DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 10-00843 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Gina Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
 Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility 
for access to classified information is granted.  
 
On April 30, 2009, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Investigations 
Processing (e-QIP) as a requirement for a position with a defense contractor. After an 
investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Defense 
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR), dated 
May 10, 2010, to Applicant detailing security concerns for financial considerations under 
Guideline F, and personal conduct under Guideline E. 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 (AG) effective within the Department of 
Defense on September 1, 2006. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on May 18, 
2010. 
 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on May 21, 2010, and denied all allegations. 
Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on July 22, 2010, and the case was 
assigned to me on August 8, 2010. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on September 2, 
2010, scheduling a hearing for September 23, 2010. I convened the hearing as 
scheduled. The Government offered five exhibits, marked and admitted without 
objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 5. Applicant testified on his 
behalf, and offered six exhibits marked and admitted without objection as Applicant 
Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through F. The record was held open for Applicant to submit 
additional documentation. Applicant timely submitted seven additional documents, 
marked and admitted as Applicant Exhibits G through L. Department Counsel had no 
objection to the admission of the additional documents. (Gov. Ex. 6, Memorandum, 
dated October 12, 2010). DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on October 
9, 2010. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant denied the allegation under Guideline F and the allegation under 
Guideline E. After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make 
the following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 47 years old and has been employed by a defense contractor as a 
senior engineering associate for about 18 months. He is divorced with no children. He 
has an Associate's degree. (Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated April 30, 2009) 
 
In July 1998, Applicant was seriously injured while working for a civilian 
company. Applicant's wife at the time was an attorney and accountant and managed all 
the aspects of his disability claim for the injury. At the time of injury, his base salary was 
approximately $65,000. His injury was serious enough that it prevented him from 
returning to work. Applicant underwent a number of unsuccessful operations to correct 
his back injury. Applicant initially received workman's compensation and had long term 
disability payments from his company that kept him at his base salary. After a year, his 
long-term disability ended in late 1999. Since he still could not work, he applied for and 
received social security disability payments of $1,500 monthly starting in late 2000. 
Social security back dated their payments to the termination of the long-term disability 
insurance. His company finally terminated him in October 2004 since he could not 
return to work. Between October 2000 and June 2006, Applicant's sole source of 
income was the social security disability payments. (Tr. 24-31; App. Ex. G, e-mail, dated 
October 4, 2010) 
 
Applicant continued to be under doctor's care, receive medication, and undergo 
rehabilitation treatment and physical therapy. In May 2006, Applicant believed he was 
well enough to return to work. He applied to social security for a "Right to Work" 
determination. Applicant never received a reply to his request for "Right to Work." 
However, his former wife, who served as his attorney, may have received a response 
and never informed him. He found employment with a company as a salesman in June 
2006 with compensation of $35,000 annually. He was eventually promoted and became 
 
3 
 
 
a department leader. He also continued to draw social security disability benefits until 
October 2008. Applicant believed that the social security rule was that he could continue 
to receive disability payments for a period of time while working to ensure he was 
capable of returning to work before disability payments were terminated. He is unsure 
when and if the disability payments should have terminated. He may owe social security 
some debt but the issue has not been decided. It should be noted that Social Security 
beneficiaries may receive benefits during a trial work period within which they may test 
their ability to work and still be considered disabled. Overpayments may be waived by 
social security if the claimant is without fault and recovery would defeat the purpose of 
the Social Security Act. (20 CFR 404.1592) 
  
Applicant was notified by social security that he owed them $56,000 for 
overpayment of disability. Social security did not tell him why he owed the debt. 
Applicant is unsure when he was notified but social security did notify him in January 
2009 referencing an earlier letter concerning the debt owed for overpayment of 
disability. Social security also filed a notice with the credit reporting agencies that 
Applicant owed them a debt of $56,600. (See Gov. Ex. 2, Response to Interrogatories, 
dated March 10, 2010, at 112, Social Security Letter, dated January 18, 2009) Applicant 
did not contact social security concerning the disability overpayment but his wife did on 
his behalf. (Tr. 31-39) 
 
Applicant started working for his present defense contractor employer in April 
2009. He and his attorney continually contacted the Social Security Administration to 
resolve and seek a hearing on the overpayment debt. (App. Ex. K, L, M, Letters, dated 
in June, July, and September 2009) Applicant and his attorney also met with Social 
Security administrators who were unable to explain the overpayment or verify the 
amount owed. The last meeting was in mid-September 2010. Applicant is still waiting for 
a hearing and a determination on the disability overpayment. The issue has not been 
resolved. (Tr. 39-43) 
 
Applicant completed his e-QIP by himself in April 2009. At that time, he was 
aware that social security had claimed he was overpaid for his disability, he had 
disputed the overpayment, and the matter had not been resolved. Prior to completing 
the form, he was not in contact with his attorney concerning any questions or answers 
on the form. He realized there was a requirement to be truthful on the application. He 
responded "No" to the parts of question 26 concerning any delinquent debts. Applicant 
also had not checked any credit reports and he was unaware that social security had 
listed the debt with the credit reporting agencies as delinquent. He did not then and 
does not now believe he owes a debt to social security because the dispute is not 
resolved. He responded to the question truthfully because he does not believe the debt 
is delinquent. (Tr. 43-52) If it is determined that he owes a debt to social security, 
Applicant is prepared to pay the debt. He has been saving funds for that purpose and is 
capable of paying a part of the amount owed. He would have to agree to a payment 
plan if the amount owed is near the $56,000 claimed. (Tr. 52-60) 
 
 
 
4 
 
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the revised 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(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.  
 
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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 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, 
 
5 
 
 
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. 
(AG ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his or her obligations to protect 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.  
 
 A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations.  
 
 Applicant's credit report indicated that he is in debt to the Social Security 
Administration for overpayment of $56,000 for a disability. Applicant disputes this debt 
but does acknowledge that there may be some debt owed to social security. The 
potential of a debt to social security is sufficient to raise a security concern and 
consideration of Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) 
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts). This is a circumstance of an inability and not 
an unwillingness to satisfy debt. 
 
 Applicant has raised conditions that may mitigate the security concern. I 
considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(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) and FC MC AG ¶ 20(b) (the 
conditions that resulted in the financial problems 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); FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort 
to repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts); and FC MC ¶ 20(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). These mitigating 
conditions apply. The circumstances causing the debt are unusual in that they arose 
from an overpayment of disability that Applicant was entitled to receive. He acted 
reasonably when notified of the debt by disputing the debt, hiring an attorney, and 
setting aside funds to pay any possible debt. The overpayment was beyond his control 
and he acted reasonably and responsibly under the circumstances. Applicant's actions 
regarding a potential debt to social security provides significant and credible information 
to establish a good-faith effort to resolve debt issues. Assuming he actually owes the 
debt, AG ¶ 20(e) applies since the debt is being disputed under the social security 
statute. His actions show he acted reasonably and responsibly under the 
 
6 
 
 
circumstances. His finances do no longer reflect adversely on his trustworthiness, 
honesty, and good judgment. 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 A security concern is raised because conduct involving questionable judgment, 
untrustworthiness, unreliability, 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 ¶ 15) Personal conduct is always a security concern 
because it asks the central question whether the person’s past conduct justify 
confidence the person can be entrusted to properly safeguard classified information. 
The security clearance system depends on the individual providing correct and accurate 
information. If a person conceals or provides false information, the security clearance 
process cannot function properly to ensure that granting access to classified information 
is in the best interest of the United States Government. Applicant answered "NO" to 
financial questions concerning delinquent debt. He did have a dispute with social 
security concerning the overpayments and this may create a debt. The potential of a 
debt and his negative response may raise a security concern under Personal Conduct 
Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) AG ¶ 16(a) (the deliberate omission, concealment, or 
falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, 
personal history, or similar form used to conduct investigations, to determine security 
eligibility or trustworthiness). 
 
 Applicant denied intentional falsification. While there is a security concern for an 
omission, concealment, or falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral 
statement to the government when applying for a security clearance, every omission, 
concealment, or inaccurate statement is not a falsification. A falsification must be 
deliberate and material. It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and willfully with intent to 
deceive. When Applicant completed his security clearance application in 2009, he knew 
that social security claimed he owed them a debt for overpayment of disability. He hired 
an attorney and knew he had requested a hearing to dispute this debt. He believed he 
had a reasonable basis for his dispute. He knew the matter had not been resolved. At 
the time he completed the form, he did not believe that the debt was delinquent since it 
had not been resolved. He answered "NO" to questions concerning delinquent debt 
because he reasonably and honestly believed he did not have any established 
delinquent debts. His answers to the questions were not deliberately false because of 
his honest and reasonable belief concerning the dispute. Assuming that he does not 
owe a debt to social security, his incorrect answers were not a deliberate intent to 
deceive. I find for Applicant as to personal conduct. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis  
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
 
7 
 
 
relevant circumstances. An 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 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. Applicant presented sufficient 
information to show he took reasonable and responsible action to resolve his financial 
issues when advised that he owed a debt to the Social Security Administration. This 
debt leading to a potential security concern for financial issues was caused by 
conditions beyond his control. However, Applicant's management of his finances and 
debt resolution indicates he will be concerned, responsible, and careful regarding 
classified information. Also, Applicant did not provide false and misleading information 
on his security clearance application with the intent to deceive because he reasonably 
and honestly believed he did not have a delinquent debt. Applicant mitigated security 
concerns based on his finances and personal conduct. Overall, on balance the record 
evidence leaves me without questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and 
suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant mitigated 
security concerns arising from financial considerations and personal conduct and he 
should be granted access to classified information.  
 
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 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:   For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:   For Applicant 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge