1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 10-00438
 )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
In 1999, Applicant and his wife were working and meeting their financial obligations.
When his wife became sick and had surgery in 2003, Applicant turned to credit cards for
a short time to help pay bills. Applicant exercised good judgment by halting his credit card
use. The credit reports show he has incurred no new debt since January 2007. Applicant
deliberately omitted material information on his security form in October 2009. Conversely,
at the hearing he voluntarily confessed to his dishonest conduct before being confronted
with the falsification. On balance, because I do not find Applicant a security risk, I find for
Applicant under the financial and personal conduct guidelines. Eligibility for access to
classified information is granted. 
2
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP)(GE 1) on October 14, 2009. On June 4, 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 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) implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1,
2006. 
Applicant submitted his answer to the SOR on June 30, 2010. DOHA issued a
Notice of Hearing on September 14, 2010, for a hearing on October 6, 2010. The hearing
was held as scheduled. At the hearing, three exhibits (GE 1 through 3) were admitted in
evidence (without objection) in support of the Government’s case. Applicant testified.
Applicant’s three exhibits (AE A through AE C) were admitted without objection. The
hearing record remained open until October 15, 2010, to allow Applicant to submit
additional evidence. DOHA received no additional evidence. The record closed on October
15, 2010. DOHA received the transcript on October 19, 2010. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR alleges nine allegations (SOR 1.a through SOR 1.i) under the financial
considerations guideline. The nine accounts, which include two telephone accounts and
seven credit card accounts, total approximately $45,884. SOR 2 lists one allegation (SOR
2.a) under the personal conduct guideline. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant did not
respond individually to each allegation of the SOR. At the hearing, Applicant admitted all
nine allegations under financial considerations and one allegation under personal conduct.
(Tr. 13, 39) Applicant’s admissions are incorporated into the following findings of fact. 
Applicant is 81 years old. He was married to his first wife for 23 years. The record
does not disclose the reason why the marriage ended. He has been married (common law)
to his current wife since September 1970. (GE 1, 20) At the present time, he has ten
children from two marriages. He has been employed as a postal administrator for a defense
contractor since February 1986. 
Financial Considerations
The nine delinquent accounts total approximately $45,884. Seven of the accounts
became delinquent between 2005, 2006, and January 2007. SOR 1.a (cellular phone, 
3
$155) became delinquent in April 2009, and SOR 1.b (cellular phone, $400) became
delinquent in March 2008.
In December 1999, Applicant had about six credit cards and was current on all his
financial obligations because he had the availability of overtime to earn extra money. (Tr.
47). Applicant’s wife was working as a cook for several restaurants. She earned about
$1,200 a month or approximately $12,000 a year. (Tr. 49)
In 2003, his wife could no longer work because of her advancing rheumatoid
arthritis. She also had a back operation that fused several discs in her back. (Tr. 28) She
began receiving a disability, but not nearly enough to assist in paying off the larger credit
card debt. In addition, Applicant was no longer allowed to work overtime. After his wife
became sick, Applicant permitted his children to use his credit cards. (Tr. 13) Sometimes
they repaid him and sometimes they did not. (Tr. 24) He did not apply for any new credit
cards. (Tr. 33) In his recollection, he never misused the credit cards for extravagant
expenditures. (Tr. 21, 23-24) The only credit card Applicant uses now is the one he needs
to obtain medication for his wife. (Tr. 34) The cell phone accounts in SOR 1.a and 1.b were
in Applicant’s name, but were used only by his daughters. (Tr. 34-35)
Since 2000, Applicant has been living in the same house, and paying the same
mortgage of about $693 a month. Currently, his wife, daughter, daughter-in-law, and three
grandchildren live with him. (Tr. 36) One of his daughters provides approximately $200 a
month to the household expenses for herself and her ten-year-old daughter. Applicant’s 18-
year-old granddaughter lives with him because she cannot get along with her stepmother.
Her biological mother moved away. (Tr. 51) Applicant’s daughter-in-law is not working. (Tr.
22) The record does not explain the status of the third granddaughter. 
For the last four to five years, Applicant has earned about $700 every two weeks.
He pays about $200 every two weeks for medical insurance, and is happy to have the
medical insurance because his wife’s medical problems have been costly. Since 2003, he
estimates he has paid $20,000 in copayments to doctors and hospitals. (Tr. 29) He puts
approximately $40 a month into his retirement savings plan. 
When Applicant’s wife stopped working in 2003, he made a conscious decision to
focus on the mortgage, utilities, and his wife’s copayments. (Tr. 21) He has received
telephone calls and letters from the creditors seeking various settlement offers. Since the
onset of his wife’s sickness in 2003, all Applicant’s earnings, even his tax returns, have
been applied to day-to-day or month-to-month needs of his wife and family, and paying the
utilities. (Tr. 38) Because his earnings have usually been exhausted by family needs, he
is unable to meet settlement demands. Applicant has never tried to repay the debts
because he is unable. If he could repay the delinquent account, he would. (Tr. 39-42)
4
Applicant has never had financial counseling. (Tr. 35) He has always been current
in filing and paying his taxes. (Tr. 38)
Personal Conduct 
On October 26, 2009, Applicant completed and certified an e-QIP. In response to
three questions of Section 26, Applicant answered “no.” Those questions are: 26 g. (Have
any bills been turned over to a collection agency?); 26 m. (Have you been over 180 days
delinquent on any debt(s)?); and 26 n. (Are you currently over 90 days delinquent on any
debts?) At the hearing, Applicant admitted he deliberately lied about his finances on the e-
QIP because of his age and embarrassment. He explained why he answered “no” to the
financial questions:
Well, because here I am, at that time I was only 79 years old [when he filled
out the e-QIP in 2009] and I should have retired ten, fifteen years already.
And I’m still working. I’m still working my 40 hours a week. I was so
embarrassed when they asked you that question and I was on the
questionnaire there I said no, not thinking that it was going to create such a
big thing. You know, Hey, I’m working. I’m paying my taxes which I do every
year. And I’m not asking anybody for anything. So, yes, I did lie. I’m admitting
to that I lied on the application as far as my finances were concerned. (Tr. 22-
23, 43-44)
Character Evidence
Applicant’s performance evaluation covers the period from January to August 2010.
Applicant’s overall evaluation was “meeting expectations,” meaning that he fully met all job
responsibilities and performed his job in a manner consistent with the objectives of his
employer. The evaluation was signed by Applicant’s manager who furnished a character
statement. (AE B)
In his character statement dated October 5, 2010, Applicant’s manager indicated
that from his knowledge of Applicant’s job performance over many years, he is completely
satisfied with Applicant’s organization, trustworthiness, efficiency, and cooperative manner
in performing his job tasks. (Id.) Applicant’s supervisor has known Applicant for 15 years
and supervised him for the last three. He considers Applicant to be a friendly, honest
employee, who cares about the quality of his job performance as much as he cares about
his wife, daughter-in-law, and three grandchildren. (AE C)
There is no indication in the record that Applicant has a criminal history, that he has
ever abused alcohol or engage in illegal drug use. (GE 1)
5
Credibility Findings
Having carefully listened to Applicant’s failure to repay his creditors and his
explanation for omitting the financial information from his e-QIP, I find he intentionally
falsified the form, but is genuinely contrite about his dishonest conduct. 
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. 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 the potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.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.
6
There are two disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 that may apply:
AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and 
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). 
Applicant owes almost $46,000 in delinquent debt to nine creditors. He is willing but
unable to pay those creditors. The delinquent debt history began in 2005 when the first
account became delinquent. There is no indication that Applicant’s financial problems were
caused by dishonesty, gambling, drug use, or abuse. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) apply. 
Two 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); and
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).
As the 1999 credit bureau report shows, Applicant was current with his financial
obligations. If he had a problem meeting bills, he could earn extra income by working
overtime. In addition, he could rely on his wife’s earnings. In 2003, his financial stability was
altered dramatically with his wife’s sickness and back surgery. Without the option of
working overtime and his wife’s inability to work, Applicant resorted to credit cards to pay
the bills, but he did use the cards for unnecessary items. The record suggests, however,
that his children probably abused the credit cards and cellular accounts, particularly at
times when they did not repay him. Except for the two cellular accounts, which Applicant
activated for his daughters in early 2008 and 2009, he has not applied for any additional
credit cards and has incurred no new delinquent debt since January 2007. The unforseen
circumstances of his wife’s illness and surgery in 2003, and Applicant’s actions to stop his
use of credit, entitle Applicant to mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b). Applicant’s problem is that
he is unable to repay the listed creditors. 
7
Personal Conduct
Paragraph 15 of the AG sets forth the security concern for personal conduct: 
AG ¶ 15. 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 following disqualifying condition under ¶ 16 may apply: 
AG ¶ 16(a) deliberate omission or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel security questionnaire to determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness.
The focus of AG ¶ 16(a) is the intentional concealment or omission of material
information from an e-QIP. On October 26, 2009, Applicant filled out an e-QIP. He
answered “no” to Section 26 g. (any bills or debts turned over to a collection agency?);
Section 26 m. (debts over 180 days delinquent in the last 7 years) and 26 n. (debts over
90 days delinquent). At the hearing, Applicant admitted he lied on the form by deliberately
omitting financial information. The financial information is material because a person’s
credit history may make him resort to illegal acts to generate funds, or make him vulnerable
to coercion or influence. The Government has a legitimate right to know about financial
information in order to make a more informed decision about an applicant’s security
worthiness. 
There are three mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 that are potentially applicable
to the circumstances in this case. Those conditions are: 
AG ¶ 17(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the
omission, concealment or falsification, before being confronted with the facts;
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; and 
AG ¶ 17(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained
counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable or
8
other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.
Applicant receives some mitigation from AG ¶ 17(a). While his disclosure that he
intentionally omitted information from his e-QIP did not occur until the hearing, he
volunteered the information early in the hearing during his discussion of the reasons for his
financial problems. 
Applicant also derives some mitigation from AG ¶ 17(c). The offense was not minor
because Applicant answered “no” to three questions covering major areas of his financial
history. Applicant’s candor in unequivocally and remorsefully confessing his dishonesty and
providing the reasons, demonstrates to me that he will not act in the same dishonorable
fashion in the future. Applicant has acknowledged his dishonesty and demonstrated that
his behavior is an aberration from his general habit of honesty and trustworthiness on the
job. Judging by the totality of the circumstances, the personal conduct guideline is resolved
in his favor. 
Whole-Person Concept 
In evaluating Applicant’s security clearance worthiness, I have examined the
evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of the financial and personal
conduct guidelines. 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
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.
Applicant is 81 years old. He has been married for 40 years. He has been working
for his employer for almost 25 years. The record demonstrates that in 1999, with the
availability of overtime and his wife’s earnings, Applicant was meeting his financial
obligations. In 2003, Applicant’s wife became ill and had surgery. Since then, Applicant has
spent about $20,000 in copayments for his wife’s surgeries and treatment. There are seven
delinquent credit card debts, but, except for the two cellular accounts, Applicant has
incurred no additional debt since January 2007. 
9
As observed by Applicant’s manager over the course of many years, Applicant has
provided a consistently good job performance characterized by his trustworthiness. He has
been a good family man who is providing shelter and care for his wife, daughter, daughter-
in-law, and three granddaughters. With no record for security infractions or disciplinary
problems on the job, no record of criminal conduct, no record of illegal drug use, and no
record of alcohol abuse, Applicant has overcome the adverse evidence under the financial
and personal conduct guidelines. 
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a through 1.i: For Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant access to classified information.
Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge