Item 6.1
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-00119
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant accrued more than $17,000 in delinquent debts over the past decade,
with no progress toward resolution of any of them during the two years he has been
employed in his current job. He made no showing of unusual circumstances giving rise
to these debts, or of behavioral changes to prevent continued financial irresponsibility.
He falsified his security clearance application by denying the existence of his financial
problems. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based on a review of the
pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on August 31, 2009.  On1
March 17, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guidelines
Item 1.2
Item 4.3
Item 5.4
The Government submitted ten Items in support of the SOR allegations. 5
2
F (Financial Considerations) and E (Personal Conduct).  The action was taken under2
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 for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information, effective within the Department of Defense after September 1,
2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on April 5, 2010, and requested a
hearing.  On June 12, 2010, Applicant communicated to Department Counsel that he3
wanted to change his election, and requested that his case be decided by an
administrative judge on the written record without a hearing.  Department Counsel4
submitted the Government’s written case on July 1, 2010. A complete copy of the File of
Relevant Material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an5
opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation
within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on December 20, 2010, and returned it to DOHA. He responded to the FORM in a one-
page written statement dated January 7, 2011, and expressed no objection to my
consideration of the evidence submitted by Department Counsel. The last sentence of
his response stated, “I have attached copies of transactions on the dates that I paid
from my accounts.” No documents were attached to, or included with, the response
when it arrived at DOHA. Applicant’s Facility Security Coordinator was informed that no
attachments were included with his response to the FORM, and in turn informed him of
that situation by email on January 25, 2011. 
On January 27, 2011, Applicant requested an extension of time to submit
additional matters concerning his efforts to resolve his debts. Included with that request
was a copy of some email communications on January 26 and 27, 2011, between
Applicant and a non-profit consumer financial education and credit counseling
organization. Department Counsel granted Applicant’s request for additional time until
February 15, 2011. On February 8, 2011, Applicant wrote to Department Counsel that
he was unable to obtain any further evidence to submit, and explained the status of his
efforts to that point. After clarification, Applicant indicated that he did not intend to
submit anything further, and did not want any more delay in order to do so. On February
22, 2011, Department Counsel reviewed Applicant’s various responses to the FORM
and indicated that he had no objection to the admissibility into evidence of the materials
submitted. I received the case assignment on February 24, 2011.
Item 6.6
Item 1; Item 4; Item 9; Item 10.7
Item 8.8
Item 7. 9
3
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 34-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he was hired
to perform overseas security support services in July 2009. He has never married, but
lives with the mother of his three children who are 9, 5, and 3 years old. In 1998, he was
honorably discharged from the Marine Corps Active Reserve after a four-year
enlistment. He is a high school graduate and attended one year of college while in the
Reserves. This is his first application for a security clearance. From September 2001 to
May 2009, he worked part-time as a security/entertainment coordinator for a saloon.
Without further explanation, he reported that he was unemployed from August 2008 to
June 2009 on his SF 86.6
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the truth of each allegation in the
SOR. After review of the credit reports submitted with the FORM, I conclude that the
two allegations, in SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.t, are listings by different collection agencies, at
different times, with different credit bureaus, of the same delinquent $236 cell phone bill.
That debt rose to $279 by the time the second collection agent reported it in 2009. After
eliminating that duplication, the total due on Applicant’s 23 SOR-listed delinquent debts
is $17,195.  7
Applicant told the investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
during an interview on November 19, 2009, that his many delinquent debts arose from a
number of credit cards and consumer loans, and from numerous court and traffic fines.
He said his financial issues started when he was young and in college, and he has
never had good credit records. He said that he had been unemployed and
underemployed over time, had never really gotten even, and continued to get behind on
some debts and fines. He wanted to make it a priority to pay his court and traffic fines
so he could get his driver’s license back. He further said that with his new contractor
position paying him a substantial salary, he would pay the overdue balances in two
months. In his February 2010 verification of the interview contents, he stated, “At this
time I am currently on contract in [overseas country]. My pay is 65K per year. I will start
making payments on these accounts in April 2010.  8
In his February 2010 response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant attached a
personal financial statement reporting his monthly net income of $3,736, monthly living
expenses of $2,280, no debt payments, and a monthly remainder of $1,486. He
remarked on that document, “After catching up on Bill [sic] the NET REMAINDER
should be what will be put towards my debt. I plan on having my debt take [sic] care of
by Jan 2011 and payment plan by April 2010.”   9
Item 4.10
Item 1; Item 4; FORM Response.11
FORM Response.12
4
In his response to the SOR, dated April 4, 2010, Applicant said:
I would like to add that during the interview for the background check I did
admit to this statement and that I knew I was in debt. I was wrong in not
answering the questions knowing that I am in debt. With this job I will be
able to clean up my debt in a matter of a year while not acquiring any
more debt. There is no reason or excuse as to why I answered on my [SF
86] the way I did. All I know is I am in [country] working and saving money
to pay off my debt as the funds are available. I will leave in June of 2010
and am looking forward to paying at least half of the Debt that I have off.
At the same time I plan on making arrangements on the rest of my debt to
have payment plans or full payment by early 2011. [He then discussed
how he needed a clearance for his job, and needed his job to pay his
debts.] . . . Given the time to save and pay my debt is all that I can do at
this time. I am working on getting in contact with debt collection agencies
at this time and looking to make some arrangements. Though nothing has
been paid at this time I know that by July 6  2010 I will have fewer debtsth
on the record and that those that are no longer on record would have been
satisfied in full.   10
In his first response to the FORM, dated January 7, 2011, Applicant claimed that
he “did not fill out the financial area [of his SF 86] completely and as accurately as
possible because I believed portions of my debt were more than 7 years old. . . . None
of the inaccuracies I reported were intentional or meant to be misleading.” As noted
above, however, he previously admitted the truth of the allegations in SOR ¶ 2
concerning his deliberate failures to disclose any information concerning judgments
against him and delinquent debts, by answering “No” in response to questions 26.e,
26.m, and 26.n on his SF 86 that inquired about their existence.  11
Applicant further stated, in his response to the FORM, that: 
I have, in the past year, not met my own expectations to pay my debt as
scheduled as I was met with family related hardships. These hardships
include my children being taken be [sic] the Department of Human service
and child welfare. My significant other currently [sic] going through medical
situations. However, when comparing the credit report pulled in
September 2009 and today, there are a few things that I had paid off in
May and June 2010. My repayment estimates were inaccurate and put me
off schedule. I am now diligently working on a new plan to pay down my
debt.12
FORM Response and subsequent email correspondence filed in blue folder.13
5
He closed his response to the FORM by stating that he had “attached copies of
transactions on the dates that I paid from my accounts.” The subsequent
communications between Department Counsel and Applicant described above in the
section titled “Statement of the Case” are incorporated herein as findings of fact.13
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. He submitted
no character references or other evidence tending to establish good judgment,
trustworthiness, or reliability. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or
character in person since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing. 
Policies
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the 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. 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, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
6
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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 record evidence established security concerns under two Guideline F DCs,
as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Applicant’s financial problems began more than a decade ago, and have not
improved in the two years during which he has been employed in his current position.
He owes more than $17,000 toward 23 SOR-listed delinquent debts. He demonstrated
no effective effort to resolve any of them, despite the apparent presence of a substantial
monthly surplus ever since he applied for a security clearance, and repeated statements
of his intent to address them. He offered no evidence from which to conclude that he is
willing to satisfy these debts or avoid incurring additional delinquencies. This evidence
raises substantial security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), thereby shifting the
burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(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
7
doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment; 
(b) 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;
(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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(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’s multiple delinquent debts arose over the past decade, and continue to
date. They are both frequent and recent, and were not shown to have arisen under
unusual circumstances. A substantial portion of the debt arose from court and traffic
fines. Applicant failed to demonstrate that his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment
have improved, and failed to resolve any of these debts even after their security
implications became apparent almost two years ago. The evidence does not establish
mitigation under MC 20(a). 
Applicant offered insufficient evidence to support mitigation under MC 20(b).
None of the debts were shown to have arisen from conditions beyond his control. The
debts all substantially predate his significant other’s vaguely-described recent medical
condition and the state’s taking of his children into custody. He offered no evidence of
financial counseling except for an email communication in late January 2011, and did
not establish clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control. His
stated intention to work with a debt management company in the future is insufficient to
establish a good-faith effort to repay his many overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
his debts, particularly in the absence of evidence of any concrete steps to do so. MC
20(c) and 20(d) are therefore inapplicable. 
The record evidence shows that the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h is a duplicate
listing of the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.t. This mitigates security concerns with respect to
the former debt under MC 20(e), even though Applicant did not recognize or raise this
issue. He admitted the legitimacy of the remaining debts alleged in SOR, for which the
record credit reports also provide substantial evidence. Accordingly, he failed to mitigate
those remaining allegations under MC 20(e).
8
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The potentially disqualifying condition alleged in this case is:
(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.
Applicant falsely answered “No” to three questions concerning the existence of
judgments against him and his delinquent debts on his security clearance application.
He admitted that he knowingly answered those questions falsely, and was wrong in
doing so. He admitted knowledge of and responsibility for the debts shortly after
certifying the truth of his false answers denying their existence. Appellant is educated,
and his late claim to have misunderstood the questions, in his FORM response was
unconvincing. His possible, and plausible, ignorance of the existence or particulars of a
few of his smaller delinquencies does not justify his affirmative denial of any delinquent
debt. He knew that he had a judgment against him, and a large number and amount of
significantly delinquent debts, yet denied those facts three times on his SF 86. Serious
security concerns under AG ¶ 16(a) were raised by these facts.
Other than a self-serving statement in his FORM response that his falsifications
were not intentional or meant to be misleading, Applicant offered no evidence that
would tend to support any mitigating condition under Guideline E. After careful review of
the record, I find that none of them apply. 
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 relevant 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
9
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which 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 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
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
adult, who is responsible for his voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the security
concerns expressed in the SOR. His financial irresponsibility spans the past decade,
and continues at present. It involves substantial delinquent debts totaling more than
$17,000, toward which he had made no documented payments at the close of the
record. He has yet to sufficiently demonstrate a willingness to fulfill his legal obligations
to his creditors, despite the apparent ability to do so during two years of employment in
his current position. He did not demonstrate that these debts arose under unusual
circumstances, or that he initiated any changes to prevent additional financial
difficulties. He offered no evidence of effective financial counseling, rehabilitation, or
responsible conduct in other areas of his life. Moreover, he deliberately falsified his SF
86 by denying the existence of these debts, demonstrating a lack of integrity or respect
for compliance with security procedures. The potential for pressure, coercion, and
duress remains undiminished. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s
present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to
mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial considerations.
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.s: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u through 1.x Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a and 2.b: Against Applicant
10
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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge