1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-08360
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
February 1, 2012
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on September 18, 2009.  On June 1, 2011, the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guidelines F and E for the Applicant.  The action was taken
under 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 (AG), effective within the
Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
The Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on June 7, 2011.  He answered
the SOR in writing on June 22, 2011, and requested a hearing before an Administrative
Judge.  DOHA received the request on June 27, 2011, and the case was assigned to
another Judge on August 10, 2011.  The case was reassignmed to the undersigned on
September 26, 2011.  DOHA had already issued a notice of hearing on September 21,
2011, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on October 25, 2011.  The Government
2
offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 8, which were received without objection.  The
Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through E, which
were received without objection.  DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on
October 28, 2011.  I granted the Applicant’s request to keep the record open until
January 3, 2012, to submit additional matters.  On January 3, 2012, he submitted
Exhibit F, which was received without objection. The record closed on January 3, 2012.
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, the Applicant admitted the factual allegations in
Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.c., 1.f.~1.l., 1.n., 1.o. and 1.q. of the SOR, with explanations.  He
denied the factual allegations in Subparagraphs 1.d., 1.e., 1.m., 1.p., 1.r., 1.s. and 2.a.
of the SOR.  He also provided additional information to support his request for eligibility
for a security clearance.
Guideline F - Financial Consideration
In 2006~2007, the Applicant’s wife went through a difficult pregnancy; and as a
result, she could not work, which caused a significant reduction in their family income.
(TR at page 30 line 13 to page 31 line 8.)  She returned to work; but in 2009, the
Applicant developed “a cyst,” which resulted in “almost a month of not working,” and
another reduction in their family income.  (TR at page 31 line 9 to page 33 line 14.)  In
2010, his wife had another difficult pregnancy, which further affected their family
income.  (TR at page 33 line 15, to page 34 line 5.)  After the baby was born, the
Applicant “developed high cholesterol, [and] high blood pressure,” which caused him to
be bed ridden and further impacted his ability to work.  (TR at page 34 lines 6~19.)  All
of the above caused the Applicant’s current financial difficulties.
1.a.~1.c., 1.f.~1.l., 1.n., 1.o. and 1.q.  The Applicant admits that he is indebted to
13 creditors in a past due amount totaling about $5,533.  (TR at page 41 line 13 to page
44 line 6, at page 46 line 7 to page 50 line 15, at page 51 line 10 to page 52 line 10, and
at page 52 line 20 to page 53 line 1.)  On December 1, 2011, the Applicant filed for the
protection of a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.  (See Closing Argument and AppX F.)  A
“Meeting of Creditors” was held on December 28, 2011, but no creditor appeared.  (Id.)
The deadline for objections to the Applicant’s discharge is on February 27, 2012, as
evidenced by a document from the Bankruptcy Court.  (AppX F.)  As no creditor
appeared at the “Meeting of Creditors,” it is also most likely that no creditor will file an
objection to the pending Discharge.
1.d., 1.e., 1.m., 1.p., 1.r., and 1.s.  The Applicant denies that these six debts,
totaling about $13,919, are his debts.  (TR at page 45 line 2 to page 46 line 6, at page
50 line 16 to page 52 line 5, at pages 52 lines 11~19, and at page 53 line 5 to page 54
line 5.)  Only one of these six debts, which totals about $1,067, appears on the
Government’s most recent October 2011 credit report.  (GX 8.)  This lends credence to
3
the Applicant’s claim that these are not his debts.  If it turns out that any or all of these
debts were the Applicant’s debt, they would also be covered by his December 1, 2011
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
2.a.  The Applicant failed to disclose any of his admitted past due debts in
answer to “Section 26: Financial Record” on his September 18, 2009 e-QIP.  (GX 1 at
pages 47~48.)  The Applicant avers that he was rushed filling out the e-QIP; and as
such, answered “No” to all the posited questions.  (TR at page 54 line 6 to page 55 line
25, and at page 62 line 7 to page 63 line 21.)  Rushed or not, I find that he should have
answered “Yes” where appropriate.  Furthermore, he could explain in more detail his
truthful answers during any followup interview.
More recently, the Applicant avers that he disclosed his past due debts as part of
the application process for “the Border Patrol.”  (Id.)  Despite my leaving the record
open for more than two months for the Applicant to submit this e-QIP, he has not done
so.  This further calls into question the Applicant’s credibility as to false answers in
Section 26, as alleged.  I find his September 2009 responses to be willful falsifications.
Policies
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG).  In
addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines
list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 the adjudicative process.  The Administrative Judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision.  According to AG
Paragraph 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny 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
Paragraph 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.  Likewise, I have avoided drawing
inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.15,
4
the Applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut,
explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department
Counsel. . . .”  The Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a
favorable security decision. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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.
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.”  See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).
Analysis
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in Paragraph 18:
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 guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns.  Under
Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  Applicant had significant past due debts that
he had been unable to address in a timely fashion.  The evidence is sufficient to raise
these potentially disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer examination.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties.  Subparagraph 20(b) applies where “the
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
control (e.g., loss of employment . . . unexpected medical emergency . . .) and the
5
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.”  Here, the Applicant’s spouse
had two difficult pregnancies that resulted in her not working, and the Applicant was
unable to work for brief periods due to medical problems.  Subparagraph 20(d) applies
where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts.@ The Applicant has now addressed all of his
admitted past due debts through the protection of a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.  He should
soon be discharged of his past due indebtedness.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in
Paragraph 15: “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.”
The following Disqualifying Condition under Subparagraph 16(a) applies.  It
provides that the “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts
from any personnel security questionnaire . . . or similar form used to conduct
investigations . . .” may be disqualifying.  I can find no countervailing Mitigating
Condition here, as the Applicant could have easily answered his e-QIP honestly, even if
he did not know the particulars of his debts.
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 the circumstances.  Under AG Paragraph 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.
The Administrative Judge should also consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at AG Paragraph 2(a):
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
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.
I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  His Assistant Facility Security Officer
manager speaks most highly of the Applicant, although it is unclear if she knew the
6
particulars of the Applicant’s case (AppX A).  The record evidence leaves me with
questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
For these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising
from his Personal Conduct.
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 J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.s.: For Applicant
Paragraph 1, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
_________________
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge