DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-04219
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 21, 2011
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on January 7, 2008.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On February 28, 2011, the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865
and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as
amended), issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed
reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the
Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a
security clearance for the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative
Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.
The Applicant responded to the SOR on April 5, 2011, and she requested an
administrative hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned
to the undersigned on July 5, 2011.  A notice of hearing was issued on July 8, 2011,
and the hearing was scheduled for August 11, 2011.  At the hearing the Government
presented ten exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 10, which were
admitted without objection.  The Applicant presented five exhibits, referred to as
Applicant’s Exhibits A through E, which were also admitted without objection.  She also
testified on her own behalf.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on August 25,
2
2011.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 38 years old and has four children.  She has completed the
eleventh grade.  She is employed with a defense contractor as an Information
Technician and is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with this
employment.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she is financially overextended and at risk
of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant denied each of the allegations set forth in the SOR, except 1(f).
Credit Reports of the Applicant dated February 9, 2008; March 4, 2009; March 25,
2009; November 8, 2010, and August 20, 2011, reflect that the Applicant is indebted to
each of the creditors set forth in the SOR, in an amount totaling approximately $33,000.
(Government Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10.)
In January 2008, the Applicant began working for her current employer as a
temporary employee.  She was hired permanently in March 2008.  Prior to 2008, the
Applicant was for the most part unemployed, as she had a son in 2004, and a daughter
in 2006.  In total, she has four children, two from one relationship and two from another.
In 2000, the Applicant divorced her husband with whom she had her two eldest children.
The divorce left her with no alimony or child support even though her husband was
ordered by the court to pay these to her.  The court also ordered that her husband
provide heath insurance for his two children.  (Applicant’s Exhibit B and Tr. p. 38.)  
In September 2010, the Applicant separated from her boyfriend of nine years,
with whom she has her two younger children.  She is now the sole supporter of all four
minor children, three of whom currently reside with her, the other resides with his father.
The Applicant simply was not earning sufficient income to keep up with her financial
obligations.   
The Applicant became indebted to the following creditors.  She states that when
she received information from the Department of Defense, she first learned of her
indebtedness.  She states that at that time, she started working to resolve her debts.
She claims that she has paid off several delinquent debts that are not alleged in the
SOR.  (Government Exhibit 7.)  In regard to the debts listed in the SOR: 1(a). She has
paid $200.00 toward a debt owed to a creditor for a medical bill in the amount of
3
$438.00.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.)  1(b).   Another debt owed to a creditor in the amount
of $438.00 remains outstanding.  (Tr. p. 53.)  1(c). The Applicant further claims that
because the father of her children was legally obligated to provide for the children’s
medical insurance, she is not responsible for the judgment that was entered against her
for their medical expenses owed to a creditor in the amount of $29,350.  She also
claims that she was never properly served in this legal matter.  (Tr. p. 54.)  1(d). She
states that she contacted a creditor concerning a debt owed in the amount of $976.00
but they could not identify the debt with the information she provided.  (Tr. p. 58.)  1(e).
The Applicant cannot recall a debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $658.00 nor does
she have any evidence to show that she has paid it.  (Tr. pp.  59-60.)  She believes it
may have been paid as it is no longer reflected on her credit report.  (Tr. P. 60.)  1(f).
The Applicant has settled a debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $242.00.
(Applicant’s Exhibit C.)  1(g). The Applicant states that she contacted a creditor
concerning a debt owed in the amount of $901.00 and was told that she is not in their
accounting system.  (Tr. p. 61.)  The Applicant failed to provide any documentary
evidence to support her testimony concerning any of her contacts with her creditors. 
Applicant’s personal financial statement dated August 17, 2011, reflects that after
paying her regular monthly expenses, without addressing any delinquent debts, she has
$629.00 left at the end of the month.  (Applicant’s Exhibit D.)  She currently earns
approximately $40,000 annually.  (Applicant’s Exhibit E.) 
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance determination because she intentionally
falsified material aspects of her personal background during the security clearance
process.
The Applicant denies each of the allegations set forth in the SOR under this
guideline.  (See, Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)  The Applicant completed a security
clearance application dated January 7, 2008.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  Question 27(d)
of the application asked the Applicant, “In the last seven years, have you had any
judgments against you that have not been paid?”  The Applicant answered, “NO.”
(Government Exhibit 1.)  The Applicant failed to disclose the judgment set forth in
subparagraph 1(c) of the SOR.  (Government Exhibit 8.)    
Question 28.(a) of the application asked the Applicant, “In the last seven years,
have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debts?  The Applicant answered,
“YES.”  (Government Exhibit 1.)  However, she failed to disclose those debts set forth in
1(a) through 1(f) of the SOR.  (Government Exhibits 2, 3 , 4, 5 and 10.)    
Question 28.(b) of the same application asked the Applicant, “Are you currently
over 90 days delinquent on any debts?  The Applicant answered, “YES.”  (Government
Exhibit 1.)  However, she failed to disclose those debts set forth in 1(a) through 1(f) of
the SOR.  (Government Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10.)  
4
Question 29 of the same application asked the Applicant, “In the last seven
years, have you been a party to any public record civil court actions not listed elsewhere
on this form?”  The Applicant answered, “NO.”  (Government Exhibit 1.)  She failed to
disclose the judgment set forth in subparagraph 1(c) of the SOR.  (Government Exhibit
8.)  
The Applicant explained that in response to each of the questions on the security
clearance application concerning her finances, it was never her intention to lie, be
deceitful or corrupt the investigation process in anyway.  She states that she answered
the questions to the best of her knowledge at the time.  In hindsight, she realizes that
she should have reviewed her credit report and finances before filling out the
questionnaire.  Once the accounts were brought to her attention, she states that she
started working to resolve them.  (Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
20.(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;
5
Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
15.  The Concern.  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.
Condition that could raise a security concern:
None.
Condition that could mitigate a security concern:
None. 
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19,  in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
     b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavior
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
6
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order
. . . 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.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility and personal
conduct, which demonstrates poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with her security clearance eligibility.
The evidence shows that circumstances largely beyond the Applicant’s control,
namely, periods of unemployment, a divorce, having to support four children on her own
without alimony or child support, followed by another separation from her significant
other in 2010, caused her financial difficulties.  Since March 2008,  she has worked full
time.  She states that since then she has been working to resolve her debt.  She states
that she is now planning to file bankruptcy to discharge her debts, but she does not plan
to include her judgment as she believes her ex-boyfriend and the father of two of her
7
children is responsible for the debt as he carried the medical insurance for the children. 
       
Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Applicant has not met her
burden of proving that she is worthy of a security clearance.  She does not have a
concrete understanding of her financial responsibilities and has not sufficiently
addressed her delinquent debts in the SOR.  Thus, it cannot be said that she has made
a good-faith effort to resolve her past due indebtedness.  She has not shown that she is
or has been reasonably, responsibly or prudently addressing her financial situation.
She obviously does not understand the importance of paying her bills on time.  At this
time, there is insufficient evidence of financial rehabilitation.  The Applicant has not
demonstrated that she can properly handle her financial affairs or that she is fiscally
responsible.  Her largest debt, a judgment entered against her, remains owing and is
significant.  Assuming that she follows through with her bankruptcy and discharges her
debts, and then shows that she does not acquire new debt that she is unable to pay,
she may be eligible for a security clearance in the future.  Considering all of the
evidence, the Applicant has not introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation
or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case. 
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations, apply.  Although Mitigating Conditions 20.(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, applies, it
is not controlling.  Although she has paid a small amount toward several debts, her
largest debt remain owing and she remains excessively indebted.  Thus, she has not
done enough to show that she is fiscally responsible.  Accordingly, I find against the
Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).    
Under Guideline E, the Applicant did not deliberately conceal material information
from the Government on her security clearance application concerning her delinquent
debts.  Her testimony regarding this issue was credible and believable under the
circumstances.  Admittedly, she was careless in answering the questions, but she was
not deceitful.  At the time she answered the questions, she was not aware of the extent
of her indebtedness.  She knew that she had some debt, but she did not know the
particulars.  She now realizes the importance associated with the security clearance
application; and indicates that it in the future when she completes it, she will first obtain
her credit report as a source of reference and be as accurate as possible.  Accordingly,
I find for the Applicant under Guideline E (Personal Conduct.)  
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.)  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole- person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, a lack of candor, an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations,
8
and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard
classified information.
  
I have considered all of the evidence presented.  It does not mitigate the negative
effects of her financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on her ability to
safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has not
overcome the Government's case opposing her request for a security clearance.
Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and
conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.   
     FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.a.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: Against the Applicant.
      Subpara.  1.c.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.d.: Against the Applicant.
     Subpara.  1.e.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.f.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.g.: Against the Applicant.
Paragraph 2: For the Applicant.
        Subpara.  2.a.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.b.: For the Applicant.
      Subpara.  2.c.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.d.: For the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
the Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge
9