1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
            )             ISCR Case No. 07-18216 
            )                                                                                          
                                                            )                                                                                          
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: William O’Neil, Esquire, Department  Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
ANTHONY, Joan Caton, Administrative Judge: 
 
 After a thorough review of the testimony, pleadings, and exhibits, I conclude that 
while Applicant mitigated security concerns under Guideline E, Personal Conduct, he 
failed to mitigate security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. His 
eligibility for a security clearance is denied. 
 
On March 14, 2007, Applicant executed an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). On July 7, 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 for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
  
 On July 27, 2010, Applicant answered the SOR in writing and elected to have a 
decision on the record in lieu of a hearing. Pursuant to subsection E3.1.7. of Enclosure 
 
2 
 
 
                                           
3 (Additional Procedural Guidance) of the Directive, the Government requested a 
hearing in the matter. The case was assigned to me on August 20, 2010. Applicant was 
overseas on business travel and was not available for a hearing until the first week of   
November 2010. He and Department Counsel agreed that his hearing would be held 
November 1, 2010. The hearing was held, as scheduled, to consider whether it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for 
Applicant. The Government called no witnesses and introduced 10 exhibits, which were 
marked Ex. 1 through 10 and admitted to the record without objection. Applicant 
testified and called no witnesses. He offered five exhibits, which were marked as Ex. A 
through E and admitted without objection. At the conclusion of the hearing, at 
Applicant’s request, I left the record open for one week, until close of business 
November 8, 2010, so that he could provide additional information for the record. 
Applicant timely submitted two additional exhibits, which were marked as Ex. F and G 
and admitted without objection.1 DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) of the hearing on 
November 9, 2010. 
 
                                           Procedural Matters 
 
 The notice of hearing was dated October 4, 2010. Applicant received the notice 
of hearing when he returned from overseas travel approximately five days before his 
hearing. However, he stated at his hearing that he had known about the hearing “two or 
three weeks ago.” He was apprised of subsection E3.1.8. of Enclosure 3 of the 
Directive, which states that an “applicant shall be notified at least 15 days in advance of 
the time and place of hearing. . . .” I discussed the issues of notice and waiver with 
Applicant. Applicant stated affirmatively that he believed he had sufficient time to 
prepare for his hearing. (Tr. 16-18.)  
 
                                                      Findings of Fact 
 
 The SOR contains five allegations of disqualifying conduct under AG F, Financial 
Considerations (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.e.), and one allegation of disqualifying conduct 
under AG E, Personal Conduct (SOR ¶ 2.a.). In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant 
admitted four Guideline F allegations (SOR ¶¶ 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., and 1.e.) and denied one 
(SOR ¶ 1.d.). He denied the Guideline E allegation (SOR ¶ 2.a.). Applicant also 
provided additional information in his Answer. At the hearing, the Government withdrew 
SOR allegation 1.d. Applicant’s admissions are admitted as findings of fact. (Answer to 
SOR; Tr. 24-25.)  
 
 Applicant is 46 years old and employed by a government contractor. He has held 
a security clearance for approximately 20 years. He is a high school graduate, served in 
the U.S. military from December 1982 until March 1986, and received an honorable 
discharge. He has never been married. He has a 20-year-old son. He lives alone in a 
 
1 The Government’s memorandum transmitting Applicant’s post-hearing submissions is identified in the 
record as Hearing Exhibit (HE) 1.  
 
3 
 
 
                                           
house that belonged to his grandmother, who is deceased.2 He pays $400 each month 
on a mortgage equity loan on the property, which was taken out by his grandmother 
before she died. Additionally, he pays approximately $2,400 in taxes on the property 
every six months. In his two financial statements, Applicant claims the house as an 
asset worth $450,000. (Ex. 1; Ex. 2 at 7; Ex. 4 at 4-5; Tr. 64-65, 71-72, 90-92.) 
 
 As a government contractor, Applicant has been assigned to work for a federal 
executive department for approximately 19 years. His work has taken him to over 30 
countries. His overseas assignments usually last from two weeks to three months. 
When his employer has no assignments for him and he remains in the United States, he 
receives approximately $800 a month in “states pay.” (Ex. 2 at 8; Tr. 69-70, 76, 84-85.) 
 
 Applicant estimated that his yearly income was approximately $60,000 to 
$70,000. He admitted several financial delinquencies in his Answer to the SOR. His 
credit reports reflect that he purchased an automobile on credit in September 2005.  
The date of last activity on the account was January 2006. The SOR alleged at ¶ 1.a. 
that a delinquency of approximately $10,560 had been charged off and remained 
unpaid as of July 2010. In supplementary information attached to his Answer to the 
SOR and in his personal subject interview, Applicant identified the debt as an 
automobile repossession which occurred in March 2006. In an affidavit signed on March 
8, 2010, Applicant acknowledged the debt. He stated that he was not aware of the debt 
because the debtor contacted him at an old address. As a post-hearing submission, 
Applicant provided a copy of a letter, dated November 1, 2010, from the creditor’s agent 
reporting that the delinquent debt had increased to approximately $19,762. The agent 
further acknowledged that Applicant had agreed to a payment plan, beginning on 
November 8, 2010, whereby Applicant would remit $200 a month for a year. The 
creditor further stated that Applicant’s account would be reviewed in November 2011 to 
determine a payment increase on the account.  (Ex. 3 at 5; Ex. 6; Ex. 8; Ex. 9; Ex. 10; 
Ex. A; Ex. G; Tr. 61, 73-74.) 
 
  In May 2005, one of the friends Applicant made during his military service 
contacted him for assistance. The friend and his wife were facing foreclosure of their 
home. Because he felt close to the friend and thought of him as a brother, Applicant 
agreed to help him by purchasing the home, and his friend promised to make the 
monthly payments to the mortgage lenders. Applicant took out two mortgages on the 
property. The first mortgage was for $406,000, with a monthly mortgage payment of 
approximately $3,000 a month. The second mortgage was for $101,000, with a monthly 
payment of approximately $1,200. (SOR; Ex. 8; Ex. 4 at 1; Ex. E at 1; Tr. 39.) 
 
 Applicant was working overseas when the friend contacted him. In order to 
complete the transaction necessary for him to purchase the property and assume the 
two mortgages, Applicant requested unscheduled leave to return to the United States. 
 
2 When asked if he owned his grandmother’s house in the city where he lives, Applicant replied: “It’s my 
family house, the house I grew up in so it’s pretty much everybody’s house, you know, just the house I 
live in now.” (Tr. 72.) 
 
4 
 
 
His supervisor tried to persuade Applicant not to leave his work site overseas. Applicant 
persisted, and the supervisor allowed Applicant to return to the United States. (Tr. 56.) 
 
 Applicant then returned to the United States to complete the transaction 
necessary to purchase the house from his friend. However, the process took longer 
than he had anticipated, and his return to his job location overseas was delayed. He told 
his supervisor of the delay. Then, he missed his flight back. When he informed his 
supervisor that he would be further delayed because he had missed his flight, the 
supervisor told him he was being replaced and his replacement was already on the job 
in the foreign country. (Tr. 57.) 
 
 Applicant remained at his home in the United States for an additional two days. 
He then flew overseas to his job site to pick up his belongings. When he arrived there, 
he found that his replacement, a co-worker, had been assigned to take his place and 
arrived at the job site on the same day as he did. He concluded that the supervisor lied 
to him about his replacement being already on the job. He decided he did not want to 
work for the company any longer. He sought other employment. The employer reported 
in a business record that Applicant had been terminated from his position for failure to 
report for duty. (Ex. 7; Ex. E; Tr. 44-47, 56-57.)   
 
 A few months passed, and Applicant received notice that his friend had fallen 
behind in making monthly payments on the two mortgages. Applicant contacted his 
friend, who explained that he and his wife had some financial problems but would make 
up the late payments. However, the friend fell behind again in paying the mortgages. As 
the owner of the property, Applicant received notice that the mortgage holders were 
seeking foreclosure. Applicant hired an attorney and began an eviction action against 
his friend. After the friend and his family vacated the property, Applicant made 
necessary repairs and listed the property for sale. However, the property went into 
foreclosure. The property sold for approximately $396,000 after foreclosure in 2007. 
The SOR alleges at ¶ 1.b. that Applicant was responsible for a past due amount on the 
first mortgage of $4,364, that the total amount of the loan balance at foreclosure was 
$399,602, and that the debt remained unpaid. The SOR alleges at ¶ 1.c. that Applicant 
was more than 120 days past due on the second mortgage debt of $101,377, and as of 
the date of the SOR, the debt remained unsatisfied. (SOR; Ex. 3; Ex. 4; Tr. 77-78.) 
 
 Applicant is responsible for approximately $100,000 in unpaid debt related to the 
foreclosure and sale of the property. Neither Applicant nor his attorney has contacted 
the mortgage holders to ascertain whether they are seeking a deficiency judgment 
against him for the unsatisfied mortgage debt.  Applicant reported that his attorney told 
him he should be prepared to pay the deficiency if the mortgage holders demanded it. 
Applicant stated that if the mortgage holders approached him with a payment demand, 
he would pay it. (Tr. 78-80.) 
 
 The SOR alleged at ¶ 1.e. that Applicant owed a $1,906 debt, in collection status, 
to a cell phone company. In an affidavit, Applicant admitted the debt, which he had 
settled for $762.72 in September 2009. He further stated that the debt had been 
 
5 
 
 
                                           
delinquent for about two years before he settled it. As a post-hearing document, he 
provided a letter from a successor creditor in response to his dispute of the debt. The 
successor creditor stated that the account had been closed, and it would take no further 
collection action. The successor creditor also advised Applicant that it would provide 
this information to the credit reporting agencies. (Ex. 4 at 3; Ex. F; Tr. 80-82.) 
 
 Applicant reported a total net income of approximately $4,400 a month when he 
is assigned overseas.3 In a financial statement prepared on December 22, 2009, he 
reported $1,415 in monthly expenses, divided as follows: groceries: $300; clothing: 
$150; utilities: $200; life and other insurance: $115; medical: $50; child support: $400; 
and miscellaneous: $200. He reported monthly debts as follows: $600 on the 
approximately $3,000 remaining on the home loan he assumed after his grandmother’s 
death; one credit card payment of $40 on a total debt of $250, and a second credit card 
payment of $150 on a total debt of $5,000. Applicant’s monthly debt payments total 
$790. With these calculations, it would appear that Applicant has a monthly remainder 
of $2,195.4 (Ex. 2 at 8.) 
 
 In a financial statement prepared in conjunction with an affidavit he signed on 
December 17, 2009, Applicant reported an annual income of $60,000 to $70,000. He 
listed total debts and expenses each month of $1,900. He listed the following assets: 
401K account: $20,000; checking account: $300; savings account: $1,000; and home: 
$450,000. (Ex. 4 at 5.)  
 
 In his December 23, 2009, financial statement, Applicant listed the following 
assets: real estate: $450,000; bank savings: $2,000; and stock/bonds: $10,000. 
Applicant has not had financial counseling.  (Ex. 2 at 8; Ex. 4 at 5.) 
 
 Applicant completed an e-QIP on March 14, 2007. Section 22 on the e-QIP 
asked the following questions about Applicant’s employment record: 
 
 Has any of the following happened to you in the last 7 years: 
  
 1. Fired from a job. 
 
 2. Quit a job after being told you’d be fired. 
 
 3. Left a job by mutual agreement following allegations of misconduct? 
 
 
3 It is unclear if the $4,400 figure is gross or net pay. Applicant provided the following explanatory 
statement: “My take home pay [varies] because I’m a contractor[,] so when I’m overseas my pay is about 
$4400 monthly. Sometimes when I’m out for a month or so, most of the time it’s just for a month maybe 
longer, but not often. When I’m home in the states I get states pay in which it’s about $400 dollars every 2 
weeks, $800 monthly.”  His financial statements do not show deductions from gross pay. (Ex. 2 at 8.) 
 
4 Applicant acknowledged that his income was not regular, and he needed to save money to support 
himself between assignments. (Ex.4 at 4.) 
 
6 
 
 
 4. Left a job by mutual agreement following allegations of unsatisfactory 
           performance? 
 
 5. Left a job for other reasons under unfavorable circumstances? 
 
Applicant responded “No” to each of the five questions in Section 22. (Ex. 1 at 23; Tr. 
85-88.) 
 
 Applicant stated that in 1990, he had been fired from a job as a policeman and 
had revealed that information on a security clearance application that he had filed 
afterwards. After an investigation in 1991, he was awarded a security clearance. 
 
 In an affidavit he signed on December 17, 2009, Applicant stated: 
 
While [in an overseas country] I requested leave to return to the US for 
personal reasons. I was granted the leave, but when I was ready to return, 
I was told that they had already replaced me on that assignment and that I 
would need to wait for another travel opportunity to deploy. (At this 
company, we were not salaried and received pay when sent to various 
overseas assignments.) 
 
(Ex. 5 at 5.) 
 
 Applicant stated in his affidavit that he was not informed by the employer that he 
had been terminated, and he did not resign. In a colloquy with Department Counsel, he 
stated that if he were to answer Question 5 in Section 22 again, he would answer “Yes.” 
Question 5 in Section 22 asks if an applicant has “[l]eft a job for other reasons under 
unfavorable conditions.” He stated he answered “No” to the five questions in Section 22 
because he believed he had not been fired, and he did not read the four other   
questions in Section 22 carefully before responding. The SOR at ¶ 2.a. alleged that 
Applicant’s failure to list that he was terminated from a job in July 2005 was deliberate. 
(Ex. 5 at 5; Tr. 66-69, 88.) 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the 
Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, and 
it has emphasized that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the 
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the 
authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine 
whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information. Id. at 
527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.   
  
 
7 
 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an   
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 are 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, the administrative judge applies these guidelines 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 in seeking 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 about 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
                                                         Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern under Guideline F, 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 specifies two security concerns applicable in this case. 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 allowed old debt resulting from an automobile repossession in 2006 
to accumulate and to remain unsatisfied. He provided documentation showing that, as 
of November 1, 2010, he had an agreement to pay the creditor $200 a month on the 
debt, but as of the date of his hearing, he had not yet made any payments. As the result 
of the property foreclosure in 2007, he is potentially responsible for a $100,000 
deficiency. However, while he stated that he would pay the delinquency debt in 
response to a demand from the creditor, he has taken no action to inquire if he owes a 
deficiency. The figures he provided suggest he has a monthly remainder of $2,195. This 
evidence is sufficient to raise the disqualifying conditions identified at AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 
19(c). 
 
Guideline F enumerates conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising 
from financial difficulties. Several Guideline F mitigating conditions could apply to the 
security concerns raised by Applicant’s financial delinquencies. Unresolved financial 
delinquency might be mitigated if it 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. (AG ¶ 20(a)) 
Additionally, unresolved financial delinquency might be mitigated if the conditions that 
resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control, such as loss 
of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, 
divorce, or separation, and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances. 
(AG ¶ 20(b)) Still other mitigating circumstances that might be applicable include 
evidence 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 (AG ¶ 
20(c) or the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts. (AG ¶ 20 (d)) Finally, security concerns related to financial 
delinquencies might be mitigated if “the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the 
legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides 
 
9 
 
 
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of 
actions to resolve the issue.” (AG ¶ 20 (e)). 
 
The Government withdrew the allegation at SOR ¶ 1.d. Applicant provided 
documentation to corroborate his statement that he had disputed the debt alleged at 
SOR ¶ 1.e., and the successor creditor responded and acknowledged that he no longer 
owed the debt.  Accordingly, SOR ¶¶ 1.d. and 1.e. are concluded for Applicant. 
 
However, the three remaining delinquencies alleged on the SOR continue to 
raise security concerns. Applicant has a history of financial delinquency which dates to 
at least 2006, when an automobile he had purchased was repossessed. Between 2006 
and 2010, Applicant made no payments on the delinquent debt, which grew from the 
$10,560 alleged at SOR ¶ 1.a. to $19,761. While he reached an agreement with the 
creditor on November 1, 2010, to begin payment of the delinquent deficiency debt, he 
had made no payments on the debt as of the date of his hearing. Moreover, he owes a 
deficiency which occurred when he failed to make payments on the two mortgages 
securing the property he purchased for his friend, and the property was foreclosed upon 
and sold in 2007. While Applicant acknowledged he owed a deficiency of approximately 
$100,000 on the property, he has taken no action to contact the creditor. He stated he 
would pay the debt if the creditor came to him with a demand for payment. Applicant’s 
financial statements suggest he possesses sufficient assets to satisfy these two 
creditors. His unresolved financial delinquencies do not appear to be the result of a 
situation beyond his control. 
 
Applicant purchased a home to help a friend in financial distress. However, 
neither he nor the friend possessed sufficient income to pay the two mortgages on the 
property, and the property fell into foreclosure. While Applicant provided documentation 
to corroborate that he had paid the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.e., his effort to resolve the 
debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.a. was recent. He failed to show a track record of resolving the 
debt, which had existed since 2006. While he merits partial credit for resolving the debt 
alleged at SOR ¶ 1.e., he has not addressed the approximately $100,000 debt that 
occurred from the foreclosure and sale of the home he had purchased for his friend. He 
has not had financial counseling. Overall, Applicant did not appear to be attentive to his 
financial obligations or to have a clear plan for resolving them. I conclude that AG ¶¶ 
20(a), 20(b), and 20(c) do not fully apply in mitigation to the facts of Applicant’s case. I 
also conclude that AG ¶¶  20(d) and 20(e) apply in partial mitigation to the facts of this 
case. 
  
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
  
 AG ¶ 15 explains why personal conduct is a security concern: 
  
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 
 
10 
 
 
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other 
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process. 
  
 When Applicant completed and certified his e-QIP in March 2007, he answered 
“No” in response to Question 1 on Section 22, and he failed to report that he had left 
employment in March 2005 under unfavorable circumstances. At his hearing, he 
recounted that his employer informed him that he had been replaced in his overseas 
assignment by another employee. When questioned about his state of mind at the time, 
Applicant recalled that he did not interpret his employer’s statement to mean that he had 
been fired. He did acknowledge that he should have responded “Yes” to Question 5 in 
Section 22 which asked if he had left a job for other reasons under unfavorable 
circumstances.  
 
The Guideline E allegation in the SOR raises a security concern under AG ¶ 
16(a). AG ¶ 16(a) reads: “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 SOR ¶ 2.a, which alleged deliberate falsification and failure to 
report that he had been fired from a job in May 2005. DOHA’s Appeal Board has 
cogently explained the process for analyzing falsification cases: 
 
(a) when a falsification allegation is controverted, Department Counsel has 
the burden of proving falsification; (b) proof of an omission, standing 
alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind 
when the omission occurred; and (c) a Judge must consider the record 
evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial 
evidence concerning the applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the 
omission occurred. [Moreover], it was legally permissible for the Judge to 
conclude Department Counsel had established a prima facie case under 
Guideline E and the burden of persuasion had shifted to the applicant to 
present evidence to explain the omission.  
 
ISCR Case No. 03-10380 at 5 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2006) (citing ISCR Case No. 02-23133 
(App. Bd. June 9, 2004)).  
 
 Several Guideline mitigating conditions might apply to the facts of this case. 
Applicant’s disqualifying personal conduct might be mitigated under AG ¶ 17(a) if “the 
individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or 
falsification before being confronted with the facts.” If “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 process” and “[u]pon being made aware of 
the requirement to cooperate or provide information, the individual cooperated fully and 
 
11 
 
 
completely,” then AG ¶ 17(b) might apply.  If “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 case doubt on the individual’s 
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” then AG ¶ 17(c) might apply. If “the 
information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability,” AG 17(f) 
might apply.  
   
 Applicant is a mature adult who has, in the course of his employment in the 
military and as a government contractor, completed several security clearance 
applications. When he was fired from a job in 1991, he reported it on a security 
clearance application he filed shortly thereafter. He denied that he deliberately and 
willfully falsified his answer to Question 1 of Section 22 on the e-QIP he signed in March 
2007.  
 
I thoroughly reviewed the documentary and testamentary evidence in this case. I 
observed Applicant carefully, and I noted his demeanor and how he responded to 
questions about answering Question 1 in Section 22 of his e-QIP. I also listened 
carefully to his responses to questions posed during his security clearance hearing in 
order to assess his credibility and state of mind. I conclude while AG ¶¶ 17(a) and 17(b) 
do not apply, AG ¶ ¶ 17(c) and 17(f) have some applicability in mitigation in Applicant’s 
case. The terms of Applicant’s employment were unusual, and his employer’s 
communications with Applicant over his employment status were ambiguous. He was 
not told directly that he was fired. He did not carefully read the other questions about 
leaving employment under unfavorable conditions. When he answered “No,” he was 
stating he had not been fired. I conclude, therefore, that there is insufficient record 
evidence to conclude that Applicant’s “No” response to Question 1 in Section 22 and his 
failure to list that he had been fired from a job in July 2005 for failure to report for duty 
was a willful and deliberate falsification. Applicant did not intend to deceive the 
Government.  Accordingly, I conclude SOR ¶ 2.a. for Applicant.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of his or her 
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. 
 
 
12 
 
 
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. Applicant, a mature adult, assumed 
liability for considerable debt to help a friend in financial distress who was in danger of 
losing his home. He did so without financial counseling. When the friend was unable to 
timely pay the mortgages that Applicant assumed, Applicant lacked sufficient resources 
to pay them himself. Applicant is indebted for approximately $100,000 resulting from the 
foreclosure and sale of the property in 2007. However, while Applicant stated that he 
would pay the debt if the creditor demanded he do so, he has taken no action to clarify 
his responsibility for this debt. Additionally, at the time of his hearing, Applicant set up a 
payment plan for a debt he had owed since 2006, but he had not established a record of 
payment on the debt because he had not made the first payment under the plan. Thus, 
significant delinquent debts alleged on the SOR remain unresolved by Applicant’s 
failure to timely address his long-term financial delinquencies.  
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts at the present 
time about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For these 
reasons, I conclude that while Applicant’s personal conduct was mitigated, he failed to 
mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial delinquencies.  
 
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:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a. - 1.c.:  Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.d and 1.e.: For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:             FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a.:             For Applicant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13 
 
 
                              Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
                                                     
___________________________________ 
Joan Caton Anthony 
Administrative Judge