DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------------- )      ISCR Case No. 11-01993
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 12, 2012
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on April 1, 2010.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On January 23, 2012, 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 February 15, 2012, and he requested an
administrative hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned
to the undersigned on March 22, 2012.  A notice of hearing was issued on March 27,
2012, and the hearing was scheduled for April 19, 2012.  At the hearing the
Government presented nine exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 9,
which were admitted without objection.  The Applicant presented four exhibits, referred
to as Applicant’s Exhibits A through D, which were also admitted without objection.  He
also testified on his own behalf.  The record remained open until close of business on
May 7, 2012, to allow the Applicant the opportunity to submit additional documentation.
2
The Applicant submitted fourteen Post-Hearing Exhibits on May 3, 2012, which were
admitted without objection, and are referred to as Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits 1
through 4, and E through N.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on May 3, 2012.
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 52 years old and has a high school diploma and some college.
He is employed with a defense contractor as a Computer 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 all of the allegations set forth in the SOR.  Credit Reports
of the Applicant dated March 3, 2004; April 10, 2010; August 25, 2011; and April 12,
2012, reflect that the Applicant is indebted to each of the creditors set forth in the SOR,
in an amount totaling in excess of $50,000.00.  (Government Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 9.)  
The Applicant served in the United States Air Force as a paralegal from 1978 to
1998 and retired as an E-6.  He began working for his current employer in October
2003.  That same year, he began having financial problems.  He states that he had a
very active social life and spent his money on entertainment.  Instead of paying his bills,
from 2003 to 2010, he was carefree and stupid with his spending and did a lot of things
like going out drinking.  (Tr. p. 51.)  With respect to his taxes, for many years, he filed
married when he was not, and claimed many exemptions or dependents, which he did
not have, and received more money in his paycheck to spend.   He ended up owing an
enormous tax debt.  (Tr. pp. 33 - 34.)
        
As a result of his irresponsible conduct, the following debts became owing and
delinquent: 1(a) A debt owed to the Internal Revenue Service for past taxes owed for
tax year 2003, in the amount of $10,530.16.  (Government Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 9.)  1(b)
A debt owed to Internal Revenue Service for past taxes owed for tax year 2004, in the
amount of $14,656.59.  (Government Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 9.) 1(c) A debt owed to the
Internal Revenue Service for past taxes owed for tax year 2005, in the amount of
$17,822.63.  (Government Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 9.)  1(d) A debt owed to the Internal
Revenue Service for back taxes owed for tax year 2006, in the amount of $17,615.67.
(Government Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 9.)  1(e) A debt owed to the Internal Revenue Service
3
in for back taxes owed for tax year 2007, in the amount of $13,511.16.  (Government
Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 9.)
  
In 2001, the Internal Revenue Service started garnishing the Applicant’s wages
to pay his back taxes.  (Tr. p. 36.)  They are also garnishing part of his retirement
benefits.  The Applicant testified that through these garnishments he is currently
contributing a total of $2,400 a month toward his back taxes.  (Tr. p. 36 and Applicant’s
Exhibit C.)  The Applicant believes he has reduced his tax debt down to $55,873.21.   
1(f) A tax lien owed to a state taxing authority for back taxes owed for tax year
2007 in the amount of $993.00 was outstanding.  The debt was paid in full on March 23,
2012.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit F.)    
Allegations 1(g), 1(h) and 1(i) were stricken from the SOR by the Government as
they were determined to be duplicates of other debts alleged in the SOR.  Accordingly,
they are found in favor of the Applicant.  (Tr. p. 41-42.)
In his Post-Hearing submission, the Applicant asserts that allegation 1(o) is a
duplicate of the debt set forth in allegation 1(j) and requested that it be striken from the
SOR.  The Government had no objection.  Accordingly, allegation 1(o) is stricken from
the SOR and found in favor of the Applicant.
Other debts reflected on the Applicant’s credit reports are outstanding: 1(j) A debt
owed to a creditor in the amount of $592.00 was charged off and remains outstanding.
(Government Exhibit 6.)  1(k) A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $409.00 was
charged off and remains outstanding.  (Government Exhibit 6.)  1(l) A debt owed to a
creditor in the amount of $1,667.00 was placed into collection and remains outstanding.
(Government Exhibit 6.)  1(m) A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $220.00 was
paid.  (Tr. pp. 44 - 45,  and Applicant’s Exhibit D.)  1(n) A debt owed to a creditor in the
amount of $516.00 remains outstanding.  (Government Exhibit 6.)  1(p) A debt owed to
a creditor in the amount of $691.00 remains outstanding.  (Tr. p. 41.)  1(q) A debt owed
to a creditor in the amount of $690 remains outstanding.  (Tr. p. 41.)  1(r) A debt owed
to a creditor in the amount of $270.00 remains outstanding.  (Tr. p. 41.)
The Applicant testified, and his financial report reveals, that he currently receives
$1,200 monthly in military retirement benefits.  After his back taxes are garnished from
his payroll check he receives $730 monthly from his employer.  He also has a part-time
job and earns $360 monthly.  This totals about $2,300 monthly to live on.  After paying
his rent of $1,950 monthly, he is left with $350 for food, utilities and other necessities.
He has no money left at the end of the month to pay any of his other delinquent debts.
(Tr. pp. 54 -57 and Applicant’s Exhibit B.)      
His performance evaluation from January 22, 2011 to January 20, 2012,
indicates that he consistently meets the requirements of the job.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.)
4
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 obligations.  
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
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;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
5
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, 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.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  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.
6
The evidence shows that the Applicant was careless and irresponsible for seven
years, from 2003 to at least 2010, and did not pay his bills on time.  He spent money
partying and drinking.  Since 2011, his wages have been garnished to pay for the back
taxes he owed for tax years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.  Based upon his
calculations, he believes he currently still owes about $55,000 in back taxes to the
federal government.  In addition to back taxes, he also owes about $5,000 to other
creditors.  In any case, the Applicant remains excessively indebted and has not paid the
majority of his 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 at this time.  Admittedly, he
has recently started the process of addressing his financial indebtedness.  His wages
are being garnished to pay his back taxes.  He has recently written letters to his
creditors and inquired as to the status of the other delinquent accounts on his credit
reports.  However, at this point, he has not resolved his excessive indebtedness.  He
has not demonstrated that he has reasonably, responsibly or prudently addressed his
financial situation.  There is still quite a bit of work to do and there is insufficient
evidence of financial rehabilitation.  In the event that the Applicant continues to pay off
his indebtedness he may be eligible in the future for a security clearance, but not at this
time.  The Applicant has not demonstrated that he can properly handle his financial
affairs or that he is fiscally responsible.  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 (c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations, apply.  None of the mitigating conditions are applicable.  Most of his
delinquent debts remain owing and he has not shown that he is financially responsible.
Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
    
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  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 excessive 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.   
7
     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.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.g.: For the Applicant.
      Subpara.  1.h.: For the Applicant.
     Subpara.  1.i.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.j.: Against the Applicant.
      Subpara.  1.k.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.l.: Against the Applicant.
      Subpara.  1.m.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.n.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.o.: For the Applicant.
      Subpara.  1.p.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.q.: Against the Applicant.
      Subpara.  1.r.: Against 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