1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 )         ISCR Case No. 09-05225
 )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant committed an armed robbery in 1994 when he was 17 years old. He
completed all conditions of his sentence in 1997. Unemployment and underemployment
were major reasons why he accumulated delinquent debts between 2000 and 2008. During
the period, Applicant committed several criminal and traffic offenses. Though he told the
Government in June 2009 that he planned to talk to a financial advisor about his delinquent
debts, he has done nothing to address his debts, even though he has had the discretionary
funds available in the last year to eliminate some of the smaller debts listed in the
Statement of Reasons. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
2
Statement of the Case
Applicant certified his Standard Form 86 (SCA, GE 1) on April 5, 2009. He was
interviewed by an investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on May
19, 2009, and June 22, 2009. Summaries of these interviews appear in his interrogatory
answers (GE 3) dated January 17, 2010. Applicant agreed with the investigator’s
summaries and agreed that the summaries could be used at a hearing to determine his
security suitability. (Id. at 83)
On May 10, 2010, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security
concerns under financial considerations (Guideline F) and personal conduct (Guideline E).
The action was taken pursuant to 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)
implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted his answer to the SOR on June 7, 2010. DOHA issued a Notice
of Hearing on September 14, 2010, for a hearing on October 5, 2010. The hearing was held
as scheduled. At the hearing, seven exhibits (GE 1 through 7) were admitted in evidence
in support of the Government’s case. Applicant testified and supplied one exhibit (AE A)
that I admitted into evidence without objection. He was granted until October 20, 2010, to
submit additional evidence regarding his delinquent financial obligations. He furnished a
character statement (AE B) from his supervisor. The exhibit was admitted in evidence
without objection. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on October 15, 2010. The record
closed on October 20, 2010. 
Findings of Fact
Paragraph 1 of the SOR contains ten allegations under Guideline F (financial
considerations). These allegations represent a delinquent deficiency balance for a car sold
at auction, a car lien, one student loan, an overdrawn checking account, and an
outstanding balance for unpaid rent. Paragraph 2 includes eight allegations under Guideline
E (personal conduct). The listed events are alleged to show acts of poor judgment in
Applicant’s lifetime that may be relevant under the whole-person concept. Applicant denied
subparagraphs 1.b and 1.j because he did not recognize the accounts. He denied
subparagraphs 2.g and 2.h claiming that he did not intentionally omit information from the
security forms. He admitted the remaining allegations.
Applicant is 33 years old, married, with one child, 13 years old. (Tr. 28) He has been
employed as a welder for a defense contractor since May 2007.
3
Financial Considerations
In August 1994, at the age of 17, Applicant was socializing with two friends. They
decided to rob a convenience store. After the robbery, Applicant was stopped by the police
while driving. He was arrested for robbery with a deadly weapon. He pled guilty and was
sentenced to three years in prison. The prison sentence was suspended on condition
Applicant complete 18 months of boot camp and 18 months of work release. He completed
all conditions of his sentence. Applicant did not know why he committed the crime, but
admitted it was a poor choice. (Tr. 25; GE 3 at 90) 
After Applicant completed his sentence for the robbery offense in 1997, he
encountered underemployment and unemployment problems that created financial
problems when he could not pay his debts. He did not understand the importance of good
credit. (Id. at 87) Applicant believes that after being hired by his current employer in May
2007, he has turned his life around. (Tr. 26)
Paragraph 1 of the SOR identifies ten delinquent debts. Applicant has not taken any
action to contact the creditors or repay the debts. (Tr. 49) When asked whether he had debt
or credit counseling, Applicant replied:
We (wife) talked about it. Like now, there are some things we can do
ourselves, you know, as far as getting a secure credit card or get another
card and paying it on time. Doing stuff that I’m doing now. Trying to get credit
card offers and little things I can do to start working on my credit. But to go
back six years ago to pay something, I mean I don’t think that will help my
credit. I wouldn’t raise my Beacon score. (Tr. 49-50)
Applicant told the investigator in May 2009 that his wages were garnished for
repayment of the student loan. (SOR 1.h; GE 3 at 87) After the garnishment was removed,
he claims he voluntarily paid the loan company for an unknown period of time. However,
Applicant provided no documentary proof that he made payments. SOR 1.c refers to
Applicant’s vehicle that was involved in the accident when he was charged with driving
while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in January 2006. SOR 1.d identifies a pickup
truck that was repossessed in 2000 after the transmission broke and Applicant lost his job.
(GE 5)
Applicant denied SOR 1.j in his answer to the SOR. At the hearing, I questioned him
about the address and zip code appearing in the one-page exhibit (GE 5). He
acknowledged that he once lived at the address located in the same zip code. Because the
exhibit also contains Applicant’s social security number, his address where he once lived,
and the corresponding zip code where the address is located, I find this judgment is 
4
Applicant’s responsibility. SOR 1.b is resolved in Applicant’s favor because there is no
independent evidence verifying the medical debt (SOR 1.b) is Applicant’s responsibility. 
Applicant still owes nine creditors a total of $55,847. These debts became delinquent
between 2002 and December 2008. (GE 6, 7)
Applicant estimates he currently earns about $140,000 a year and his wife earns
about $1,860 a month. (Tr. 34) At the end of every month, Applicant estimates he has
approximately $2,000 in discretionary funds after he pays the bills. He has not paid any of
the smaller delinquent accounts in the SOR because he provides $800 to his mother for
her monthly expenses, or he provides money to his wife’s side of the family. (Tr. 62)
Personal Conduct
SOR 2.a: Applicant committed armed robbery in August 1994. 
SOR 2.b: In January 2003, Applicant wrote two worthless checks. His explanation
was that he was not keeping very good records of his checking account. He was fined
$100, and still owes $100 of the fine. 
SOR 2.c: In June 2003, Applicant pled guilty to giving a false name or identification.
SOR 2.d: On November 11, 2005, Applicant was pulled over for speeding. He had
been drinking and threw the remaining beer bottles into the rear seat of his car. The
arresting officer smelled alcohol on Applicant’s breath and gave him a ticket for having an
open container in his possession. After finding a small amount of marijuana during a search
of Applicant’s car, the arresting officer also charged him with possession of marijuana. He
was found guilty of the open container charge. The possession of marijuana charge was
dismissed. (GE 3 at 91)
SOR 2.e: On January 29, 2006, Applicant had consumed a few drinks, and decided
to pick up some groceries. He also used some marijuana. (Tr. 51) He fell asleep while
driving and crashed his car. Applicant was placed on probation for a year and his license
was suspended for six months. He was fined $1,500 and ordered to complete community
service. 
SOR 2.f: In October 2006, Applicant was charged with no valid driver’s license. The
charge constituted a probation violation referred to in SOR 2.e. The details of the offense
can be found in GE 4, which contains  the documentation for the listed traffic offenses. 
SOR 2.g: In the Police Record module of his April 2009 security form, Applicant
correctly answered Section 22.b by admitting he had been arrested by a police officer in
5
the last 7 years. However, he incorrectly answered Section 22e. by denying he had ever
been charged with any offense relating to alcohol or drugs. He was charged in November
2005 with possession of marijuana. He was charged in January 2006 with DUI. Applicant
testified he did not disclose the marijuana charge because the charge was dismissed. (Tr.
24, 53) He claimed he did not disclose the alcohol offense because he had never filled out
a security form before. (Tr. 26) Later in his testimony, Applicant indicated he had no excuse
for not disclosing his January 2006 DUI in response to Section 22e. (Tr. 57)
SOR 2.h: In response to Section 23a. (illegal drug use in the last 7 years) and 23c.
(Illegal possession, purchase, transfer of a controlled substance) of the Illegal Use of Drugs
or Drug Activity module of Applicant’s April 2009 security form, he answered “no.” Applicant
recalled using marijuana about 50 times and stopped using the drug in January 2006 when
he was arrested for DUI. (Tr. 51) Applicant did not know why he responded “no” to the drug
use questions, but believed a positive answer would have a negative impact on his
employment. (Tr. 53)
Character Evidence
AE A is a description of a project Applicant was assigned in June 2010. The exhibit
explains the overview, mission and time lines for completion of certain parts of the project.
(Id.)
AE B is a character statement from the field service manager evaluating Applicant’s
job performance. The manager has known Applicant for almost four years. He believes
Applicant always performs at his best and provides valuable services to the program. (AE
B)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are required to be used to the extent they apply in evaluating
an applicant's eligibility for access to classified information.
The administrative judge's ultimate goal is to reach a fair and impartial decision that
is based on common sense. The decision should also include a careful, thorough
evaluation of a number of variables known as the "whole-person concept" that brings
together all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable, in making a decision. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 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
6
extrapolation about the potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified
information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.l.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.l.l5., 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 for obtaining a favorable security decision.
Analysis
Financial Considerations 
The security concern for financial considerations is set forth 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 SOR lists nine accounts that became delinquent between 2002 and December
2008. Applicant has demonstrated by his inaction that he is unwilling to repay them. He has
demonstrated by his testimony that he has no intention of repaying or resolving them
because they will not improve his credit rating. AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts); and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations), apply.
Four conditions under AG ¶ 20 could potentially mitigate Applicant’s delinquent
indebtedness: 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); AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control,
and the person acted responsibly under the circumstances); AG ¶ 20(c) (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); and AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated
a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts).
While several of the delinquent accounts are dated, others became delinquent less
that three years ago. All of them remain unpaid. The nine accounts reached delinquent
status under circumstances that are likely to recur as long as Applicant takes no corrective
action. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply.
7
Under AG ¶ 20(b), an applicant is expected to prove that the conditions resulting in
his financial problems were beyond his control. He is also expected to show that he acted
responsibly under the circumstances. Applicant’s unemployment in 2000 entitles him to
mitigation. However, other than the student loan account which resulted in Applicant’s
wages being garnished in 2001, he has never addressed the other listed delinquent debts
at any time. AG ¶ 20(b) does not apply.  
When asked whether he had ever received debt or credit card counseling, Applicant
testified he uses cash to make purchases or he uses secured credit cards. He knows by
using these secured credit cards, he will have a higher interest rate than with a regular
credit card. Given Applicant’s lack of understanding of the potential value of debt
counseling, there is no evidence to support the application of AG ¶ 20(c). AG ¶ 20(d) is not
available either as Applicant has not satisfied or settled any of the debts. A complete review
of the record supports a finding against Applicant under the financial guideline. 
Personal Conduct
Paragraph 15 of the AG sets forth the security concern for personal conduct:
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 and candid
answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to
cooperate with the security clearance process.
The personal conduct has two disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 16 that may be
applicable to this case: AG ¶ 16 (a) (deliberate omission or falsification of relevant facts
from any personnel security questionnaire to determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness); and AG ¶ 16.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 the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes but is not limited
to consideration of: (1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client
confidentiality, release of proprietary information, unauthorized release of sensitive
corporate or other government protected information; (2) disruptive, violent, or other
behavior in the workplace; (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and (4) evidence
of significant misuse of government or other employer’s time or resources).
8
Sixteen years have passed since Applicant committed the armed robbery. The 1994
offense may not have been sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but when
combined with the other more recent offenses cited under paragraph 2 of the SOR,
specifically the deliberate omission of information in April 2009, a pattern of conduct is
established that supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment by
Applicant. AG ¶ 16(d) applies. 
Regarding the deliberate omission of information set forth in SOR 2.g and 2.h,
Applicant’s explanations for his denials are not credible. While his drug use explanation that
the charges were dismissed could be reasonable under question 22 of the security form,
it is not reasonable under question 23 of the form, which is directed at information of drug
use. I find the primary reason Applicant omitted the alcohol and drug information from his
security form is that he was concerned about the negative impact the information would
have on his employment. The fact that Applicant provided the same responses in a security
form two months earlier supports my finding that Applicant deliberately omitted the
information. His later disclosure of his drug use in an interview with a government
investigator does not excuse the earlier deliberately omitted information. AG ¶ 16(a)
applies. 
The personal conduct guideline lists one mitigating condition under AG ¶ 17 that
may apply to the circumstances: AG ¶ 17(c) (the offense was 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 cast doubt on the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment). A significant amount of time has passed
since Applicant’s 1994 criminal offense. However, in 2003, Applicant was charged with
issuing worthless checks. Later in 2003, he was found guilty of giving false information. In
2006, Applicant pled guilty to DUI and several types of traffic offenses. In April 2009,
Applicant attempted to conceal his alcohol and drug use from his security forms. AG ¶ 17(c)
is inapplicable because the offenses were not minor. Some of the offenses were frequent
and recent, and demonstrate Applicant’s inability or unwillingness to follow the rules. The
personal conduct guideline is resolved against Applicant. 
Whole-Person Concept 
In evaluating Applicant’s security clearance worthiness, I have examined the
evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions. I have also weighed the
circumstances within the context of nine variables known as the whole-person concept. In
evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the administrative judge should
consider the following factors:
AG ¶ 2(a) (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
9
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 the participation was 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.
When Applicant was 17 years old, he used a gun to rob a convenience store. He
was apprehended and completed all conditions of his sentence. In 2002, Applicant began
to incur delinquent debt. In 2003, he wrote several worthless checks. Between 2005 and
October 2006, Applicant committed several traffic offenses and a DUI.  By December 2008,
Applicant had accumulated $55,847 in delinquent debt. In April 2009, Applicant deliberately
omitted material information about his drug and alcohol use. 
Applicant’s favorable job performance evidence for almost four years weighs in his
favor. However, the job performance does not explain why Applicant has made no effort
to repay his debts over the years, particularly since he began working for his current
employer in May 2007, and has a current salary of approximately $140,000. Applicant’s
claim of helping other members of his family or his wife’s family has been evaluated, but
does not relieve Applicant of paying his bills which he created. The fact that Applicant
interprets financial counseling as an opportunity to obtain secured credit cards indicates
that his financial difficulties are likely to continue until he learns through financial counseling
about other methods of delinquent debt relief. See, AG ¶ 2(a)(1) through AG ¶ 2(a)(9).
Overall, Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised under the financial and
personal conduct guidelines. 
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a Against  Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c through 1.j Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a through 2.h Against Applicant
10
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 Applicant access to classified information.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
`
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge