1 
 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of:    ) 
      ) 
     )  ISCR Case No. 11-01393 
     ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Remand 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 August 11, 2010, 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 explain 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 August 26, 2011, detailing security concerns for financial considerations and 
personal conduct. 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, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the 
2 
 
adjudicative guidelines, effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 
2006 (AG). Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on September 7, 2011. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR on October 5, 2011, admitting six and denying 42 
of the allegations under Guideline F of the AG. He denied the three allegations of 
providing false or misleading answers on security clearance applications under 
Guideline E for personal conduct. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on 
December 29, 2011, 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 19, 
2012. I convened the hearing as scheduled. The Government offered five exhibits that I 
marked and admitted into the record without objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. 
Ex.) 1 through 5. Applicant testified. Applicant offered four exhibits that I marked and 
admitted into the record without objection as Applicant Exhibits A through D. Applicant 
was advised by Department Counsel to bring all relevant documents, including medical 
records, financial records, and police reports, to the hearing. Applicant did not provide 
these documents at the hearing. (See Transcript (Tr.) 22-25) I left the record open for 
Applicant to submit additional documents. Applicant timely submitted 24 documents that 
I marked and admitted into the record without objection as App. Ex. E through BB. 
Since most of the exhibits had duplicate information and did not clearly correlate to the 
SOR allegations, I requested that Department Counsel ask Applicant to clarify his 
submissions. (Gov. Ex. 6, e-mail, dated May 23, 2012) Applicant timely provided the 
information requested. (App. Ex. CC, Fax, dated May 28, 2012) Department Counsel 
had no objection to admitting this exhibit into the record. (Gov. Ex. 7, e-mail, dated May 
29, 2012). DOHA received the transcript of the hearing on March 27, 2012.  
 
I issued my decision on June 1, 2012, denying Applicant’s eligibility for access to 
classified information. Applicant appealed the decision noting that some findings of fact 
had no basis in the record evidence. The Appeal Board concurred, and remanded the 
case to me for “issuance of a new decision consistent with the Board’s conclusion and 
rulings” on July 25, 2012. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 47 years old and has been an assistant security officer for a defense 
contractor since July 2010. He served on active duty in the Army from November 1984 
until December 1987, and received an honorable discharge. He again served from 
August 1991 until November 1992, as he attempted to qualify for assignment in Special 
Forces. He was injured during training and was discharged with an honorable 
discharge. (Tr. 27-30; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated August 11, 2010)  
 
A credit report (Gov. Ex. 3, dated March 15, 2011, and Gov. Ex. 4, dated August 
29, 2011) shows the following financial actions and delinquent debts for Applicant: a 
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filed on May 3, 2005, converted to Chapter 13 on August 1, 2005, 
and dismissed on September 20, 2005 (SOR 1.a); a judgment for $1,694 (SOR 1.b); a 
telephone account in collection for $161 (SOR 1.c); a loan in collection for $8,533 (SOR 
3 
 
1.d); a credit card debt in collection for $2,509 (SOR 1.e); a credit card account in 
collection to the same creditor for $1,890 (SOR 1.f); accounts with the same creditor 
charged off for $5,031 (SOR 1.g), $10,109 (SOR 1.h), $9,380 (SOR 1.i), and $10,001 
(SOR 1.j); an account in collection for $22,032 (SOR 1.k); credit union accounts to the 
same credit union in collection for $11,101 (SOR 1.l), and $5,031 (SOR 1.m); apartment 
rent in collection for $2,916 (SOR 1.n); an account in collection for $315 (SOR 1.o); a 
credit card in collection for $3,690 (SOR 1.p); a telephone account in collection for 
$1,186 (SOR 1.q); two credit card accounts with the same creditor in collection for $417 
(SOR 1.r) and $629 (SOR 1.s); two accounts charged off with the same creditor for 
$7,779 (SOR 1.t), and $17,011 (SOR 1.u); an account past due for $1,474 (SOR 1.v); 
an account in collection for $241 (SOR 1.w); a telephone account in collection for $347 
(SOR 1.x); another telephone account in collection for $844 (SOR 1.y); a medical 
account in collection for $437 (SOR 1.z); an apartment rent account in collection for 
$2,177 (SOR 1.aa); an account in collection for $183 (SOR 1.bb); an account in 
collection for $235 (SOR 1.cc); a bank account in collection for $2,000 (SOR 1.dd); 
another bank account in collection for $6,952 (SOR 1.ee); a credit union account in 
collection for $9,668 (SOR 1.ff); two car loans with the same creditor in collection for 
$11,526 (SOR 1.gg) and $9,247 (SOR 1.hh); a bank account in collection for $1,256 
(SOR 1.ii); medical accounts in collection for $10,890 (SOR 1.jj), $4,397 (SOR 1.kk), 
and $1.256 (SOR 1.ll); another apartment rent account in collection for $3,125 (1.mm); 
another telephone account in collection for $604 (SOR 1.nn); two credit union accounts 
with the same credit union in collection for $2,366 (SOR 1.oo) and $8,396 (SOR 1.pp); a 
cable account in collection for $749 (SOR 1.qq); three medical accounts in collection for 
$187 (SOR 1.rr), $112 (SOR 1.ss), and $923 (SOR 1.tt); and two charged off accounts 
with the same creditor for $6,578 (SOR 1.uu) and $1,348 (SOR 1.vv). Applicant admits 
the bankruptcy in SOR 1.a, and the debts at SOR 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, 1.j, 1.z, and 1.ll. He 
denied the other debts, alleging the debts were not his because he was a victim of 
identity fraud. Applicant admits to debts in excess of $35,000. (Tr. 39-41; See, Gov. Ex. 
5, Security Interview, dated September 15, 2010; and Gov. Ex. 2, Response to 
Interrogatory, dated October 3, 2011)  
 
Applicant discussed filing bankruptcy with an attorney in 2005. He was behind on 
payment for his motorcycle. He paid the attorney to file the bankruptcy to protect his 
interests in the motorcycle. The attorney filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy but converted it to 
a Chapter 13 action. Before the Chapter 13 trustee was appointed, the motorcycle was 
repossessed, and Applicant told the attorney to stop the bankruptcy. Since the 
bankruptcy was not completed, Applicant did not include the bankruptcy in response to 
questions on his August 11, 2010 security clearance application. (Tr. 27-35, 67-69; Gov. 
Ex. 5, Bankruptcy Documents, dated May 3, 2005) 
 
Applicant’s finances were good until June 2009. (Tr. 19-20; App. Ex. D, Credit 
Report, dated July 13, 2009) He was involved in a fight at a restaurant on June 19, 
2009. (App. Ex. AA, Police Report, dated June 19, 2009) He received a severe head 
injury, and claims he had some mental and balance problems that affected his ability to 
work. Applicant did not present any medical information to show how and if his injuries 
affected his ability to meet his financial obligations. He filed a civil suit and received a 
judgment against the restaurant for $33,000. His attorney paid his medical bills from the 
judgment. He was current with his remaining debts at the time, but claimed his mental 
4 
 
status affected his ability to continue to know about and pay his debts. (Tr. 20-25; App. 
Ex. BB, Settlement Agreement, dated November 21, 2010)  
 
Applicant admitted the debts at SOR 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, and 1.j. The debts are loans 
with a credit union. The debts at SOR 1.i and 1.j were reduced to a judgment by the 
creditor. Applicant reached a settlement with the creditor paying $200 a month in 
satisfaction on the judgment since February 2011. The debts have been reduced to 
$2,700 for SOR 1.i and $5,000 for SOR 1.j. (Tr. 15; App. Ex. A, Letter, dated March 14, 
2012; App. Ex. I, Letter, dated February 25, 2012) Applicant did not present any 
credible information on payments for the debts at SOR 1.g and 1.h. (Tr. 16-17, 49-40; 
App. Ex. B and E, Attorney letter, dated October 5, 2011; ) Applicant admitted the 
medical debts at SOR 1.z and 1.ll. These debts were from medical treatment received 
as a result of the head injury. The debts were paid from the settlement. Applicant was 
not sure if the other medical debts at SOR 1.jj, 1.kk, 1.rr, 1.ss, and 1.tt were from this 
incident and paid by his attorney. He has not inquired about these accounts, and he did 
not present any information on payment of the debts. (Tr. 52, 59-64; App. Ex. B and E, 
Attorney Letter, dated October 5, 2011).  
 
Applicant denied the remaining debts. He claims they are not his debts because 
he was the victim of identity theft. He presented a 1995 letter from a state division of 
motor vehicles to show that there were other people with his same name and a similar 
social security number. (App. Ex. C, Letter, dated June 2, 1995) He presented a letter 
from a credit counseling organization stating that they were assisting him to investigate 
the legality of negative information on his credit reports. (App. Ex. F, letter, dated March 
21, 2011) He presented no other reports, police or otherwise, claiming that his identity 
had been stolen and was used to gain financial assets. Applicant filed a complaint with 
the credit reporting agency, noting that many debts on his credit report were not his 
debts. These debts are listed on the credit report as being incurred from approximately 
2008 until 2010. (Tr. 45-47, 50-52, 52-59, 62-64) The credit reporting agency deleted 
debts from Applicant’s credit bureau report. The credit reporting agency did not provide 
a reason for their deletion action, except that it was accomplished after an investigation 
by the reporting creditor based on information provided by Applicant. The debts at SOR 
1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.l, 1.m, 1.q, 1.r, 1.s, 1.t, 1.u, 1.v, 1.w, 1.x, 1.bb, 1.cc, 1.dd, 1.gg, 
1.hh, 1.ii, 1.mm, 1.nn, 1.oo, 1.pp, 1.uu, and 1.vv were deleted. (App. Ex. K, L, M, N, O, 
P, Q, R, U, V, W, X, Z, and CC, Credit Bureau deletion reports)  
 
The creditor for the apartment rent debt at SOR 1.aa noted that Applicant never 
rented an apartment at the address and does not owe a debt to them. (Tr. 56-57; App. 
Ex. G, Letter, dated April 3, 2012; App. Ex. H, Letter, dated June 28, 2005) 
 
Applicant denied the remaining debts in SOR 1.k, 1.n, 1.o, 1.p, 1.y, 1.ee, 1.ff, and 
1.qq. He presented no information to show that he inquired about these debts, made 
any payments on the debts, or attempted to resolve the debts. These debts are still 
outstanding. The total delinquent debt that Applicant has not resolved includes the 
above debts and those previously discussed at SOR 1.g, 1.h, 1.jj, 1.kk, 1.qq, 1.rr, 1.ss, 
1.tt, total in excess of $75,000.   
 
5 
 
Applicant allegedly completed a security clearance application on July 10, 2008 
in which he responded “no” to sections 27 and 28, asking if in the last seven years he 
had filed a bankruptcy petition, had property repossessed, had debts more than 180 
days past due or presently had debts more than 90 days past due. Applicant denied 
completing such a security clearance application, and the case file does not contain a 
July 10, 2008 application. Department Counsel also did not present a July 10, 2008 
security clearance application. (Tr. 26-28) 
 
Applicant completed his latest security clearance application on August 10, 2010. 
In response to the financial question at section 26 of the application, he answered “no” 
to questions concerning in the last seven years filing bankruptcy, repossession of 
property, judgments entered against him, credit cards suspended or charged off, and 
any debts more than 180 days past due or currently more than 90 days past due. He 
denied intentional falsification in response to the financial questions. He did not include 
the 2005 bankruptcy since he did not think it had been filed. His motorcycle was 
repossessed in 2005, but he claims he did not remember this information because he 
had memory loss from his head injury. He knew he had some debts that were not paid, 
but he did not believe the debts were more than 90 days past due. He did not consult 
his credit report before completing the application. (Tr. 30-35)  
 
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. 
6 
 
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. 
(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 in a situation of risk 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 presented information to establish that the credit reporting agency 
deleted many of the debts listed in the SOR from his credit report. Even though the 
credit reporting agency did not provide a detailed reason for their action, the debts have 
been successfully resolved by dispute and removed from the credit report. Applicant is 
not responsible for them. I have not considered these debts any further and find for 
Applicant on the debts at SOR 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.l, 1.m, 1.q, 1.r, 1.t, 1.u, 1.v, 1.w, 
1.x, 1.bb, 1.cc, 1.dd, 1.gg, 1.hh, 1.ii, 1.mm, 1.nn, 1.oo, 1.pp, 1.uu, and 1.vv.  
 
Applicant’s remaining debts, as established in his credit report raises Financial 
Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy 
debts); and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). 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 
7 
 
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’s finances were good until he was 
injured in a fight in 2009. He claimed he had memory loss and mental issues that 
caused him not to properly manage his finances, causing him to incur delinquent debt. 
However, Applicant did not provide any credible information to establish that his injury 
and medical condition caused him to not properly manage his finances. He has not 
shown that his financial issues were caused by conditions beyond his control and will 
not likely recur.   
 
Applicant has not shown that he acted responsibly under the circumstances to 
resolve the remaining debts. He only has a payment plan to pay two of the remaining 
debts. He did not contact creditors, and he has no credible plan to pay his other 
delinquent debts listed in the SOR. He failed to establish that he could not pay his 
delinquent debts, even though he has been employed since 2010. Some of the debts 
are small, and could be paid with minimal impact. He has at least $315 in monthly 
discretionary funds that he has not used to pay delinquent SOR debts. He has no plan 
to pay his past delinquent SOR debts. 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, and he does not 
have a reasonable plan to pay them. Applicant has not established that he acted 
responsibly towards his debts under the circumstances. 
 
I considered 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). This mitigating condition partially applies. Applicant did not present any 
information on financial counseling. However, it is a normal requirement to have 
financial counseling to file a bankruptcy petition. Also, there are no clear indications that 
the financial problems are being resolved or are under control. 
 
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 
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 demonstrates 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 remaining past due SOR 
debts. He has no meaningful plan to pay his delinquent SOR debts. His lack of a 
meaningful track record of paying delinquent SOR debts shows he has not been 
8 
 
reasonable and prudent in adhering to his financial obligations. His past delinquent SOR 
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 many of his debts with the credit 
reporting agency presumably based on identity theft. His dispute was successful as to 
many of the debts, and they were removed from his credit report.  
 
Based on all of the financial information available to include the information 
provided by Applicant, I conclude that Applicant has not fully 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 to hold a security clearance position 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.  
 
I have not considered a July 11, 2008, security clearance application because 
there is no evidence to establish such an application was completed by Applicant. I find 
for Applicant as to SOR 2.a and 2.b. 
 
I have considered Applicant’s responses to financial questions on his August 10, 
2010, security clearance application. Applicant answered “no” to all financial questions. 
He filed a bankruptcy in 2005, and he admitted a motorcycle repossession in 2005. In 
his response to the SOR, and his testimony, he acknowledged he may have some 
debts that were over 180 days past due or currently over 90 days past due. His failure 
to acknowledge these financial problems in the security clearance application raises 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).  
 
9 
 
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 became an assistant security officer in July 2010, and filed his security 
clearance application in August 2010. He knew the requirement to be truth, honest, and 
open in the security clearance process. When he completed the security clearance 
application in 2010, he knew the 2005 bankruptcy had been started since he paid his 
attorney. I do not find his testimony that he did not include the bankruptcy in his 
application because it was not filed as credible. I also find his claim of not remembering 
the repossession or other debts because of memory loss about his debts as not 
credible. He presented no information or medical evidence to establish he had a 
memory loss. I find that he deliberately provided false information on his security 
clearance application with intent to hide his financial problems. I find against Applicant 
as to SOR 2.c.  
 
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 the bankruptcy 
filed in 2005 is a legal and permissible means of resolving debt, and that the filing did 
not create a security concern. I considered that many of the debts in the SOR have 
been resolved by dispute and deleted from Applicant’s credit report. I also considered 
that there is remaining debt in excess of $75,000. Applicant has not been responsible 
towards the remaining delinquent SOR debts. He has not been in contact with the 
creditors to resolve or settle the debts. He has not paid any of these delinquent SOR 
debts. Applicant has not established a good-faith effort to pay or resolve his remaining 
delinquent SOR debts. Applicant’s lack of effort to pay and resolve his remaining past 
10 
 
financial obligations indicates that he may not be concerned, responsible, and careful 
regarding classified information. In addition, I considered that Applicant was not truthful 
in answering financial questions on his security clearance application. He omitted 
financial problems with the intent to mislead security adjudicators concerning his 
finances. 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 arising from finances and 
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.f:  For Applicant 
  
 Subparagraphs 1.g- 1.h:  Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.i – 1.j:  For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraph 1.k:   Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.l and 1.m: For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.n – 1.p:  Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.q – 1.x:  For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraph 1.y:   Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.z – 1.dd:  For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.ee and 1.ff: Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.gg – 1.ii:  For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.jj – 11.kk: Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.ll – 1.pp:  For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.qq – 1.tt:  Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.uu – 1.vv: For Applicant  
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
11 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a – 2.b:  For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 2.c:   Against 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