1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 11-06239
SSN:  )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
2
Eligibility for access to
classified information is
denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed and
certified her Electronic
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  f o r
Investigations Processing
(e-QIP, Item 4) on
February 24, 2011. She
3
was interviewed by an
investigator from the
Off ice of Personnel
Management (OPM) on
March 29, 2011. This
interview appears in her
Interrogatory Answers
p r o v i d e d  t o  t h e
Government on July 11,
2011. (Item 5) In her
interrogatory answers,
Applicant agreed and
adopted the investigator’s
summary of her March
4
2011 interview, and that it
could be used in a
security clearance hearing
to determine his security
su i tab i l i ty .  ( Id . )  On
September 6, 2011,
D O H A  i s s u e d  a
Statement of Reasons
(SOR, Item 1) detailing
security concerns under
c r i m i n a l  c o n d u c t
(Guideline J), financial
considerations (Guideline
F), and personal conduct
5
(Guideline E) The action
w a s  t a k e n  u n d e r
Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry
(February 20, 1960), as
amended; Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6,
D e f e n s e  I n d u s t r i a l
P e r s o n n e l  S e c u r i t y
C l e a r a n c e  R e v i e w
Program (January 2,
1992),  as amended
(Direct ive);  and the
6
adjudicative guidelines
(AG). 
Applicant furnished her
answer to the SOR on
September 19, 2011. A
copy of the Government’s
File of Relevant Material
( F O R M ,  t h e
Government’s evidence in
support of the allegations
of the SOR) was sent to
Applicant on November 2,
2011. She received the
7
FORM on November 8,
2011. In an attachment to
the FORM, Applicant was
advised she could object
to the information in the
F O R M  o r  s u b m i t
additional information in
e x p l a n a t i o n  o r
extenuation. She provided
additional information in
her response to the
FORM, dated November
22, 2011, which is now a
part of the record for my
8
review. The case was
assigned to me on
December 8, 2011. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR contains one
factual allegation under
the criminal conduct (SOR
¶ 1.a) and financial
guideline (SOR ¶ 2.a).
The first factual allegation
under the  persona l
conduct guideline is the
9
alleged omission from
Appellant’s e-QIP on
February 24, 2001. (SOR
¶ 2.a) The second
allegation under the
personal conduct is that
A p p l i can t ’ s  c r im in a l
conduct (SOR ¶ 1.a) also
rep resen ts  pe rsona l
conduct. (SOR ¶ 2.b)
Applicant admitted all
three allegations..
10
Applicant is 54 years
old and divorced. She has
no children. She has been
employed by a defense
contractor since June
1992. She is currently a
senior administrator. She
seeks a secret security
clearance. 
Criminal Conduct 
According to her e-QIP,
in early 2001, Applicant
11
was dating a male who
verbally and physically
abused her on a periodic
basis. After promising not
to abuse her again, they
purchased a house
together and had been
living together for nine
m o n t h s  w h e n  h e r
boyfriend instigated a fight
in December 2001. In a
effort to defend herself,
Applicant, 45 years old at
the time, shot him. 
12
On December 13, 2001,
Applicant returned to her
house (that she had
purchased wi th  her
boyfriend) about 9 P.M.
from her part-time job.
Shortly after her arrival,
her boyfriend began
accusing her of having an
affair and demanded she
leave immediately. He
struck her several times
and ripped off some of her
clothing. She became
13
fearful for her life and tried
to retrieve some clothes
so she could live with her
mother for a while. Her
boyfriend was about to
strike her again when she
remembered there was a
handgun in the closet.
She picked it up, pointed
it at her boyfriend, and
shot twice as he was
fleeing down the hallway
and out of the house. One
of the bullets hit him in his
14
b u t t o c k .  A p p l i c a n t
remained in the house
and called the police. She
w a s  a r r e s t e d  f o r
aggravated assault. 
After a jury trial in
August 2002, Applicant
w a s  c o n v i c t e d  o f
aggravated assault and
placed on probation for 10
years. She was ordered to
pay a fine of $500,
restitution of $1500,
15
perform 200 hours of
community service, and
complete 12 weeks of
anger management. 
Applicant provided
documentation verifying
her completion of the
a n g e r  m a n a g e m e n t
course in December
2002. (Response to
FORM) She provided
documentation proving
that on April 19, 2011, she
16
was officially discharged
from probation, having
completed all conditions
o f  h e r  s e n t e n c e .
(Response to FORM)
Applicant’s aggravated
assault conviction is the
only entry on her criminal
record. Applicant does not
believe she is a violent
person. She had never
fired a gun of any kind
before or since the
17
incident on December 13,
2001. She is remorseful
for her actions.
F i n a n c i a l
Considerations
On March 19, 2011,
A p p l i c a n t  t o l d  a n
investigator from OPM
that after reviewing the
information describing the
account in ¶ 2.a of the
SOR, that the credit card
18
a c c o u n t  b e c a m e
d e l i n q u e n t  i n
approximately 2008. (Item
5, March 2011 interview)
The reason the account
became delinquent was
because she could not
afford the payments after
they increased from $150
to $300 in a short span of
t ime.  (Response to
FORM) She stated to the
investigator that she
would contact the creditor
19
a n d  n e g o t i a t e  a
settlement figure. (Item 5,
March 2011 interview) A
March 10, 2011, credit
report reflects that the
a c c o u n t  b e c a m e
delinquent in August
2009, in an amount of
$16,393.
Personal Conduct 
20
Applicant executed an
e-QIP on February 24,
2011. In response to
question 26 (bills or debts
turned over to collection
agencies?), Applicant
answered “no.” At the
outset of an interview with
an OPM investigator in
March 2011, Applicant
was asked whether she
had bills turned over to an
i n v e s t i g a t o r ? ,  s h e
answered “no.” When the
21
investigator displayed the
credit report in front of
her, she acknowledged
the delinquent debt in
SOR ¶ 2.b belonged to
her. As noted earlier, she
stated she would contact
the creditor. The record
contains no evidence that
contact was made with
the creditor. 
In her response to the
FORM, Applicant stated,
22
“I knew that i had owed
the monies to the [bank],
but at the time was
thinking it would “fall off”
my credit report, which I
k n o w  i s  n o t  t h e
responsible thing to do. I
have come to realize
mistakes just don’t “go
away” and that you have
to face the music and take
responsibility for our
actions. I apologize for
this false statement and
23
am doing do diligence in
order to resolve the
issue.” (Response to
FORM, at second page)
No additional information
was provided.  
Policies
When evaluating an
applicant's suitability for a
security clearance, the
administrative judge must
consider the guidelines in
24
the AG. Each guideline
l i s t s  p o t e n t i a l l y
disqualifying conditions
and mitigating conditions,
which are useful in
evaluating an applicant's
eligibility for access to
classified information.
The administrat ive
judge's ultimate goal is to
reach a fair and impartial
decision that is based on
sound and pruden t
25
judgment. The decision
should also include a
c a r e f u l ,  t h o r o u g h
evaluation of a number of
variables known as the
"whole-person concept"
that brings together all
a v a i l a b l e ,  r e l i a b l e
information about the
person, past and present,
f a v o r a b l e  a n d
unfavorable, in making a
decision. I have avoided
d r a w i n g  i n f e r e n c e s
26
g roun ded  o n  m e re
speculation or conjecture.
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 the potential, rather
than actual, risk of
27
compromise of classified
information.
Under Directive ¶
E3.l.14., the Government
must present evidence to
establish controverted
facts alleged in the SOR.
Under Directive ¶ E3.l.l5.,
t h e  a p p l i c a n t  i s
responsible for presenting
"witnesses and other
evidence to rebut, explain,
extenuate, or mitigate
28
f a c t s  a d m i t t e d  b y
applicant or proven by
Department Counsel. . . ."
The applicant has the
u l t im a te  bu rden  o f
persuasion as to obtaining
a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Criminal Conduct
29
The security concern for
criminal conduct is set
forth in AG ¶ 30:
Cr im ina l  ac t iv i t y
creates doubt about a
person’s judgment,
r e l i a b i l i t y ,  a n d
trustworthiness. By its
very nature, it calls
i n t o  q ue s t i o n  a
person’s ability or
willingness to comply
30
with laws, rules and
regulations.
AG ¶ 31 of the criminal
conduct guideline lists two
disqualifying conditions
that may be applicable to
this case: AG ¶ 31(a) (a
single serious crime or
multiple lesser offenses),
and AG ¶ 31(c) (allegation
of criminal conduct,
regardless of whether the
person was formally
31
c h a r g e d ,  f o r m a l l y
prosecuted or convicted)
are applicable.        
Applicant was arrested
a n d  c h a r g e d  w i t h
aggravated assault on
December 13, 2001. After
a trial by jury, she was
found guilty of aggravated
assault and was placed
on probation for 10 years.
She was ordered to pay a
fine, provide restitution,
32
p e r f o r m  c o m m u n i t y
service, and complete
anger management. AG
¶¶ 31(a) and 31(c) apply. 
AG ¶ 32 lists the
mitigating conditions that
may be applicable in this
case: AG ¶ 32(a) (so
much time has passed
s i n c e  t h e  c r i m i n a l
behavior happened, or it
happened under such
circumstances that it is
33
unlikely to recur and does
not cast doubt on the
individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, or good
judgment), AG ¶ 32(d)
(there is evidence of
successful rehabilitation;
including but not limited to
the passage of time
without recurrence of
criminal activity, remorse
or restitution, job training
or higher education, good
employment record, or
34
constructive community
development). 
As the jury indicated
with their finding of guilty,
Applicant’s use of deadly
f o r c e  u n d e r  t h e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s  i n
December 2001 was
unreasonable under the
circumstances. Almost 10
years have passed since
the offense. In that time,
A p p l i c a n t  h a s  n o t
35
engaged in any criminal
c o n d u c t .  S h e  h a s
c o m p l e t e d  a n g e r
m a n a g e m e n t  a n d
community service. She
regrets the crime ever
occurred. 
36
37
F i n a n c i a l
Considerations 
The security concern for
financial considerations is
set forth in AG ¶ 18:
38
Failure or inability to
l ive within one's
means, satisfy debts,
and meet financial
o b l i g a t i o n s  m a y
i n d i c a t e  p o o r
self-control, lack of
j u d g m e n t ,  o r
unwillingness to abide
b y  r u l e s  a n d
regulations, all of
which can ra ise
questions about an
individual's reliability,
39
trustworthiness and
abil ity to protect
classified information.
An individual who is
f i n a n c i a l l y
overextended is at
risk of having to
engage in illegal acts
to generate funds.
Compulsive gambling
is a concern as it may
lead to f inancial
c r im e s  i n c l u d in g
espionage. Affluence
40
t h a t  c a n n o t  b e
explained by known
sources of income is
a l s o  a  s e c u r i t y
concern.  I t  may
indicate proceeds
f r o m  f i n a n c i a l l y
profitable criminal
acts.
The Government has
the responsibil i ty of
present ing suf f ic ient
information to support all
41
allegations of the SOR.
Based on the credit
reports (showing the
delinquent debts listed in
the SOR), Applicant’s
interrogatory responses
(including his November
25, 2008 interview), and
his answers to the SOR,
the Government has
p resen ted  su f f i c ien t
information to establish all
the allegations in the
SOR. AG ¶ 19(a) (inability
42
or unwillingness to satisfy
debts) and AG ¶ 19(c) (a
history of not meeting
f inancial  obl igat ions)
apply. AG ¶ 19(a) applies
based on Appl icant
inability to pay the
de l inquent  accoun ts
totaling approximately
$48,800. The credit
bureau reports establish
that AG ¶ 19(c) applies
because Applicant let four
accounts fall delinquent
43
between May 2006 and
February 2009. 
F o u r  m i t i g a t i n g
conditions are potentially
applicable. No mitigation
is available under 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
44
individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, and good
judgment). The four listed
debts became delinquent
between May 2006 and
February 2009. The
amount of delinquent debt
a n d  t h e  l a c k  o f
documented action to
a d d r e s s  t h e  d e b t
forecasts the probability
t h e  f i n a n c i a l
delinquencies will persist
in the foreseeable future.
45
The likelihood of financial
problems in the future
without a strategy to
e l im in a te  t h e  de b t
continues to cast a pall
over Appellant’s reliability
and judgment. 
AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in
the financial problem were
la rge ly  beyond  the
person's control and the
i n d i v i d u a l  a c t e d
46
responsibly under the
circumstances). Based on
the information Applicant
provided about the loss of
his job, this unanticipated
event would weigh in his
favor under AG ¶ 20(b) to
explain why he could not
continue to pay his
d e l i n q u e n t  d e b t s .
However, his SCA shows
he has been employed
consistently since 2001.
Without more information,
47
his unemployment claim
is not a credible reason
for not paying the listed
delinquent accounts. 
A p p l i c a n t  s h o u l d
receive credit for joining a
debt consolidation plan to
demonstrate he acted
r e s p o n s i b l y  a f t e r
becoming unemployed.
However, the credibility of
his debt consolidation
claim is substantially
48
diminished by the lack of
documentation of the
plan’s existence and of
payments under the plan.
The passage of time from
the end of 2008 (after he
claims he made his most
recent payments to three
of the listed creditors) to
June 9, 2010 (issuance of
t h e  S O R ) ,  w i t h o u t
documented action to
address his delinquent
accounts, results in no
49
mitigation for Applicant
under AG ¶ 20(b).
AG ¶ 20(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) does not apply.
The record does not
indicate Applicant had
financial counseling. His
50
enrollment in a debt plan
i n  F e b r u a r y  2 0 0 8
indicates that he was
concerned about his
delinquent debts, and
initially took responsible
action to pay the accounts
in an organized manner.
However, he furnished no
evidence showing he paid
into the plan or that he
paid any of the debts
independent of the plan.
S ince  there  is  no
51
indication of counseling or
that the delinquent debts
are under control, AG ¶
20(c) does not apply.
Applicant receives no
mitigation under AG ¶
20(d), (a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve
debts) because there is
n o  d o c u m e n t a t i o n
conf irming payments
under the plan. After
52
weighing and balancing
the disqualifying evidence
against the mitigating
evidence under the
f i n a n c i a l  g u i d e l i n e ,
A p p l i c a n t  h a s  n o t
p resen ted  su f f i c ien t
favorable evidence to
receive access to a
security clearance. 
Whole-Person Concept 
53
I have examined the
evidence under the
d i s q u a l i f y i n g  a n d
mitigating conditions in
my u l t imate f ind ing
against Applicant under
t h e  f i n a n c i a l
considerations guideline. I
have also weighed the
circumstances within the
context of nine variables
known as the whole-
person concept .  In
evaluating the relevance
54
of an individual's conduct,
the administrative judge
should consider the
following factors listed in
AG ¶ 2(a):
(1) the nature, extent,
and seriousness of
the conduct;
(2) the circumstances
s u r r o u n d i n g  t h e
conduct, to include
55
k n o w l e d g e a b l e
participation;
(3) the frequency and
r e c e n c y  o f  t h e
conduct; 
(4) the individual's
age and maturity at
the time of the
conduct; 
56
(5) the extent to which
the participation was
voluntary;
(6) the presence or
a b s e n c e  o f
rehabil i tat ion and
o th e r  p e rm a n e n t
behavioral changes;
(7) the motivation for
the conduct; 
57
(8) the potential for
pressure, coercion,
e x p l o i t a t i o n ,  o r
duress; and
(9) the likelihood of
c o n t i n u a t i o n  o r
recurrence.
Applicant is 50 years
old. He had a successful
20-year career in the
United States Army. He
received six prestigious
58
awards for laudable
military service in the field
of information technology.
The credit bureau
reports indicate that
Applicant began having
financial problems in May
2006 when the first listed
debt became delinquent.
After his divorce in
September 2006, three
additional debts became
delinquent by February
59
2009. To substantiate his
enrollment in the debt
plan and/or payments to
the plan, Applicant could
h a v e  p r o v i d e d
documentation. For some
reason, he decided not to,
even though he had a
chance to explain his
positions after he received
the FORM. Since the end
of 2008, Applicant could
have  t r i ed  ano the r
strategy, including a
60
Chapter 7 bankruptcy, to
eliminate his debts. He
could have tr ied a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy to
bring his delinquent debts
under control. Instead, the
record shows the only
action taken was to
cancel  the secur i ty
system contract. Without
a plan to address the
debts, the chances are
that Applicant’s current
financial problems will
61
continue in the future. See
AG ¶ 2(a)(1) through AG
¶ 2(a)(9). The financial
guideline is resolved
against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or
against Applicant on the
allegations set forth in the
SOR, as required by
sec t ion  E3 .1 .25  o f
62
Enclosure 3 of the
Directive, are:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline
F): A G A I N S T
APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a
through 1.d A g a i n s t
Applicant
Conclusion
63
In light of all of the
circumstances presented
by the record in this case,
it is not clearly consistent
with national interest to
grant Applicant eligibility
for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to
classified information is
denied. 
                      
64
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge