personnel. The Government has an interest in
examining all relevant and material adverse information about an applicant before
making a clearance decision. The Government relies on applicants to truthfully disclose
that adverse information in a timely fashion, not when they perceive disclosure to be
prudent or convenient. Further, an applicant’s willingness to report adverse information
6
about himself provides some indication of his willingness to report inadvertent security
violations or other security concerns in the future, something the Government relies on
to perform damage assessments and limit the compromise of classified information.
Similarly, Applicant’s failure to resolve his outstanding warrant—and the decisions he
made that caused the warrant to be issued—exemplifies his belief that he can ignore
rules he perceives to be inconvenient. Applicant’s conduct suggests he is willing to put
his personal needs ahead of legitimate Government interests. I resolve Guideline E
against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph e: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-b: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge