DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 10-02246 
            ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the case file and pleadings, Applicant failed to provide 
adequate information to mitigate security concerns for financial considerations and 
personal conduct. Applicant did mitigate the security concern for criminal conduct. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
On September 24, 2009, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance for his employment with 
a defense contractor. (Item 4) On August 25, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security 
concerns for financial considerations under Guideline F, criminal conduct under 
Guideline J, and personal conduct under Guideline E. (Item 1) 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 in the Department of 
Defense on September 1, 2006.  
 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on August 30, 2010. He answered 
the SOR in an undated response received at DOHA on September 7, 2010. He 
admitted 12 allegations and denied 1 allegation (SOR 1.f) under guideline F, admitted 
the 1 allegation under Guideline J, and the 5 allegations under Guideline E. He elected 
to have the matter decided on the written record. (Item 3) Department Counsel 
submitted the Government’s written case on October 20, 2010. Applicant received a 
complete file of relevant material (FORM) on October 25, 2010, and was provided the 
opportunity to file objections, and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the 
disqualifying conditions. He did not provide any additional information in response to the 
FORM. The case was assigned to me on December 9, 2010.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 I thoroughly reviewed the case file and the pleadings. I make the following 
findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is 24 years old and a high school graduate. He is single but has a 
daughter. He has been employed by a defense contractor for over four years. This is his 
first request for a security clearance. (Item 4)  
 
Credit reports (Item 7, dated November 4, 2009; and Item 8, dated July 12, 2010) 
show delinquent debts of $14,473. These include delinquent medical debts (SOR 1.a, 
1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.l), telephone accounts in collection (SOR 1.f, 1.k, and 1.m), 
loans charged off or in collection (SOR 1.g, 1.h, and 1.i), and the largest debt of $6,654 
for a vehicle repossession (SOR 1.j). In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admits 12 of 
the 13 delinquent debts for a total of $13,409. He denies the telephone account in 
collection for $1,064 at SOR 1.f. (item 3) 
 
In a January 2010 interview with a security investigator, Applicant admitted that 
the medical debts at SOR 1.a, 1.e, and 1.l were incurred for his child, and he and his 
girlfriend, the child's mother, were making payments on the debts. He did not provide 
any proof of payment. He did not provide any information on the medical debt at SOR 
1.b. He denied that the medical debts at SOR 1.c and 1.d were his debts. He did not 
present any information to substantiate his denial. He denied the debt at SOR 1.f, and 
provided proof he was released from the debt. He also stated that he was making $20 
monthly payments on the debt at SOR 1.g. He did not provide any proof to substantiate 
these payments. He did not provide any information to the investigator on the delinquent 
debt at SOR 1.h. He told the investigator that the debt at SOR 1.i was for a fitness club 
contract that he could not pay after losing a job. He stated the repossessed vehicle 
resulting in the debt at SOR 1.j was purchased by both him and his girlfriend but she 
was to make the payments. She did not make the payments and the car was 
repossessed. He is in contact with the creditor and is trying to arrange a settlement. He 
said he is not aware of the debt at SOR 1.k but he would research it. He informed the 
investigator that he intends to pay the account at SOR 1.m. (Item 5)  
 
 
3 
 
 
In his June 28, 2010 Response to Interrogatories, Applicant indicates the 
delinquent debt at SOR 1.f was incurred when the telephone company went out of 
business and he was provided a bill. He also stated he tried to reach a settlement with 
the creditor for SOR 1.k, but he did not receive a response. He wrote he was on a 
payment plan for the medical debts at SOR 1.c and 1.d, and did not know the remaining 
balance on the account. He provided no information to verify his payment plan or 
payments made under the plan. He again said he co-signed for a car loan for someone 
else who defaulted. He also stated he was making payments on the three medical debts 
at SOR 1.a, 1.e, and 1.l but provided no documents to verify payments. He also stated it 
was difficult to take care of children and pay debts on his salary. He is willing to work to 
pay off his debts. He also provided a personal financial statement showing monthly 
income of $1,388, with monthly expenses of $970, leaving over $400 in monthly 
discretionary funds. He listed delinquent debts of over $11,000 on the personal financial 
statement with no actual or scheduled payments listed. (Item 6) 
 
Applicant admitted all of the debts except for the debt at SOR 1.f.in his response 
to the SOR. He stated that the debts "are true and I am working to pay them off. With 
the blessing of this clearance, it will provide me the job I need to further clear up all my 
debt. I want [sic] make no excuses, all I am asking is that I be granted a security 
clearance to better myself." (Item 3) 
 
Applicant was arrested and charged with simple assault on his girlfriend in 2008. 
They argued and she called the police. He denied striking her but was sentenced to $50 
fine, six months probation, and to attend anger management classes. He completed all 
parts of the sentence. (SOR 2.a and Item 5) 
 
Applicant answered "no" to question 22 on the e-QIP asking if he had ever been 
arrested. As noted above, he had been arrested for simple assault in 2008. (SOR 3.a) 
Applicant admits he deliberately failed to list the car repossession (SOR 3.b), any debts 
in the last seven years in collection (SOR 3.c), any debts more than 180 days past due 
(SOR 3.d), and debts currently more than 90 days past due (SOR 3.e) in response to e-
QIP question 26(b). As noted above, Applicant had a car repossessed, had debts in 
collection, and debts more than 180 days and 90 days past due. Applicant admitted to 
the security investigator that he did not list the arrest or the debts on the e-QIP because 
he needed the job and was afraid he would not get the job if he listed them. (Item 5) 
 
Policy 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the 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 
 
4 
 
 
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 as to obtaining 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 protect or 
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, 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. 
(AG ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their 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 
 
5 
 
 
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 her financial 
obligations. Applicant’s delinquent debts listed in credit reports and admitted by 
Applicant raise Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) 
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not 
meeting financial obligations). The failure to pay 12 medical, telephone, and vehicle 
repossession debts and loans establishes a history and unwillingness to pay debts.  
 
 The Government produced substantial evidence to establish the disqualifying 
conditions as required in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c). The burden shifts to Applicant to 
produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. An 
applicant has the burden to refute an established allegation or prove a mitigating 
condition, and the burden to prove or disprove it never shifts to the Government. 
 
 Applicant's various explanations for his financial problems and the action he has 
taken are inconsistent. When interviewed by security investigators in January 2010, 
Applicant admits some of the debts but explains he is making payments. He also relates 
some of the debts are unknown but he would research them. The security investigators 
in his notes said that Applicant provided some proof that he was relieved of the debt at 
SOR 1.f. When responding to interrogatories in June 2010, Applicant wrote he incurred 
the telephone debt at SOR 1.f when the company went out of business. He tried to 
reach a settlement, but has not received a response. He also wrote that he had 
payment plans for some debts but provided no documentation to establish the plans or 
payments. The personal financial statement forwarded with Applicant's response to the 
interrogatories shows discretionary funds available to make debt payments but no 
payments being made. In his September 2010 response to the SOR, Applicant admitted 
all the delinquent debts alleged, but the debt at SOR 1.f. He provided no explanation for 
his admissions or denial. 
 
 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 ¶ 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 separations) and the individual acted responsibly 
under the circumstances). These mitigating conditions do not apply. Applicant incurred 
delinquent debt for medical bills, telephone bills, loans, and car repossession. He 
admitted to all but one of the debts. There is no indication the debts were incurred under 
such circumstances that they will not recur. In fact, it appears the debts were incurred 
by Applicant to cover normal costs of living. He has discretionary funds each month to 
pay delinquent debts but has not indicated that he is acting or will act responsibly to use 
the funds to resolve his past financial obligations. Applicant claims he reached payment 
plans with some creditors or is paying other creditors. However, he presented no 
 
6 
 
 
information, evidence, or documentation to verify his claims. Without information from 
Applicant, it cannot be determined his financial problems are being resolved. With 
evidence of delinquent debt and no documentation to support reasonable management 
of his finances, it is obvious that Applicant's financial problems are not under control.  
 
 I considered FC MC ¶ 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). Applicant presented no information to indicate he received financial 
counseling. Even if he had received counseling, there is no indication his financial 
problems are being resolved or under control.  
 
 I considered FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For FC MC ¶ 20(d) to apply, 
there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” of a 
good-faith effort to repay. A systematic, concrete method of handling debts is needed. 
Good faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and 
adherence to duty or obligation. A promise to pay debts in the future is not evidence of a 
good-faith intention to resolve debts. Applicant has to show a "meaningful track record" 
of debt payment, including evidence of actual debt reduction through payment of debts. 
All that is required is a plan to resolve financial problems coupled with significant action 
to implement that plan. Applicant has failed to establish such a meaningful track record. 
He has sufficient income to meet his financial obligations and has had sufficient income 
over four years of steady employment with a defense contractor. However, there is no 
evidence, information, or documents to show payment of his debts. His lack of 
documented action is significant, and demonstrated he has not acted reasonably and 
responsibly towards his debts and finances. Applicant has not presented sufficient 
information to mitigate security concerns for financial considerations.  
 
Criminal Conduct 
 
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness. By its very nature it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness 
to comply with laws, rules, and regulations (AG ¶ 30). Appellant was arrested, 
convicted, and sentenced in 2008 for simple assault after a confrontation with his 
girlfriend. This criminal act raises Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions (CC DC) 
AG ¶ 31(a) (a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses), and CC DC AG ¶ 31(c) 
(allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was 
formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted). 
 
Applicant raised by his testimony Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition (CC MC) 
AG ¶ 32(a) (so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not 
cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment). Applicant 
and his girlfriend were both equally responsible for the incident that led to his arrest. 
This is the only criminal allegation against Applicant. It is a minor offense, committed 
over two years ago, under the unusual circumstances of mutual action by both parties. It 
 
7 
 
 
is not likely to happen again and the minor offense does not cast doubt on his reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgment. Since the Government did not allege a criminal 
conduct security concern based on Applicant deliberately providing false information on 
his security clearance application in violation of federal criminal law as noted below, I 
have not considered that criminal action as a security concern. I find for Applicant under 
criminal conduct.  
 
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 justifies 
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 
questions concerning his criminal conduct and his finances. Record evidence shows 
that he was arrested for simple assault, had a vehicle repossessed, in the last seven 
years had debts in collection and over 180 days past due, and presently had debts 
more than 90 days past due. The inaccurate negative responses to these questions 
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 admits that he deliberately provided false and misleading information 
on the e-QIP. There is a security concern for any omission, concealment, or falsification 
of a material fact in any written document or oral statement to the government when 
applying for a security clearance. Applicant admits his falsification of material facts was 
knowing and deliberate with intent to deceive. I considered all mitigating conditions 
under personal conduct and determine that none apply. I find against Applicant as to 
personal conduct. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information by considering the totality of the 
applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider 
the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
 
8 
 
 
(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 eligibility for access to 
classified information 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 has not established a 
meaningful track record of paying his delinquent debts. He has not provided sufficient 
credible documentary information to show he acted reasonably and responsibly to 
address his delinquent debts and resolve his financial problems, or even that he has a 
credible plan to resolve and pay his delinquent debts. Applicant has not demonstrated 
responsible management of his finances or a consistent record of actions to resolve 
financial issues. The lack of responsible management of financial obligations indicates 
he may not be concerned or responsible in regard to classified information. In addition, 
he deliberately provided false information on his security clearance application with the 
intent to deceive. This shows poor judgment and indicates he is not reliable, trustworthy, 
and that he may not safeguard classified information. I find for Applicant as to criminal 
conduct. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to 
Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. He has not established his 
suitability for access to classified information. For all these reasons, I conclude 
Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial situation and 
personal conduct. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
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.m:  Against Applicant  
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline J:   FOR APPLICANT  
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:   For Applicant 
 
 
 
 
9 
 
 
 Paragraph 3: Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 3.a - 3.e:  Against Applicant 
  
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 access to 
classified information. Access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge