Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-6, and Applicant exhibits (AE) A-D.1
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. 08-12028
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah A. Minster, 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 granted.1
On 6 January 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guidelines F and E, Financial Considerations and Personal Conduct.  Applicant timely2
answered the SOR, requesting a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 15 March
2010, and I convened a hearing 13 April 2010. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 21
April 2010.
 
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant denied owing a nearly $51,000 collection account (SOR 1.a.), claiming
he had been making regular payments on this account since June 2009. He admitted
failing to disclose that his security clearance had been revoked by the U.S. Army in
March 1984 (SOR 2.a.), but claimed that he misread the question. He is a 49-year-old
senior program management specialist employed by a defense contractor since August
2008. He seeks to retain the security clearance he held as needed while in the military
and on an interim basis until the SOR was issued.
When Applicant applied for an industrial security clearance in September 2008
(G.E. 1), he answered “no” to a question (26b) asking if he had ever had a clearance
revoked. In fact, Applicant had his clearance revoked by the U.S. Army in March 1984,
while he was on active duty. Applicant states (Answer) that he “misread the question”
and did not intend to mislead the government because he had “nothing to hide.”
When Applicant’s clearance was revoked in March 1984, he had been in the
Army about three years. None of the stated reasons for the revocation are relevant to
the issues raised in the SOR. He retired in February 2002 as a Sergeant First Class
(SFC, paygrade E-7) with over 20 years exemplary service, during which he was
awarded the Meritorious Service Medal twice, the Army Commendation Medal four
times, the Army Achievement Medal five times, the Good Conduct Medal six times, the
Overseas Service Ribbon three times, the National Defense Service Medal, and the
Army Service Ribbon, among other awards. He has been married over 26 years. His
wife retired with 20 years military service in 2004.
 
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits confirm, a single collection account
totaling nearly $51,000 on defaulted education loans. Applicant states, and
corroborates, that he has been making regular bi-monthly payments of $50 since June
2009 (GE 2; AE A, C, D). The $50 payments were part of a rehabilitation program
Applicant entered into with the creditor. After nine months of regular payments, the loan
was considered rehabilitated and transferred to a regular commercial lender—with a
higher loan payment. Applicant made his first $303 payment by automatic debit on 7
April 2010 (A.E. C). He has made timely monthly payments since then.
Applicant’s financial problems began after he retired from the military. He
experienced unstable employment—including periods of unemployment and
underemployment—as well as the financial pressures of having to maintain two
households while he and his wife were geographically separated because of their
respective job requirements. They fell behind on their bills, including the educational
loans at SOR 1a. Not until August 2008 did Applicant and his wife both have stable
employment, as well as maintaining only one household.
At that time, Applicant and his wife began addressing their delinquent accounts.
The Government credit reports reflect those efforts, as they show accounts paid and
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
3
closed (sometimes at Applicant’s request, sometimes by the creditor’s action).
Applicant’s exhibits show many payments to creditors who were not alleged in the SOR.
In June 2009, Applicant began a rehabilitation plan with the holder of his
defaulted educational loans. The plan required bi-monthly payments of $50 for nine
months. The payment amount was based on a leave and earnings statement (LES) that
Applicant provided the lender. After Applicant successfully rehabilitated his loans, the
account was assigned to a regular commercial lender to resume normal payments.
Applicant made his first regular payment of $303 per month in April 2010. Applicant also
had another set of educational loans that were never delinquent because they were in
their forbearance period. He is current on his monthly payments on this account. The
forbearance ended in March 2010, and Applicant began monthly payments of $180.
Applicant and his wife are current on all their accounts, and all their taxes. They
have a budget. The loan payments on his educational loans are made by automatic
debit.
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,
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.3
¶ 19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;4
In the sense that he had other delinquent debts that were resolved before the SOR was issued.5
¶ 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;
¶ 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
4
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, but
Applicant mitigated the security concerns. Applicant and his wife experienced financial
problems after he got out of the military because of his unemployment and
underemployment, and having to maintain two households while his wife remained on
military duty and Applicant took a job in another state.4
Applicant meets significant mitigating factors for financial considerations. While
his financial difficulties are both recent and multiple,  the circumstances under which5
they occurred are unlikely to recur now that his wife has retired, Applicant and his wife
both have stable employment, and they no longer have to maintain two households.6
Failure to pay the debts was due to circumstances beyond his control, and he acted
responsibly in addressing his debts.  As soon as he obtained stable employment, he7
began addressing his delinquent debts. The proof of his success is that by the time the
Government issued the SOR, the only delinquent debt to allege was Applicant’s
education loan. While there is no evidence that he sought credit counseling, he and his
wife have a budget, and have otherwise brought the problem under control.  Having8
substantially addressed all his delinquent debts—including the debt alleged—before the
SOR was issued, the timing of the payments constitutes a good-faith effort to satisfy his
debts.9
Department Counsel argues that these efforts are somehow inadequate,
regarding the education loan, because Applicant could have paid more to the creditor
during the rehabilitation, but did not volunteer to do so. Applicant testified credibly that
he provided the LES required by the creditor, and the creditor’s policy was to set the
rehabilitation payments at $50 bi-weekly regardless of the debtor’s income. As both the
creditor and debtor have an interest in successful rehabilitation of the loan, this policy
seems more than reasonable. Further, given Applicant’s denial of the financial
allegation, the Government had the burden of proving the debt and any adverse
circumstances surrounding the rehabilitation of the debt. Finally, given Applicant’s clean
financial record while in the military and his speedy resolution of his financial problems
¶ 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. . .;
In fairness to Department Counsel, the SOR incorrectly alleged the date of revocation as March 2004, and11
she moved to amend the SOR to reflect the correct date of 1984 (Tr. 11). Nevertheless, her insistence (Tr.
67-70) that the “falsification” remained relevant after 24 years because it showed Applicant’s “untruthfulness,”
goes beyond the commonsense decision I am required to make. 
5
once he obtained stable employment, there is nothing in the record to suggest that
Applicant’s financial problems will recur. I conclude Guideline F for Applicant.
The Government failed to establish a case for disqualification under Guideline E.
Applicant credibly testified that his omission was an oversight based on his misreading
the question, that he had previously reported the revocation on military clearance
applications, and consequently he had nothing to hide. Thus, Applicant lacked the
required deliberate intent to mislead the Government.  However, even if Applicant had10
intended to mislead the Government, the amount of time which has passed since the
revocation must be considered. A 24-year-old clearance revocation is neither relevant
nor material to a clearance adjudication, particularly where the issues in that revocation
are neither relevant or material to the current adjudication.  I resolve Guideline E for11
Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In view of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance granted.   
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge