DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-11168
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
November 28, 2011
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on June 30, 2010.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On April 8, 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 June 22, 2011, and he requested an
administrative hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned
to the undersigned on August 4, 2011.  A notice of hearing was issued on September
22, 2011, and the hearing was scheduled for October 18, 2011.  At the hearing the
Government presented seven exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 7,
which were admitted without objection.  The Applicant called one witness and presented
six exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s Exhibits A through F, which were also admitted
without objection.  He also testified on his own behalf.  The record remained open until
2
close of business on October 28, 2011, to allow the Applicant the opportunity to submit
additional documentation.  The Applicant submitted no additional documentation.  The
official transcript (Tr.) was received on October 28, 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 31 years old and single with no children.  He is a high school
graduate with several technical college classes.  He is employed with a defense
contractor as an Avionics 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 he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admitted each of the delinquent debts set forth in the SOR under
this guideline, except 1(s) and 1(t), which are tax debts.  He also denied 1(u), 1(v), 1(w),
1(x), and 1y), regarding his failure to file his state and federal income tax returns.  Credit
Reports of the Applicant dated July 22, 2010; January 10, 2011; and October 17, 2011,
reflect that the Applicant is indebted to approximately twenty creditors set forth in the
SOR, in an amount totaling approximately $11,000.00.  (Government Exhibits 5, 6 and
7.)  
The Applicant began his employment with a defense contractor approximately
three years ago.  Prior to that, he worked at a gas station, a computer shop and he
repaired copiers.  He has never applied for or held a security clearance before.   
The Applicant explained that he grew up in a troubled and abusive home that
eventually ended up in divorce.  As an adult, he was immature, irresponsible and
careless and did not make it a priority to pay his bills.  As a result, he became indebted
to the creditors listed in the SOR.  In addition, while working as a self-employed copier
repairman, he did piece work and thought that taxes were being taken out of his check
when they were not.  He made a conscious decision not file his income tax returns as
he knew he would have a significant tax debt.  He did not file his federal income tax
returns for tax years, 2003 and 2006, nor did he file his state income tax returns for tax
years 2003, 2004 and 2006.  The SOR alleges delinquent taxes owed to IRS in the
amount of $2,741, and the state in the amount of $3,622.  Since working for his current
employer, over the past two and a half years, he has been working to resolve his tax
indebtedness.  In total, he believes he has paid $12,000 in back taxes.  He has paid off
3
his back tax debt, and he filed all of his income tax returns in January 2011.
(Applicant’s Exhibits D and E.)
The following delinquent debts remain owing: 1(a). A debt to a creditor in the
amount of $145.  1(b). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $707.  1(c). A debt
owed to a creditor in the amount of $644.00.  1(d). A debt owed to a creditor in the
amount of $913.  1(e). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $109.  1(f). A debt
owed to a creditor in the amount of $2,447.  1(g). A debt owed to a creditor in the
amount of $186.  1(h). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $122.  1(i). A debt
owed to a creditor in the amount of $954.  1(j). A debt to a creditor in the amount of
$1,461.  1(k). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $644.  1(l). A debt owed to a
creditor in the amount of $163.  1(m). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $124.
1(n). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $808.00.  1(o). A debt owed to a
creditor in the amount of $103.00.  1(p). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of
$604.00.  1(q). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $164.  1(r). A debt owed to a
creditor in the amount of $1,248.   
                                        
Now that he has paid his taxes, the Applicant plans to turn his focus on his
delinquent debts.  He states that he has between $500 and $600 monthly to now use
toward paying his debts and he plans to pay them off as soon as possible.  He is
embarrassed by his past and is committed to a new and improved lifestyle.  He wants to
eventually purchase a house and have a family.  He believes that he has significantly
matured and has turned his life around for the better. 
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he engaged in conduct involving
questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or an unwillingness to comply with
rules and regulations that raises questions about his reliability, trustworthiness and
ability to protect classified information.
The Applicant admitted the allegation set forth in the SOR under this guideline.
From 2006 through 2007, the Applicant took a variety of illegal drugs for various
reasons without considering the fact that they were illegal.  While he was drunk at
parties, he would use marijuana or cocaine a few times.  He used vicodin for a
toothache a couple of times.  A friend of his gave him some oxycotin that he used after
suffering a bad motorcycle accident where he hit a fence going 60 miles an hour.  He
did not go to the doctor because he had no medical insurance.  For the pain, he also
took morphine that was given to him by a roommate whose mother had passed away
from cancer.  He still suffers from an injured rotator cuf.  The Applicant now realizes
how stupid he was to self-medicate with illegal drugs.  He states that he has not used
any illegal drugs since 2007 and has no intentions of ever doing so in the future.        
The Applicant’s cousin, with whom the Applicant lives and works, testified that
the Applicant is working hard to rebuild his life after making many mistakes in the past.
He has shown maturity and plans to pay his other bills off as soon as possible.  He quit
4
drinking alcohol and using drugs, and has been extremely productive.  He is considered
trustworthy and responsible.
A letter of recommendation dated October 10, 2011, from a Platoon Leader and
2  Lieutenant in the United States Army Reserves who holds a security clearance andnd
has known the Applicant since the second grade, indicates that he has full confidence in
the Applicant to hold a security clearance.  Aware of his past mistakes, the Applicant
has still been a loyal friend, a steward of the community, a stellar student, and is gifted
in computer science.  He has seen the Applicant work toward self improvement and turn
himself around.  The Applicant is recommended for a security clearance.  (Applicant’s
Exhibit B.) 
A letter of recommendation dated October 17, 2011 from a Navy retired coworker
of the Applicant who has known him for the past two years, states that he has watched
the Applicant mature and grow in the defense industry.  In his opinion, the Applicant has
learned the importance of proper handling of classified information and believes that he
can be trusted with the nation’s secrets.  (Applicant’s Exhibit B.)
A letter of recommendation dated October 17, 2011, from a close friend of the
Applicant’s attests to his honesty and integrity.  (Applicant’s Exhibit B.)
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:
None.
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:
16.(c) Credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not
sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which,
when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, a lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with
rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not
properly safeguard protected information;
16. (e) association with persons involved in criminal activity.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
17.(c) The offense is so minor, or so much time as 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;
17.(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity has ceased or occurs
under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations.
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;
6
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.
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 poor 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.
7
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F) and has used illegal drugs
(Guideline E).  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 his security
clearance eligibility.
The evidence shows that for many years the Applicant was immature and
irresponsible.  He did not pay his bills, including his taxes, nor did he file his income tax
returns.  For the past two and half years he has been working toward resolving his tax
liability.  He has recently resolved his tax issues.  However, he not yet started to
address his other delinquent debts.          
Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Applicant has not met his
burden of proving that he is worthy of a security clearance.  Except for his back taxes,
he has not addressed one of his delinquent debts in the SOR.  Thus, it cannot be said
that he has made a good-faith effort to resolve his past due indebtedness.  He has not
set up a payment plan or made any attempt to pay his debts.  He remains excessively
indebted.  He has not shown that he is or has been reasonably, responsibly or prudently
addressing his financial situation.  At this time, there is insufficient evidence of financial
rehabilitation.  The Applicant has not demonstrated that he can properly handle his
financial affairs or that he is fiscally responsible.  Assuming that he follows through with
his plan to resolve his debts and shows that he does not acquire new debt that he is
unable to pay, he 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.  None of the mitigating conditions are applicable.  At this time he still
remains excessively indebted.  Thus, he has not done enough to show that he is fiscally
responsible.  Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).    
The Applicant’s illegal drug use was sporatic and irregular between 2006 and
2007, and has not recurred.  He has been drug free for the past four years and has no
plans to ever use any illegal drug in the future.  Under Guideline E, (Personal Conduct)
Disqualifying Conditions 16.(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative
issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single
guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person
assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, a lack of candor,
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating
that the person may not properly safeguard protected information, and 16. (e)
association with persons involved in criminal activity apply.  Mitigating Conditions 17.(c)
the offense is so minor, or so much time as passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or
it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
8
cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment, and 17.(g)
association with persons involved in criminal activity has ceased or occurs under
circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness,
judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations are also applicable.
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, including his favourable letters of
recommendation.  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, 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 his financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on his ability to
safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has not
overcome the Government's case opposing his 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.
      Subpara.  1.h.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.i.: Against the Applicant.
     Subpara.  1.j.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.k.: Against the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.l.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.m.: Against the Applicant.
      Subpara.  1.n.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.o.: Against the Applicant.
     Subpara.  1.p.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.q.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.r.: Against the Applicant.
9
      Subpara.  1.s.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.t.: For the Applicant.
     Subpara.  1.u.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.v.: For the Applicant.
     Subpara.  1.w.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.x.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.y.: For the Applicant.
Paragraph 2: For the Applicant.
        Subpara.  2.a.: 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