1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-03182
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 10, 2011
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On October 19, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines
F and E for Applicant. (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 within the Department of Defense for SORs
issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On November 10, 2010, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 2.)
On January 31, 2011, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the
FORM, Department Counsel offered nine documentary exhibits. (Items 1-9.) Applicant
was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on March 9, 2011. Applicant submitted
no additional evidence. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on March
2
24, 2011. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his RSOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations, 1.a. through 1.o.
under Guideline F, and 2.a., under Guideline E. The admitted allegations are
incorporated herein as findings of fact. 
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the admitted documents, and the FORM, and upon due
consideration of that evidence, I make the additional findings of fact: 
Applicant is 35 years old. He is employed by a defense contractor, and he seeks
a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense sector.
Paragraph 1 Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists fifteen allegations (1.a. through 1.o.) regarding financial difficulties
under Adjudicative Guideline F. The allegations will be discussed below in the same
order as they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $224. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2). He wrote, “It is my intention to have all the
discrepant [sic] debts taken care of and it has never been my intention to not take care
of them. In light of my financial situation concerning my debts, I will be receiving my
Service Connected Disability compensation that I have not received in the last 4 to 5
years due to a loan that was explained to an investigator I met with.” However, no
evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that
this debt is still outstanding. 
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $37,253. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $889. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
 
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,015. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,049. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
3
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $3,503. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $12,545. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $795. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $709. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $272. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $259. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.l. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $76. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.m. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $85. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.n. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $46. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.o. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $252. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and no evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
In the Personal Subject Interview, Applicant cites a number of reasons for his
financial difficulties. They include significant medical health issues, including surgery
and chemotherapy, which limited his ability to work, poor financial decisions, and his
student loans becoming due because his deferments ended. (Item 8.)
A Personal Financial Statement of Applicant was submitted with Applicant’s
response to Interrogatories. (Item 9.) While the statement is dated September 10, 2001,
4
it appears that it should be dated 2010 as the Leave and Earning statement attached to
it is dated August 20, 2010. It shows that Applicant has a monthly net remainder of
$2,058.88. There is no explanation as to why some of this remainder has not been used
to eliminate, or at least significantly reduce, Applicant’s debt. 
Paragraph 2 Guideline E, Personal Conduct
Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SCA) on September 10,
2007. (Item 4.) The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to provide truthful and candid
answers to Question 28. They will be reviewed in the same order as they were
addressed in the SOR:
2.a. Question 28 a. of the SCA asks, “In the last 7 years have you been over 180
days delinquent on any debts(s)?”  Applicant answered, “No” to this question
subsection. 
Question 28 b. of the SCA, which was erroneously cited in the SOR as (h) asks, “Are
you currently over 90 days delinquent on any debts(s)?” Applicant answered, “No” to
this question subsection. It is alleged in the SOR that he deliberately failed to disclose
that he has been delinquent on the accounts set forth in subparagraphs 1.a., 1.c., 1.d.,
1.e., 1.l., 1.m., 1.n., and 1.o., above.
In his RSOR, Applicant wrote, “I understand that I did answer ‘NO’ to these 2
questions; I should have pulled a credit report to fill out my Security Clearance
Application.” While Applicant may not have been able to list all of the 15 debts that are
listed on the SOR, no explanation was given for why he answered “No” to both
questions and failed to list any of the overdue debts cited in the SOR.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense 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
5
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
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.
 
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).  
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out 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 guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19 (a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶  19 (c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt. 
6
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. Under AG ¶  20(b), it may be mitigating where “the conditions that resulted in
the financial problem 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.” As
reviewed above, Applicant claimed that his poor finances were in part because of his
medical problems, which caused some unemployment. However, no evidence was
introduced to establish that he has resolved any of his considerable overdue debt, or
acted responsibly. Therefore, I do not find that this potentially mitigating condition is a
factor for consideration in this case. 
I conclude that until Applicant is able to significantly reduce his overdue debt, he
has not mitigated the financial concerns of the Government.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
With respect to Guideline E, I find that Applicant knew or should have known of
his extensive overdue debts that had been acquired over several years, and he should
have included these overdue debts when he completed his SCA. Because of his lack of
honesty and candor regarding very clearly written questions, I find that Applicant did
intend to mislead the Government.
The Government relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals seeking
access to our nation’s secrets. If such an individual intentionally falsifies material facts, it
is extremely difficult to conclude that he nevertheless possesses the judgment, and
honesty necessary for an individual given a clearance.
In reviewing the disqualifying conditions under Guideline E, I conclude that
because of Applicant’s “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant
facts from any personnel security questionnaire” that ¶ 16(a) applies against Applicant. I
find no mitigating conditions can be applied. I therefore, resolve Guideline E against
Applicant.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance 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): 
(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
7
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 a
security clearance 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, including all of the reasons cited
above as to why the Disqualifying Conditions apply and no Mitigating Condition is
applicable under either Guideline. Also, since this case is an Administrative
Determination, I have not had the opportunity to assess the credibility of the Applicant in
person, nor has any independent evidence concerning Applicant’s character been
submitted. Therefore, I find that the record evidence leaves me with significant
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance
under the whole-person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not
mitigated the security concerns. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.o.: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a.: 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 a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge