Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government’s exhibits (GE) 1-7, and Applicant’s exhibits (AE) A-M.1
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February2
20, 1960), 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: )
)
XXX, Xxxxxxxx )       ISCR Case No. 11–01937
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Philip J. Katauskas, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I deny Applicant’s clearance.1
On 27 January 2012, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) sent
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F,
Financial Considerations, and Guideline E, Personal Conduct.  Applicant timely2
answered the SOR, requesting a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 13 April
2012, and I convened a hearing 11 May 2012. DOHA received the transcript 21 May
2012.
In September 2004, she also opened a $3,000-limit credit card account, because her mortgage lender wanted3
her to have another credit account in good standing to establish her credit. The account became delinquent
in 2005 because she bought another home, her mother became ill, and she had to help her mother financially.
She entered into a repayment agreement with the collection agent in June 2008, and at the time of her August
2008 subject interview had made all her payments and planned to continue making payments until the account
was paid. She appears to have paid this account as scheduled.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant denied all the SOR allegations except SOR 1.a, 1.e, and 1.k-1.l. She is
a 40-year-old security technology assistance center specialist employed by a defense
contractor since June 2010. She seeks reinstatement of the security clearance she held
in previous jobs. She was briefly unemployed February-June 2010, after leaving her job
for “personal/medical” reasons (GE 1). She also reported being unemployed April-July
2009, having left two full-time positions in April 2009 to start job training for another job.
Applicant has an extensive history of financial problems. In a subject interview in
August 2008, conducted during an earlier background investigation, she was confronted
with two delinquent accounts totaling about $13,000. In June 2004, she had taken out a
$10,000 loan from her credit union to make a down payment on a house purchase.  The3
loan became delinquent in 2005 because she bought a another home, and her mother
became ill and she had to help her financially. She entered into a repayment agreement
with the collection agent in June 2008, and at the time of her August 2008 subject
interview had made all her payments and planned to continue making payments until
the account was paid (GE 2). Based on her representations, she obtained or retained
her clearance.
Applicant did not complete payments on the credit union account as scheduled.
She paid until 2007, but stopped because her husband’s business was not doing well
and hers was the only income available to pay the bills. She reported this delinquent
account during a subject interview in October 2009, relevant to a new background
investigation. As with her August 2008 interview, by the time of her October 2009
interview, Applicant had reached a repayment agreement with the creditor (in this case,
the credit union directly), and was making scheduled payments. Again, she kept her
clearance.
However, her financial problems kept returning. As noted above, she was
unemployed April-July 2009 when she left two jobs to begin job training for a third. She
and her husband separated in about September 2009 because of criminal allegations
against him. She was also injured in an automobile accident in June 2011 that was not
her fault. Applicant has an attorney representing her on that case. She expects to obtain
a financial settlement, but at the time of the hearing had not reached one.  
Spring 2009 was a tumultuous time for Applicant. At the time, she was working
as a security officer at two full-time jobs. She worked a morning shift at one job, and an
3
evening shift at the other. In April 2009, she was terminated from one of her two full-
time security officer positions (GE 7).
Company records (GE 7) show that Applicant called off (phoned in that she was
not going to make her shift) on 17 March 2009 (a scheduled workday), and failed to
report to work on 19 and 20 March 2009 (her other scheduled workdays that week).
There is no indication that she told her supervisor that she was never coming back to
her job. She missed her scheduled workdays the following week (24, 26, 27 March
2009), and was asked by her supervisor to provide documentation for her absenteeism.
Again, there is no indication that she told her supervisor that she was not returning, or
that she should be removed from the schedule. On 30 March 2009, she told her
supervisor she would provide a letter of resignation. However, she did not. She missed
her scheduled workdays for a third week (31 March, 2-3 April 2009). On 6 April 2009,
her supervisor left her a voice message on her cellphone, requesting a return call.
When she did not, the company terminated her.
Applicant’s testimony (Tr.48-53) largely corroborates the company’s records,
except that she claims that she resigned from her job and submitted a letter of
resignation. One of her witnesses claims he helped her draft her letter, but neither of
them produced a copy of the letter. In any event, Applicant disappeared precipitously
from this job after calling off on 17 March 2009. She tries to ascribe her actions as her
reaction upon learning of her husband’s alleged sexual abuse of her teen-age daughter
(Tr. 48). However, during her September 2010 subject interview, conducted as part of
her current background investigation, she stated (GE 2) that she left this employment
because she had taken a new job and had to take certification courses for it. She  later
claimed to have resigned, but did not corroborate that claim. Around the same time, her
teenage daughter alleged that her husband had sexually abused her since about
August 2004. He was charged in May 2009, but the prosecutor dismissed the charges
in July 2009. It appears that only then did Applicant and her husband separate. She
moved out of the marital home in September 2009. Their divorce is pending.
When Applicant left the marital home, her husband had agreed to continue
making the mortgage payments. However, he did not do so and the house is now in
foreclosure. The purchase history of this house highlights some of Applicant’s financial
issues. Applicant and her husband bought this house in March 2004. He is on the deed,
but because his credit was not good when they bought the house, only Applicant’s
name is on the mortgage. Applicant has a divorce lawyer, and resolution of the property
issue is one of the issues being negotiated. Applicant’s husband is trying to modify the
mortgage to relieve Applicant of her financial responsibility for the house, but it is not
clear that he has the income to accomplish that as part of the divorce settlement.
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits (GE 3, 5) substantiate, 13 delinquent
debts totaling nearly $89,000. The four debts Applicant admits total just over $76,000.
$75,000 of the debt is for delinquent first and second mortgages on a house that is now
in foreclosure. 
However, one of the settled accounts (SOR 1.b) is the credit union loan that was first delinquent in 2005.4
Despite her sporadic payments in the past, the balance had risen as high as $10,500, and was still $9,200
when alleged in the SOR.
4
Applicant’s exhibits (AE) B-M reflect Applicant’s efforts to resolve SOR debts 1.a-
1.j, and 1.m. She appears to have paid some account, settled others, and begun
repayment plans on most of the rest.  The two debts she has not addressed are the two4
mortgages that remain as part of her unresolved divorce proceedings. Applicant’s
husband is trying to get a loan modification to put the mortgages solely in his name, but
he has been unemployed the last two months. However, he was recently called for a job
interview.
When Applicant completed her most recent clearance application in August
2010, she disclosed her financial problems. However, she did not disclose that she had
been terminated from her job in April 2009. In her subject interview in September 2010,
she maintained her claim that she had resigned from that job.
Applicant does not appear to have had financial counseling. She has favorable
work and character references (AE A).
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.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).5
¶19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;6
¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that7
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and8
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20.(c)  the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications9
that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
5
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.5
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not fully mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has a history of financial
difficulties going back several years.  Indeed, although earlier adjudications of her6
financial situation were apparently resolved in her favor, her delinquent accounts were
the subject of clearance adjudications on at least two other occasions before an SOR
was issued in this case. She was clearly on notice of the Government’s concerns about
delinquent financial obligations. Once the Government established the indebtedness,
the burden shifted to Applicant to show her clearance worthiness, which she was unable
to do.
The mitigating factors for financial considerations provide little help to Applicant,
certainly not enough to fully mitigate the security concerns. Her financial difficulties are
both recent and multiple, and only partly due to unusual circumstances not likely to
recur.  Similarly, her financial problems are only partly due to circumstances beyond her7
control. Buying a house with a borrowed down payment and solely in her name because
of her husband’s credit was a choice she and her husband made. Leaving two jobs in
April 2009 to go for training on a job that did not begin until July 2009 was a choice.
Leaving that job in February 2010 for otherwise unspecified “medical/personal” reasons
was a choice. Separating from her husband because of the sexual abuse allegations
constitutes a circumstance beyond her control, although waiting until the charges had
been dismissed to do so seems unusual. Perhaps her efforts to deal with most of her
debts has been responsible,  but expecting her husband to make the payments, given8
his past credit history and employment record was not. Further, Applicant has been
under varying degrees of financial pressure since 2005. She has not had any financial
counseling, and the mortgages—which are still in her name only—constitute the
overwhelming majority of her delinquent debt. Consequently, she cannot show that she
is gaining control over her finances  or will be able to establish and meet payment9
arrangements for her delinquent debts, if the mortgages are not transferred to her
¶20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.10
¶16 (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel11
security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, . . . [or]
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . .; (b) deliberately providing false or misleading
information regarding relevant facts to an . . . investigator . . .;
I find SOR 2.d for Applicant because her bad check arrest in November 1991 and her clearance suspension12
in December 1991 have no independent security significance beyond their relevance as proof of her financial
problems.
6
husband.  Given that he was unemployed at the time of the hearing, that seems10
unlikely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. I resolve Guideline F against
Applicant. Assessment of the whole-person factors yields no different result.
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline E, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Standing by itself, the fact that
Applicant effectively quit her job without notice in April 2009 would probably not have
sufficient security significance to warrant denial of her clearance. However, coupled with
her failure to disclose the circumstances of her termination on her August 2010
clearance application and her insistence in her September 2010 subject interview that
she resigned from the job—which I find not credible given the company records—I find
that Applicant engaged in questionable conduct and attempted to minimize or
misrepresent that conduct.  Consequently, the burden of persuasion shifted to11
Applicant to refute or mitigate the Government’s information.
In the face of company records showing that, as of 6 April 2009, Applicant had
missed nine scheduled days of work without adequate explanation, and had talked to
her supervisors about resigning but had not submitted a resignation letter. It was her
burden to document both that she submitted a resignation letter and that she had
submitted it so the company should have received it by 6 April 2009. Without the letter,
she cannot meet that burden. She has failed to document that the letter was submitted
at all. A late letter might have made her claim of ignorance of the company’s termination
more plausible. As it is, I find her testimony on the issue of actually sending a
resignation letter not credible.
None of the mitigating conditions apply. Applicant made no effort to correct her
applications before she was confronted with the information during her September 2010
subject interview, and her omission was not significantly aided by incorrect advice given
to her about completing her clearance applications. The whole-person factors require no
other result, as there is no evidence in the record about Applicant that could overcome
the negative inferences to be drawn by her conduct. I resolve Guideline E against
Applicant.12
7
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-j: For Applicant
Subparagraphs k–l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph m: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-c:                                Against Applicant
Conclusion
Under 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
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge