1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-03696
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: William T. O’Neil, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On July 8, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). DOHA took action
under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
(February 20, 1960), 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 September 1, 2006. 
In a July 23, 2010, response, Applicant admitted 13 of the 26 allegations raised
under Guideline F and three of the five allegations raised under Guideline E. Applicant
requested a hearing before a DOHA administrative judge. DOHA assigned the case to
me on September 1, 2010. The parties proposed a hearing date of November 16, 2010.
A notice setting that date for the hearing was issued on November 2, 2010. An
amended notice was issued on November 5, 2010, indicating a different courtroom for
the hearing at the same time and on the same date. I convened the hearing as
scheduled. 
 Tr. 126, 172.      1
 Tr. 159.      2
 Ex. 6 (Interrogatories, dated Jan. 11, 2010). In completing his 2010 interrogatories, Applicant stated that      3
he voluntarily separated from the military to be with his child. But see, e.g., Ex. 2 (Discharge file) at 1-23.
2
Applicant gave testimony, presented three witnesses, and offered 32 documents,
which were accepted into the record as exhibits (Exs.) A-FF. The Government
introduced 17 documents, which were accepted into the record without objection as
Exs. 1-17. Applicant was given through November 29, 2010, to submit any additional
materials. The transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding was received on November 29, 2010. In
addition, nine additional documents were later submitted by the Applicant to
Department Counsel, who forwarded them to me on November 29, 2010, without
objection. They were accepted into the record as Exs. GG-OO and the record was
closed. Based on a review of the testimony, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant
failed to meet his burden of mitigating security concerns related to personal conduct.
Clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 32-year-old senior telecommunications engineer who has worked
for his present employer for over two years. He is a high school graduate and has
completed multiple certification programs. Applicant served in the U.S. Army from 1996
until 1997. He is married and has four children.
After completing high school in May 1996, Applicant enlisted in the Army in
August 1996. In the interim, he learned that his girlfriend had given birth to their child.
Separated  from his child while serving overseas, he missed the opportunity to interact
with the infant. Although he had graduated near the top of his class in basic training,
was deemed a top soldier, and had been deployed abroad, Applicant grew to regret his
decision to pursue a military career and wanted to see his new baby. Depressed over
his situation, Applicant got highly intoxicated in April 1997. He was not otherwise prone
to alcohol abuse.  While inebriated, he was disruptive, knocked over a moped, and1
damaged a telephone. Military police detained him and transferred him for overnight
observation. While intoxicated, he stated that he wanted to kill himself.  The counselor2
assessed that Applicant was apathetic, immature, inept, and unmotivated to become a
productive soldier. He was later released and warned that his underage drinking and
misconduct could lead to administrative separation from the service if such poor
conduct was repeated. Applicant’s SCI access was then suspended.  3
Applicant repeatedly asked to be allowed to leave the military and join his child.
He told his superiors about his desire to leave military service, and his hope to see his
child. In May 1997, after reviewing his record, Applicant’s command decided to
 Ex. 2 (Discharge file) at 1-23.      4
 Tr. 124-127, 130-131, 137-141, 153-154, 158, 161-169;  Ex. 2 (Certificate of discharge) at 1. Applicant      5
testified “I was only 17 - - just turned 18 years old. They didn’t want to mess me up so I wouldn’t be able to
get a job. . . .” Tr. 154. Applicant’s certificate of discharges designates the separation code of JFV (Condition,
not a disability) and a reentry code of 3 (individuals who are not qualified for continued service, but the
disqualification is waiverable. Ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver is granted). 
 Tr. 148-150. There is no indication that the store was apprised of the theft.      6
 Tr. 99-100, 150.      7
 Tr. 102-108.      8
 Tr. 99.      9
 Tr. 93-95.      10
 Tr. 115-116.      11
 Tr. 116-117.      12
 Tr. 109-110.      13
3
discharge Applicant, citing to the April 1997 incidents.  He was given an honorable4
discharge for “other designated physical or mental conditions, not a disability.”  5
Between May 1999 and February 2000, Applicant worked at a department store
as an asset protection officer. He later disclosed to DOHA investigators that, during that
period, he stole a comforter and a set of clippers, amounting to what he estimated to be
about $300 to $400 in value.  Also during that time he borrowed about $300 to $5006
from a co-worker, which he later repaid.  The co-worker confirmed Applicant’s7
statement of these facts.  The loan was subsequently mischaracterized as a bribe8
Applicant had accepted to ignore the unauthorized removal of items from the store.  9
Between about 2000 and 2005, Applicant’s current wife’s employment was
erratic, and Applicant’s income of about $30,00 to $40,000 was insufficient to cover
both his expenses and child support obligations.  He was also unemployed from10
approximately May 2004 until about September 2004. As a result of these
circumstances, delinquent debts were acquired. He was unaware of many of the debts
at issue because he did not receive notices about them, a situation he attributes to
having relocated several times.  Between 2005 and 2007, he worked two jobs in an11
effort to get his finances under control. He tried to work with those creditors he knew
about.  In about November 2009, Applicant changed jobs and increased his salary12
from about $60,000 to about $79,000.  He currently earns about $82,000. In light of his13
rise in pay, he has been trying to address his delinquent accounts and repair his credit.
At issue in the SOR are the following 26 debts:
 Tr. 43-44.      14
 Ex. II (Credit history, undated) showing the past due and balance as zero.       15
 Tr. 34; Ex. K (Narrative).      16
 Tr. 48; Ex. K (Narrative) and Ex. DD (Letter, dated Sep. 7, 2010).      17
 Tr. 37-39.      18
 Tr. 38.      19
 Id.      20
 Tr. 39, 41-42; Ex. AA (Child support documents).      21
 Tr. 49-51.      22
 Tr. Id.; Ex. 10 (Credit report, dated Jun. 9, 2010) at 2.      23
4
1.a – Cable service-related collection for $231. Satisfied. This balance was owed for
failure to timely return cable equipment.  The collection account was reduced to a zero14
balance.15
1.b – Medical collection for $841. Medical insurance claim pending. This debt was
acquired in late 2008, when Applicant’s doctor’s office failed to appropriately file with
Applicant’s health insurer. When Applicant learned a balance was outstanding, he
contacted the provider’s office. The claim was resubmitted and is pending resolution.  16
1.c – Medical collection for $201. Paid. Applicant provided evidence that this account
has been paid in full.17
1.d – Child support collection for $1,206. In repayment. Applicant has been timely
paying voluntary child support to the mother of the children who now live with him. An
automatic arrearage was created when the mother claimed state benefits on behalf of
the children.  Applicant informed the state of their financial and custody arrangement,18
then informed the children’s mother that she might be prosecuted for making a false
claim.  Applicant and the mother agreed that he would repay the balance cited as19
owed to the state and that she would reimburse him for the debt she created.  He has20
been making regular payments of  $32.50 twice a month on the balance.  21
1.e – Telecommunications collection for $267. Disputed. Applicant denies knowledge of
this account. He stated that he has not had service from this provider and that he
disputed this credit report entry, but he failed to provide evidence showing his debt to
this provider has been satisfied.22
1.f – Telecommunications collection for $575. Disputed. Same provider as above.
Applicant denies knowledge of this account entry. He stated that he disputed the entry
on-line with the major credit reporting bureaus. In contrast to the preceding account,
this dispute is reflected in his June 9, 2010, credit report.23
 Tr. 52-55.      24
 Tr. 55-61; Ex. LL (Credit file, dated Feb. 9, 2010).      25
 Tr. 60-61.      26
 Tr. 63-65; Ex. NN (Letter of Nov. 17, 2010, and internet search results).      27
 Tr. 65-69.      28
 Tr. 69-73.      29
 Tr. 73; Ex. EE (Letter, dated Jul. 25, 2010); Ex. MM (Bank statement, dated Sep. and Oct. 2010).      30
 Tr. 75-76; Ex. OO (On-line transcription, dated Nov. 18, 2010).      31
5
1.g – Past-due account for $230. Satisfied. Applicant provided evidence that all his
accounts with this creditor are in good standing.24
1.h – Medical collection for $56. Unaddressed. Applicant disputed this account and the
account noted at 1.j below, stating that he is unaware of their origin. His current credit
report reflects that the total amount of $256 was deemed to be owed, charged-off, and
is now handled by a major collection agency.  There is no evidence that this account25
has been further addressed.
1.i – Medical collection for $55. Satisfied. The Government accepted Applicant’s
evidence that this account was paid.26
1.j – Medical collection for $44. Unaddressed. See 1.h, above.
1.k – Returned check collection for $70. Satisfied. After linking a former collection entity
to its newer identity, Applicant provided sufficient evidence that this balance has been
satisfied.27
1.l – Medical collection for $100. Unaddressed. Applicant failed to provide sufficient
evidence that this account has been successfully disputed or satisfied.28
1.m – Collection account for $1,510. Disputed. Applicant testified that he satisfied this
account several years ago. He has disputed its continued inclusion on his credit report
and is awaiting resolution of his dispute.29
1.n – Charged-off account for $2,277. In repayment. This obligation represents a debt
to a state employment commission. Applicant provided evidence that he has entered
into an agreement to repay his debt through monthly payments of $100 and evidence of
his last two monthly payments.30
1.o – State tax lien for $1,476. Satisfied. Applicant provided evidence that this balance
has been satisfied.  31
 Tr. 76-79.      32
 Tr. 79-83.      33
 Tr. 83-85. See also Ex. KK (Credit bureau report excerpt, dated Feb. 5, 2010), at 2, 4.      34
 Tr. 85.      35
 Tr. 86-88; Ex. Z (Letter, dated Jul. 20, 2010).      36
 Tr. 172-174. See also Ex. 1 (Security clearance application, dated Apr. 18, 2007) at 1-2, 6.      37
 Tr. 88, 171.      38
6
1.p – Medical judgment for $70. Unaddressed. This judgment is from 2002. Applicant
does not recognize the debt, but remembers receiving treatment from this provider in
2000. He noted that his co-pay at the time was $20 and would have been paid at the
time. Applicant testified that the judgment was disputed, but provided no evidence of its
current status.32
1.q – Utility collection account for $907. Unaddressed. Applicant testified that he
successfully disputed this account entry and noted that it has been removed from his
credit report, but he failed to provide evidence of his dispute or that successful
resolution led to its removal from his credit report.  33
1.r – Collection account for $600. Unaddressed. Applicant initially disputed this entry.
He testified that he later settled this balance for $390, but did not provide evidence that
this debt was satisfied.34
1.s – Utility collection account for $37. Unaddressed. Applicant testified that this debt
was paid, but failed to provide evidence showing payment was made.35
1.t – Apartment rental-related collection for $2,102. Disputed. This debt is related to a
dispute concerning a past apartment rental. Applicant is currently disputing this balance
through his legal representative.36
1.u – Collection account for $599. Disputed. Applicant disputes that this debt is his. This
debt is owed to a creditor with a substantially similar name as the creditor noted at 1.w,
below. Applicant denied ever having an account with this creditor or those creditors
noted in 1.w, 1.x, and 1.z, below. He credibly testified, however, that he is often
confused with his father, who has the same name and resides at an address once
shared with Applicant.  Applicant’s mother confirmed that Applicant and his father are37
often confused. She testified that she and Applicant’s father maintained accounts with
this creditor “years ago,” and that they currently maintain accounts with the creditor
noted at 1.x and 1.z.  Legally, Applicant ‘s surname is followed by “junior.” There is no38
evidence to contradict the assertion that these accounts are the result of identity
confusion due to the similarity in names and addresses.
 Tr. 90-91; Ex. GG (Letter, dated May 24, 2004).      39
 Tr. 91-93.      40
 Tr. 15.      41
 Tr. 115.      42
 Tr. 171.      43
7
1.v – Telecommunications collection account for $560. Satisfied. This debt was incurred
in 2002. Applicant provided evidence that the provider received payment for his then-
current balance in May 2004.  39
1.w – Insurance-related collection account for $493. Disputed. See 1,u, above.
1.x – Insurance-related collection account for $418. Disputed. See 1,u, above
1.y – Parking ticket collection for $275. Satisfied. Applicant testified that he paid all
outstanding parking tickets before assuming his current position. The debt has not
reappeared as a judgment, as would be customary in the designated jurisdiction. The
Government agreed that the evidence strongly suggests that this debt was resolved.40
1.z – Insurance-related collection for $103. Disputed. See 1,u, above
In sum, the 26 delinquent debts noted in the SOR amount to approximately
$15,302. Of that total, eights debts have been satisfied or paid ($3,097), two are in
timely repayment ($3,483), eight are disputed or in dispute and awaiting resolution
($6,067), one medical claim is being reprocessed ($841), and seven have yet to be
sufficiently addressed or lack evidence of having been addressed ($1,814). Four of the
disputed accounts are for accounts that appear to belong to Applicant’s father (1.u, 1.w,
1.x, 1.z).  Applicant claims that most of the debts noted as having insufficient evidence
were previously addressed; most of those debts are also comparatively older debts.
In 2009, Applicant sought financial counseling.  By July 2010, he had also41
enrolled in a credit restoration program. He first disputed debts he did not recognize,
implemented repayment plans on larger debts, and then proceeded to address the
remaining debts. He is working to rebuild his credit in order to buy a home. Applicant
currently rents an affordable apartment for about $1,170 a month, representing a
significant reduction from his prior rental obligation of approximately $2,000 a month.42
He owns a 1991 sedan and makes regular payments on a 2003 truck. Applicant is
currently living within his means and making timely child support payments. He
volunteers at his church and helps his mother with the upkeep of her home. Applicant is
active in sports and coaches a local youth league. He is considered a hard worker and
good father.  He is valued at work and receives superior appraisal ratings.43
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      44
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      45
 Id.      46
8
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this
process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-
person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all 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.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a44
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  45
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). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access46
 Id.      47
 AG ¶ 18.      48
9
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.47
Based upon consideration of the evidence, Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) are the most pertinent to this
case. Conditions pertaining to these AGs that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying, as well as those which would mitigate such concerns, are set forth and
discussed below.
Analysis
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Under Guideline F, “failure or an 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.”48
The Regulation sets out several potential disqualifying conditions. Here, Applicant
acquired multiple delinquent debts since about 2000. The 26 delinquent debts at issue
amount to approximately $15,302. Several of those debts remain unaddressed or
evidence regarding their current status is deficient. Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts)
and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. It is left to
Applicant to mitigate related security concerns. 
The majority of the debts at issue were acquired several years ago, when
Applicant’s income did not meet his expenses. While he has addressed the majority of
the 26 debts noted in the SOR, he failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding seven
of the older delinquent accounts. Today, however, Applicant’s income is over twice of
what it was when he was acquiring his debt. He now lives within his means. There is
evidence that he honorably started addressing his delinquent debts, received credit
counseling, and entered into a credit restoration program before the July 2010 SOR
was issued. About half of the debt at issue has been paid, satisfied, put into repayment,
or has been resubmitted for payment by his health insurer. Approximately $6,000 is in
legitimate dispute, including some debts which appear to belong to his father, who has
the same name and with whom he used to share the same address. Only about $1,814
remains unaddressed or lacks evidence of previous payment. Such progress is notable
and reflects an organized plan for satisfying his debts, despite his failure to keep
sufficient documentary evidence that some of the older debts were previously
addressed. Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 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(c) (the person has received or is receiving
 AG ¶ 15.      49
 Id.      50
10
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). apply. 
Appellant testified that he was unemployed from about May 2004 until
September 2004. To the limited extent this period of unemployment contributed to the
debt debts acquired at that time, AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the
behavior were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation) and the
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances) applies in part.
With specific regard to four of the eight disputed account entries appear to
belong to Applicant’s father, Applicant provided  compelling evidence that the debts are
not his. Both Applicant and his mother confirmed information included in Applicant’s
security clearance application and elsewhere in the official case file that Applicant is a
junior, bearing the same name as his father. In addition, the two shared the same
address at various times in the past. Such identity confusion is not uncommon. Such
evidence is sufficient to give rise to AG ¶ 20(e) (the individual has a reasonable basis to
dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and
provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue). 
Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that seven of the debts at
issue, amounting to about $1,814, have been addressed. There is, however, sufficient
evidence to conclude that 19 of the 26 debts have been properly addressed, either
through satisfaction, repayment plans, or legitimate dispute. While more progress is
needed, Applicant demonstrated that he has a reasonable plan in place to address his
delinquent debt, that he has the financial resources to satisfy any remaining debts, and
that he has successfully implemented his plan to address his debts. Based on his
efforts, I find that financial considerations security concerns are mitigated.
Guideline E – Personal Conduct
Security concerns arise from matters of personal conduct because “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.“  In addition, “any failure to49
provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process” is of special interest.  50
About 13 years ago, Applicant had his SCI access suspended due to a bout of
immature behavior and underage drinking that included a suicide threat. He then
continued to express his desire to be let go from the military. A month later, the military
11
discharged Applicant under honorable terms for “other designated physical or mental
conditions, not a disability.” In addition, Applicant admitted that, two years later, he stole
merchandise from his retail employer while working in asset protection. He explained
that a loan he took from a co-worker was later characterized as a payoff for not
reporting internal theft by others. In January 2010, he stated in interrogatories that he
voluntarily separated from the military in order to be with his child. Such facts, if true,
are sufficient to raise Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) AG ¶ 16 (a)
(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) 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 that the person may not properly safeguard protected
information. This includes but is not limited to consideration of: . . . 2) disruptive, violent,
or other inappropriate behavior at the workplace; 3) a pattern of dishonesty or rules
violations; 4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other employer’s time or
resources). Consequently, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate security concerns.
Applicant did not disclose his retail theft until after he left the store’s employment.
There is no evidence his employer or local authorities were informed of his crime.
Moreover, there is no documentary evidence that Applicant immediately tried to correct
what he maintains is a mischaracterization about a loan from a co-worker. Furthermore,
it is clear that Applicant fails to appreciate the form and consequences of the military
discharge he was given. Although Applicant wanted to be released from the military, the
ultimate decision to discharge him belonged to the command, not to Applicant. The
command chose to discharge him under honorable terms for other designated physical
or mental conditions, not a disability, under separation code “JFV” with a reentry code
of “3.” His record still reflects the alcohol and behavioral-related incidents that
occasioned his discharge. The official record does not confirm Applicant’s assertion that
he voluntarily separated from the military to be with his infant child. Personal Conduct
Mitigating Condition (PC MC) AG ¶ 17(a) (the individual made prompt, good faith efforts
to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the
facts) does not apply. 
Applicant, who was not previously known as an excessive drinker of alcohol, got
highly inebriated while deployed in 1997. He refused to honor his commitment to the
U.S. military by demonstrating apathetic, immature, inept, and unmotivated behavior
incompatible with military service. He did so in the hopes of returning to civilian life, well
after completing basic training and after being deployed abroad. As noted above, to
term his discharge as a voluntary separation sought to be closer to his child is less than
candid.
Moreover, while Applicant provided evidence that he did not accept a bribe in
1999-2000 while employed in retail, he admitted he stole from his former retail
12
employer when he worked there. Although the theft occurred over a decade ago, the
incident is particularly worrisome because he was in a position of trust at the time.
There is no evidence that he has since informed his former employer of his criminal act
or that either restitution or other ameliorative action has been extended to his former
employer, compounding concerns regarding his candor and his ability to take
responsibility for his behavior. Therefore, neither AG ¶ 17 (c) (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 cast doubt on the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) nor AG ¶ 17(e) (the individual
has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation, or duress) applies. While all these underlying incidents occurred several
years ago, Applicant’s actions and his continued depiction of them sustain security
concerns regarding his candor, willingness to comply with rules and regulations, and
trustworthiness. Consequently, personal conduct security concerns remain unmitigated.
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2 (a). Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate
determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall
commonsense judgment based on 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, as well as the “whole-person”
factors. Applicant is a 32-year-old high school graduate who has completed multiple
certification programs. He is married and has four children. He briefly served in the U.S.
military before seeking a discharge. He recently attained a salary level that has enabled
him to address delinquent debts he mainly acquired between 2000 and 2005. He is
active in his community and valued as an employee. 
Although more work is warranted, Applicant demonstrated that he has initiated a
reasonable, effective, and successful plan to address his delinquent debts. While the
dispute process has delayed his progress, notable strides have been made.
What remains are security concerns regarding Applicant’s personal conduct.
Desperate to get out of the military, he chose to get inebriated and disruptive while
serving abroad. This led to the suspension of his SCI access. He then offered his
drunken bout as an excuse for a military discharge. Apparently realizing that Applicant’s
heart was elsewhere, the military extended a form of discharge that would permit him to
return to civilian life. While the discharge may have been partly extended to
accommodate Applicant’s desire to reunite with his child, it appears to have also been
extended to relieve the ranks of a disgruntled individual. It was not a voluntary
separation initiated simply to reunite father and child, as Applicant maintains. Whether
his misrepresentation of the discharge is intentional or whether it is the result of a
failure to understand the nuance of the action is unclear. Given the intervening decade
13
since that discharge executed, however, the misrepresentation indicates a lack of
diligence to understand the nature of his discharge, if not a poor capacity for candor.
Similarly worrisome is Applicant’s failure to inform or make restitution to his former retail
employer of his thefts, which he perpetrated when he was an asset protection officer.
This continued failure not only perpetuates his violation of his employer’s trust, but
sustains concerns about Applicant’s ability to follow rules and regulations.  
The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations
should err, if they must, on the side of denials. Any reasonable doubt about whether an
applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of
protecting such sensitive information. Here, personal conduct security concerns remain
unmitigated. Clearance 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.z: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge