1 
 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of:   ) 
     ) 
    )  ISCR Case No. 10-03374 
    ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is denied.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On November 16, 2009, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for a position 
with a defense contractor. After an investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM), the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued an 
interrogatory to Applicant to clarify or augment potentially disqualifying information in his 
background. After reviewing the results of the background investigation and Applicant's 
response to the interrogatory, DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative findings 
required to issue a security clearance. DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR), 
dated November 9, 2011, to Applicant detailing security concerns for financial 
considerations under Guideline F, and personal conduct under Guideline E. These 
actions were 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, 
2 
 
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG). Applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the SOR on November 15, 2011. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR on November 22, 2011, admitting the 12 
allegations under Guideline F, and denied, with explanation, the allegation under 
Guideline E. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on January 18, 2012, and 
the case was assigned to me on February 21, 2012. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing 
on February 27, 2012, scheduling a hearing for March 21, 2012. I convened the hearing 
as scheduled. The Government offered four exhibits that I marked and admitted into the 
record without objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 4. Applicant 
testified. I left the record open for Applicant to submit documents. Applicant did not 
submit any documents. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on March 29, 
2012. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 40 years old and has been a data communication technician for a 
defense contractor since August 2009. He married in 1996, and divorced on September 
13, 2010. He has one child. (Tr. 9-10; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated November 16, 2009) 
 
Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 3, dated June 22, 2011, and Gov. Ex. 4, dated August 7, 
2011), and Applicant’s answers to the interrogatory (Gov. Ex. 2, dated August 17, 
2011), show the following delinquent debts: a telephone account in collection for $105 
(SOR 1.a); a cable account in collection for $351 (SOR 1.b); medical accounts in 
collection for $222 (SOR 1.c), $95 (SOR 1.d), $1,746 (SOR 1.e), $171 (SOR 1.f), $35 
(SOR 1.h), $609 (SOR 1.i), $235 (SOR 1.j), and $184 (SOR 1.l); another telephone 
account in collection for $106 (SOR 1.g); and a car repossession debt for $7,540 (SOR 
1.k). The total debt is approximately $11,000, with the car repossession debt accounting 
for over 70% of the debt. Eight of the debts are medical debts. 
 
Applicant’s personal financial statement, submitted in response to the 
interrogatory, shows monthly income of $2,443, monthly expenses of $2,356, leaving 
approximately $76 in monthly discretionary income. At the time of the hearing, Applicant 
had been laid off approximately a month because his company completed the contract 
he was working on and another contract was not yet available. He had not started 
drawing unemployment, so he has no income. He anticipated being called back to work 
in a few weeks. (Tr. 30-33) 
 
Applicant attributes his financial problems to his lack of employment, child 
support payments, and expenses from moving to seek employment. His employment 
history shows that, since 1999, he had 11 different jobs, many in different locations, in 
construction, manufacturing, and maintenance. He is willing to work and is seeking 
employment now that he has been laid off again. Applicant’s credit reports show that his 
accounts for his present debts are paid as agreed. He is also current with his child 
support payments. (Tr. 13-14; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated November 16, 2009, at 15-29)  
3 
 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.a for $105 is for telephone service at one of his 
former residences. He received a settlement offer for a payment of $52 from the 
creditor. He has not paid the settlement offer. (Tr. 13, 16, 17, 25-26)  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.b for $351 is for cable service and equipment. The 
largest part of the debt is for equipment. When Applicant moved, the cable company 
came and retrieved the equipment. He telephonically disputed the amount of the debt. 
He called the cable company to register his dispute, but he has not received any 
information from them. He is willing to pay the service fees part of the debt, but not the 
part of the debt for the equipment. He has not been in contact with the cable company 
or credit collection agency since he called with his initial dispute of the amount of the 
debt. (Tr. 13, 16-17, 26-27)  
 
The telephone debt at SOR 1.g is for telephone service at a location different 
from the delinquent telephone debt at SOR 1.a. He has not contacted the creditor about 
this debt, and it has not been paid. (Tr. 19, 27) 
 
When Applicant could not make payments on his car loan, he returned the car to 
the dealer, and the car was sold at auction. Applicant purchased the car for 
approximately $10,000 in 2000, made monthly payments of $351 before returning the 
car in 2001. He believes he owed about $9,000 on the vehicle when he returned it. The 
car was sold at auction leading to the debt at SOR 1.k for $7,540. Applicant requested 
an accounting from the dealer as to the amount of the debt since he believes he should 
have received more credit from the sale of the car. He received letters from the creditor 
stating he owes the debt, but the amount of the debt was different in each of the letters. 
He has not made any payments on this debt. He does not intend to pay the debt since 
the dealer received money for the car. He has not been in recent contact with the dealer 
or the collection company. (Tr. 14-15, 20-23, 27-29) 
 
The eight remaining delinquent debts are for medical services provided to 
Applicant and his family. He acknowledges that these are his debts. He does not know 
what each debt is for but he knows that he is responsible for the debts. At times, he had 
health insurance through his employers. In other jobs, he did not have health insurance. 
The delinquent debts were incurred through lack of health insurance, failure to pay co-
pays, or not paying the remainder of a medical charge not covered by health insurance. 
He has not inquired about these debts, and he has not made any payments on the 
medical debts. (Tr. 14, 17-23) 
 
Applicant completed the computerized version of his e-QIP security clearance 
application On November 16, 2009. He answered “no” to all financial questions 
indicating there were no financial security concerns. He was not sure of the questions 
and how the electronic system worked and what it required him to do. He is not 
sophisticated in the use of computer forms. Applicant completed the form to the best of 
his knowledge and ability. When he was interviewed by the security investigator, he 
answered all of the questions, and disclosed all of his finances problems. (Tr. 13, 15-16)  
 
 
4 
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 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 overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 
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 ¶ 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.  
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, 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 in seeking 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 that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to 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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
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. 
5 
 
(AG ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his or her obligations to protect classified 
information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an 
indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is at risk and inconsistent with 
the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be debt free, but is 
required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial obligations. 
Applicant's delinquent debts established by credit reports and his admissions raise 
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness 
to satisfy debts); and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). 
Applicant incurred delinquent debt through the loss of employment and lack of health 
insurance. He has not paid any of delinquent debts. The evidence indicates both an 
inability and an unwillingness to satisfy debt.  
 
I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 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); and AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions 
that resulted in the financial problems 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). 
These mitigating conditions do not apply. Applicant incurred delinquent debt caused by 
periods of unemployment, and frequent moves to gain employment. While his work 
history seems to indicate continued employment, he had periods of unemployment as 
he went from job to job. His jobs were such that they could be lost through 
circumstances beyond his control, such as lay-offs, or when contracts were completed 
or lost. He incurred medical debts through lack of health insurance and limited funds to 
pay medical expenses.  
 
Applicant has not shown that he acted responsibly under the circumstances to 
resolve these debts. Applicant did not contact some of the creditors, and he has not 
paid any of his delinquent debts listed in the SOR. He failed to establish that he could 
not pay his delinquent debts, even when he was employed. Some of the debts are 
small, less than $100, and could be paid with minimal impact. Even though his current 
debts are in a paid-as-agreed status, his finances are not under control because he has 
not taken the reasonable and necessary steps to resolve his past delinquent debts. 
Applicant has not established that he acted responsibly towards his debts under the 
circumstances. 
 
I considered AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay 
the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For AG ¶ 20(d) to apply, there must 
be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” of a good-faith 
effort to repay. Good faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, 
honesty, and adherence to duty and obligation. A systematic method of handling debts 
6 
 
is needed. Applicant must establish a "meaningful track record" of debt payment. A 
"meaningful track record" of debt payment can be established by evidence of actual 
debt payments or reduction of debt through payment of debts. An applicant is not 
required to establish that he paid each and every debt listed. All that is required is that 
Applicant demonstrate an established plan to resolve his financial problems and show 
he has taken significant actions to implement that plan. 
 
Applicant has not shown an established plan to pay and resolve his past 
delinquent debts. He made little or no effort to contact some of the creditors to settle 
and pay his debts. He has not shown payment of any of his past debts. His lack of a 
meaningful track record of paying delinquent debts shows he has not been reasonable 
and prudent in adhering to his financial obligations. His past delinquent debts reflect 
adversely on his trustworthiness, honesty, and good judgment.   
 
I also considered AG ¶ 20(e) (the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute 
the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides 
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of 
actions to resolve the issue). Applicant disputed the amount of a cable bill, as well as 
the amount of a car repossession debt. While he may have disputed the amount of two 
of the debts, he did not establish any attempt to resolve the disputes or pay any part of 
the amount of the debt not in dispute. Based on all of the financial information available 
to include the information provided by Applicant, I conclude that Applicant has not 
mitigated security concerns based on financial considerations. 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
A security concern is raised for personal conduct based on Applicant's responses 
to financial questions on his e-QIP. Personal conduct is a security concern because 
conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or 
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an 
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified and sensitive 
information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers 
during the process to determine eligibility for access to classified information or any 
other failure to cooperate with this process (AG ¶ 15). Personal conduct is always a 
security concern because it asks whether the person’s past conduct justifies confidence 
the person can be trusted to properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. 
Authorization for a security clearance depends on the individual providing correct and 
accurate information. If a person conceals or provides false information, the security 
clearance process cannot function properly to ensure that granting access to classified 
or sensitive information is in the best interest of the United States Government.  
 
On his e-QIP application for a security clearance, Applicant responded “no” to all 
financial questions. His failure to list his delinquent debts could raise a security concern 
under Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 16(a) (the deliberate omission 
concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security 
questionnaire, personal history, or similar form used to conduct investigations, to 
determine security eligibility or trustworthiness).  
 
7 
 
Applicant denied an intentional falsification for the incorrect or missing material 
information on the application. While there is a security concern for an omission, 
concealment, or falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral statement 
to the Government when applying for a security clearance, not every omission, 
concealment, or inaccurate statement is a falsification. A falsification must be deliberate 
and material. It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and willfully with intent to deceive. 
Applicant stated he did not understand the e-QIP computer form and how the system 
operated. He is not sophisticated in the use of the computer. When he was questioned 
by the security investigator, he acknowledged all of his debts, and provided the 
investigator all of his financial information. It is reasonable to understand that Applicant 
was confused by the electronic version of the security clearance application and did not 
answer the financial questions correctly. Applicant answered all financial questions 
presented by the security investigator and provided all of his financial information. I find 
Applicant’s testimony to be credible, and he did not intentionally falsify his e-QIP. I find 
for Applicant as to personal conduct.  
 
Whole-Person Analysis 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
relevant circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative 
process factors listed at AG ¶ 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. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance 
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered that Applicant’s 
financial problems may have been caused by circumstances beyond his control. 
However, he has not been responsible towards his finances. He has not been in contact 
with many of the creditors to resolve or settle the debts. He has not paid any of the 
delinquent debts listed in the SOR. He disputes the amount of two of the debts, but has 
not taken steps to resolve the disputes. Applicant has not established a good-faith effort 
to pay or resolve his delinquent debts. Applicant’s lack of effort to pay and resolve his 
past financial obligations indicates that he may not be concerned, responsible, and 
careful regarding classified information. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with 
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. 
For all these reasons, I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated security concerns 
8 
 
arising from finances. He mitigated security concerns for his personal conduct. His 
access to classified information 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 F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.l:  Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraph 2.a:   For 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 eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge