1
 
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-06493
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                          
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On May 16, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) noting security concerns arising under Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The action was taken
under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
(February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6,
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992),
as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented on
September 1, 2006. 
In a June April 8, 2011, response, Applicant admitted one of three allegations
raised under Guideline E and one of three allegations set forth under Guideline F. He
also requested an administrative determination in lieu of a hearing. On August 30,
2011, Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), which
included 13 attached items. Applicant submitted a timely response to the FORM that
included seven attachments.  The case was assigned to me on November 29, 2011.
Based on a review of the case file, I find Applicant failed to meet his burden regarding
the security concerns raised. Security clearance is denied.
 Applicant admits allegation (¶ 1.a) that he was dismissed for “tardiness and attendance problems,” but      1
noted that it was tardiness that led to his dismissal. FORM, Item 4 (Response to the SOR), dated Jun. 8,
2011).
 FORM, Item 9 (Response to Interrogatories, signed Nov. 16, 2010) at 7.      2
 See SOR allegation ¶ 1.b.      3
 FORM, Item 6 (Questionnaire for Investigations Processing, dated Apr. 21, 2009) at 37 of 38.      4
 See SOR allegation ¶ 1.c.      5
 FORM, Item 8 (Response to Interrogatories, signed Oct. 16, 2010) at 3.      6
 Id. at 6.      7
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 28-year-old help desk analyst who has worked for the same
defense contractor since June 2009. He earned a high school diploma and completed
about three semesters of college. Applicant is single and has no children. 
In 2005, Applicant was terminated from a job due to tardiness.  He used1
marijuana on various occasions in 2007, while attending college. In December 2008, he
was dismissed from college after failing to rehabilitate his grade point average (GPA)
during academic probation. In March 2009, he was terminated from another job after
being cited for inaccuracy on his time sheet. Applicant stated that the dismissal was
without cause.   2
In April 2009, while completing a Questionnaire for National Security Positions,
he answered “no” to Section 23: Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity.  In thus3
answering that question, Applicant denied using illegal drugs, including marijuana, in
the preceding seven years. He certified his answers to that application and wrote, “I’ve
completed all previous questions truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I can
provide any additional details if necessary.”  He similarly denied past drug use in4
response to an investigator’s questioning during an April 26, 2010, interview.  In5
completing signed interrogatories notarized on October 16, 2010, Applicant wrote,
“Marijuana not used. I tried it several years ago a few times and the amount was very
minimal.”  After noting that he currently takes Adderall, a prescription medication6
generally used for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), he stated, “[w]hen
initially answering questions related to past drug use, I didn’t remember using marijuana
several years ago. It didn’t stand out in my mind when that question came up.”  On7
October 6, 2010, Applicant exchanged emails with his security officer. In one email, he
wrote that he was “curious about the security clearance process – regarding answers
we’d given to any previous questions. If we remember or find information that was
different than what was previously given, can we notify someone and make a
 Response to the SOR, Enclosure 1.      8
 Response to the FORM, Enclosure 1, Letter 2 (dated Oct. 25, 2011).      9
 Id.  at Enclosure 1, Letter 3 (dated Oct. 28, 2011).      10
 Id. at Enclosure 1, Letter 1 (dated Oct. 19, 2011).      11
 Response to the FORM, Enclosures 3 and 4 (Reports).      12
 Response to the FORM, Enclosure 2 at 4 (Client Budget). The budget reflects payments on three student      13
loans, with the recommendation that he eliminate payments on one account, presumably under the
assumption one might be deferred. However, there is no record evidence showing that actual payments have
been made on the specific student loans at issue (ie. payment stubs, receipts, debit reports, statements, etc.).
 Response to the FORM, Enclosure 2 at 3 (Case Action Plan).       14
 Response to the FORM, Enclosure 3 at 1 (Notes).      15
 Response to the FORM, Enclosure 6 at 1 (Letter, dated Apr. 15, 2011).      16
3
correction? Sometimes I forget things but remember them later. . . .”  Subsequently, he8
also explained that he had forgotten about the incidents until his girlfriend reminded him
of his 2007 drug use after he had completed the 2009 security clearance application
and 2010 interview.
Since starting his current job, Applicant has proved to be an impressive worker.
His supervisor describes him as a “person of very good moral character . . . with
integrity . . . [and] is also hard working and dedicated, and never leaves a job
unfinished.”  One work peer wrote, “when faced with situations at work that he might not9
know the answer to, [Applicant] checks with co-workers to ensure that he is always
performing actions within the organization’s [sic] policies and guidelines.”  Another10
work peer wrote that he “uses good judgment.”  11
In his personal life, Applicant recently completed financial counseling and a
telephonic financial planning program.  He has a total current monthly income of12
$2,338 and $3,467 in expenses, including student loan payments, leaving a net monthly
negative remainder of $1,129.  His financial counselor recommended that he comport13
his spending to allow for adjusted living expenses of $2,530, leaving him deficient by
only $192 each month in income. It was recommended that he track his daily
expenditures, work all available overtime, and seek counsel regarding his student loans
in order to adopt the recommended budget.  It is his intention to do so. Regarding his14
student loans, he was urged to seek a hardship deferral and to consolidate the loans.15
He was previously denied a request to consolidate his student loans in April 2011.16
At issue in the SOR are three delinquent debts, amounting to about $78,180.
Applicant admitted the allegation regarding a charged-off $23,655 student loan (¶ 2.b),
but denied related allegations concerning two other charged-off student loans for
4
$30,315 (¶ 2.a) and $24,210 (¶ 2.c). Applicant reported the following to provide up-
dates on the status of those delinquent debts:
1.a – Applicant contacted the lender and requested validation of the balance alleged.
After receiving a validation letter, he inquired about available repayment options. He
provided evidence of four earlier payments made between 2007 and 2008. In 2010, he
preauthorized six monthly payments of $301. Applicant provided evidence of two such
preauthorized payments (February 2011 and April 2011) for the six-month period
ending May 2011. He wrote, however, that all six contemplated preauthorized payments
were made during that period. In his June 2011 SOR Response, he noted that he would
be contacting the lender to renegotiate the amount due for future monthly payments.
However, no proof of correspondence or additional payments on a formalized
repayment plan was included in his October 31, 2011 Response to the FORM.
1.b – Applicant contacted the lender. He referenced a credit report entry showing a date
of last activity on the account of April 2011 with an increased balance of $29,990
($23,655 in the SOR). No evidence of recent payments was submitted in his October
31, 2011 Response to the FORM.  
1.c – Applicant contacted the lender. He has concluded that this account was
transferred to the lender noted at 1.a. Consequently, he cross-referenced to the past
payments noted under that allegation. In his June 2011 SOR Response, he noted that
he would contact the collection agent about renegotiating monthly installments on the
account. However, no proof of additional payments or activity on a formalized
repayment plan was included in his October 31, 2011 Response to the FORM.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. The AG lists potentially disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law.
Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied in
conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative judge’s
over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under
AG ¶ 2 (c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole-person concept.” An 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
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record.
The United States Government (Government) must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. It is an applicant’s responsibility to
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      17
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      18
 See also EO 12968, § 3.1(b)  and EO 10865 § 7.      19
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      20
 Id.      21
 AG ¶ 15.      22
 Id.      23
5
present  “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts
admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel . . . .”  The burden of proof is17
something less than a preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion
is on the applicant.  18
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 safeguard classified information.
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about
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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security19
clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any20
reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive
information must be resolved in favor of protecting such information.  A security21
clearance denial does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline E – Personal Conduct
Security concerns arise from matters of personal conduct because “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.“  In addition, “any failure to22
provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process” is of special interest.  23
 AG ¶ 18.      24
6
Applicant was terminated from a job for tardiness in 2005, when he was 22 years
old. More significantly, he incorrectly denied using marijuana within the preceding seven
years when he completed an April 2009 security clearance application. He again denied
having used marijuana during an April 2010 interview with an authorized investigator.
These denials, if intentional, reflect deliberate attempts to omit or conceal the fact he
used marijuana in 2007. Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) AG ¶ 16 (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) and AG ¶ 16 (b) (deliberately providing false or misleading information
concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent
medical authority, or other official government representative) apply. With PC DCs
potentially raised, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate the security concerns.
Applicant argued that he forgot about his 2007 drug use when he completed his
April 2009 security clearance application and during his April 2010 interview.
Apparently, it was only after prompting by his girlfriend at some point between April
2010 and October 2010 that he remembered having used marijuana, a proscribed drug,
on more than one occasion three years earlier. Although, he ultimately admitted his
past drug use, a significant amount of time passed before his disclosure was made.
Such recent facts obviate application of Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition (PC MC)
AG ¶ 17 (a) (the individual made prompt, good faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts) and AG ¶ 17 (c)
(the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent,
or it happened under circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt
on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment). To the extent that he
ultimately divulged information about his past drug use on his own initiative and after an
attempt to seek guidance from his security officer, AG ¶ 17 (e) (the individual has taken
positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or
duress) applies in part. None of the other mitigating conditions apply.
Guideline F – Financial Considerations 
In this case, Guideline F is the appropriate guideline for consideration. Under
that guideline, “failure or an 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.”  Here, Applicant24
has considerable delinquent debt, of which he admits one delinquent account with a
balance between about $23,000 and $29,000 (SOR allegation ¶1.b). Although he has
sought financial counseling and is trying to improve his finances, he currently has a
negative monthly net remainder. There is no evidence of consistent and timely
payments on any of the accounts alleged. In light of these facts, Financial
7
Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy
debts) and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such
conditions raised, the burden moves to Applicant to mitigate related security concerns. 
The multiple debts at issue generally became delinquent in the mid-2000s, while
Applicant was in college. Applicant provided argument and some evidence suggesting
that the loans noted in SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a and 1.c may be related, but there is no
conclusive documentary evidence linking the two as duplicates. He also provided
evidence of a few past payments on one of the loans (¶ 1.a), but his proof does not
reflect an established and consistent repayment plan or notable debt reduction. More
importantly, there is no evidence of regular, timely, and on-going payments on the loan
obligations at issue. Given his current negative monthly net remainder and the negative
net remainder still remaining after he adopts his financial counselor’s proposed budget,
Applicant’s present financial situation remains dubious. Neither Financial
Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 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) nor AG ¶ 20 (d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies. 
 In relying on the record in an administrative determination, Applicant’s situation
must be assessed based on the limited facts offered. While he was terminated from at
least one job for cause, there is no evidence that he disputed his dismissal formally,
and he did not present documentary evidence demonstrating that his termination was
unjust. Aside from these job losses, there is insufficient evidence regarding the reason
why his debts are delinquent to give rise to AG ¶ 20 (b) (the conditions that resulted in
the behavior 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).
Applicant has received much needed financial counseling. The recommended
budget that resulted from that counseling should help Applicant in the future. At this
point, however, there is little evidence that it has helped Applicant implement a
workable scheme for satisfying the debts at issue. Therefore, AG ¶ 20 (c) (the person
has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications
that the problem is being resolved or is under control) does not 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 an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). 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. As noted above, the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the
applicant seeking a security clearance. 
8
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
In choosing a decision without a hearing, however, there are scant facts of record. It is
noted that Applicant is a 28-year-old with a high school diploma who attended some
college. Both his financial issues and his personal conduct issues arose when he was in
his mid-20s. Despite the irresponsibility he demonstrated at work and at school a few
years ago, he appears to have matured considerably in the past two years. He has won
the respect of his supervisor and colleagues as a moral and productive employee. His
materials in response to the SOR and FORM were well presented and organized. 
With regard to Applicant’s personal conduct issues, I would be remiss in not
noting Applicant’s comment in 2010 that he currently takes the ADHD medication
Adderall. Such medication for that condition is known to be highly effective and likely
contributed to Applicant’s improved focus, recollection, and work-related performance
over the past couple of years. ADHD could also be a likely explanation for his failure to
initially disclose what appears to have been a brief and infrequent use of marijuana.
Applicant’s denial that he intentionally meant to falsify or mislead in denying past drug
use seems genuine. It is hard to believe that, in October 2010, he could have plotted to
utilize emails with his security officer concerning his difficulties with recollection as a
future disclaimer for his failure to disclose his past marijuana use. Regardless, since
that time, he has been fully candid about his past drug use. Given these factors, I
conclude that Applicant has presented sufficient evidence to mitigate personal conduct
security concerns. 
Applicant has received financial counseling and is working toward resolving his
debt-related issues. Although he provided evidence that he has been in contact with his
lenders, he failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence that he has adopted the
budget proposed by his financial counselor. More importantly, he has yet to develop a
demonstrated record of timely and consistent payments on his student loans. While he
appears poised to begin such a plan, it has not been implemented. This process does
not require repayment of all of one’s debts. But it does demand that there be a
workable plan in place and evidence demonstrating that it has been successfully
implemented. Given the facts, Applicant has yet to meet that standard. Given the scant
facts of record, I conclude that Applicant failed to meet his burden. Financial
considerations security concerns remain unmitigated. Clearance is denied.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c:   For Applicant
9
Paragraph 2, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.c:   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 access to classified
information. Clearance denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge