Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-4, and Applicant exhibits (AE) A-D. Exhibits C1
and D were timely received post-hearing.
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February2
20, 1990), 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)
effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. 
1
                                                                
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXX, Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxn )       ISCR Case No. 11-06851
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Raashid S. Williams, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: David P. Price, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I grant Applicant’s clearance.1
On 23 November 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guidelines F and E, Financial Considerations and Personal Conduct.  Applicant timely2
answered the SOR, requesting a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 2 March
2012, and I convened a hearing 16 March 2012. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 24
March 2012.
 
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. He is a 34-year-old construction
surveillance technician employed by a defense contractor since June 2006. He seeks to
retain the security clearance he held while in the military, and on an interim basis until
the SOR was issued.
The SOR alleges, Government exhibits confirm, and Applicant admits, a $2,900
state income tax lien filed against Applicant in August 2011 (SOR 1.a) and a $3,200
remaining collection balance on a company travel card that was originally over $15,000
(SOR 1.b). Applicant’s Answer reflects that the income tax lien was paid and released in
December 2011 (Encl. 1, 2) and the final $3,200 balance on the travel card was paid in
November 2011 (Encl. 3).
SOR debt 1.b arose when Applicant improperly used his company-issued travel
card for personal expenses. The main personal expense he charged was education
materials. At the time he made the personal charges, he was unaware that company
policy—actually, card issuer policy—prohibited his personal use of the card. He was
also unaware that the card was a charge card and not a credit card, meaning that the
entire balance had to be paid off monthly and was not a revolving balance with
minimum monthly payments. The company did not provide employees with any training
about use of the card. The company sponsored an employee for a card, which was
issued directly to the employee along with the usual brochure that nobody reads.
Applicant was not the only company employee to run afoul of the card limitations.
When Applicant realized that he was required to pay off the entire balance
monthly and that he was unable to do so, he reported the situation to his company
manager. In June 2010 (Answer, Encl. 5 ), Applicant’s manager formally reprimanded
him, and Applicant formally agreed to a bi-weekly repayment plan. In addition,
Applicant’s ongoing performance was to be evaluated and reviewed by August 2010.
Applicant met the company’s requirements, and the manager who reprimanded him
recommends him for his clearance (Answer, Encl. 6; Tr. 23-46). His manager had
previously given him an excellent employment evaluation (Answer, Encl. 8). Similarly,
his supervisor on a different project was aware of the travel card issue, but nevertheless
recommended Applicant to retain his clearance (Answer, Encl. 7; Tr. 48-60).
Applicant’s tax lien arose out of a state income tax liability Applicant incurred in
2008. Applicant had been deployed overseas, which complicated his tax situation. He
had entered into a repayment plan with the state and was making payments until 2010
when the company travel card issue arose. As a result of focusing on that debt,
Applicant fell behind making his payments to the state. However, he was unaware the
state had filed a tax lien until he received the SOR.
Applicant’s 11 work and character references (AE A, D) consider him honest and
trustworthy, and they recommend him to retain his clearance. They are aware of his
financial issues and consider those issues out of character for him.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶ 19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;4
3
Applicant’s March 2012 credit reports (AE C, D) show favorable account entries,
except for the two debts alleged in the SOR. Those entries reflect past-due accounts
that are now paid. Applicant now has significant positive monthly cash flow, and recently
qualified for a mortgage and bought a home (AE D). He has about $6,000 in a savings
account. He and his wife have a budget that accounts for both his regular income and
his increased income when he is deployed.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability
for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to
classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guidelines are Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.3
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, but
Applicant mitigated the security concerns. Applicant experienced minor financial
problems when he improperly, but unwittingly, used the company travel card for
personal expenses and while dealing with that debt, fell behind on his state tax
repayment schedule.4
¶ 20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that5
it is  unlikely to recur . . . 
¶ 20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and6
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶ 20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that7
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶ 20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.8
¶ 16(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse9
determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole
person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness
to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly
safeguard protected information;
4
Applicant meets significant mitigating factors for financial considerations. While
his financial difficulties are recent, they were not frequent and the circumstances under
which they occurred are unlikely to recur.  To the extent that using the travel card for5
personal expense was improper, the debt was not due to circumstances beyond his
control. To the extent that the travel card was a charge card and not a revolving credit
card, the debt was due to a circumstance beyond his control. In either case, he acted
responsibly in addressing his debts.  When he realized that the entire balance was due6
and he was unable to pay it, he informed his company and made arrangements to pay
the bill. His progress was such that by the time the SOR was issued, he owed only
about $3,200 of the original $15,000 balance. Similarly, while his tax repayments fell
through the cracks briefly while he was addressing the travel card debt, and he was
unaware that the state had filed a tax lien, once he became aware of the lien, he acted
quickly to resolve it. While Applicant and his wife have not received financial counseling,
they otherwise brought the problem under control.  Having substantially addressed all7
his known delinquent debt before the SOR was issued, and having addressed the
unknown lien once he became aware of it, the timing of the payments constitutes a
good-faith effort to satisfy his debts.8
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline E.
Applicant’s improper, albeit unwitting, use of his company travel card suggests that he
does not follow rules and regulations.  However, I conclude Applicant mitigated the9
security concerns.
The weight of the evidence is that Applicant is honest and trustworthy and follows
rules and regulations. Further, once he realized his mistake in using the company travel
card, he reported the situation to his company management. The company imposed
discipline on him, but kept him employed. Thus counseled, his employment record
¶ 17(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or10
taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy,
unreliable or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
5
continued its otherwise excellent progression. Consequently, this conduct is unlikely to
recur.  Accordingly, I resolve Guideline E for Applicant.10
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-b: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance granted.   
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge