1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 11-03476
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
The disqualifying evidence under the financial considerations guideline has not been
mitigated. Applicant knew about some of the delinquent accounts in October 2007, and
found out about additional delinquent accounts in September 2010. He provided false
statements concerning the status of several of the accounts in July 2011. Though other
debts have been removed from his credit report, Applicant failed to provide necessary
documentary evidence detailing the basis for the disputes and removal of the debts.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on August 11, 2010. He was interviewed by an investigator from the
2
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on two occasions: October 17, 2007, and
September 21, 2010. The interview summaries appear in Government Exhibit (GE) 4. In
GE 5, dated June 20, 2011, Applicant was asked to provide information about action taken
to resolve delinquent accounts discussed in his earlier interviews. On July 30, 2011,
Applicant provided a notarized response to the debts listed in GE 5. He confirmed that both
interviews were “accurate as drafted . . . except for the following.” He furnished certain
modifications to the interviews and provided additional comments. (GE 6 at 1-2) 
DOHA issued an undated Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns
under financial considerations (Guideline F). The action was taken pursuant to 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
adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1,
2006. 
Applicant’s answer to the SOR was notarized on December 5, 2011 and received
by DOHA on December 14, 2011. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on May 24, 2012, for
a hearing on June 28, 2012. The hearing was held as scheduled. At the hearing, without
objection, six exhibits (GE 1 through GE 6) were admitted in evidence in support of the
Government’s case. Applicant testified and offered 13 exhibits (AE A through M). Those
exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection. During his examination of Applicant,
his attorney identified AE N as an exhibit related to SOR ¶ 1.h. After it was determined that
the same exhibit appeared on page I16 of GE 6, Applicant continued his examination of
Applicant using the Government’s exhibit. (Tr. 41-43; GE 6 at I16) Applicant did not seek
to offer AE N into evidence. He was granted time after the hearing to submit additional
evidence regarding his delinquent financial obligations. He submitted four additional
exhibits which have been re-labeled AE N through AE Q. On July 13, 2012, the
Government indicated they had no objection to the admission into evidence of the
additional exhibits. DOHA received the transcript on July 5, 2012. The record closed on
July 13, 2012. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR lists nine allegations under the financial considerations guideline. Though
Applicant denied all allegations in his answer to the SOR, at the hearing, he admitted SOR
¶¶ 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, and 1.g; he denied SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.e, and 1.f. He denied SOR ¶ 1.h.
However, the evidence indicates that the account is his responsibility. The total amount of
delinquent debt listed in the SOR is $29,032. The tax lien was filed in February 2008. The
eight accounts became delinquent between March 2005 and August 2010.
3
Applicant is 34 years old and has been married since November 2010. (AE L) His
wife is expecting. He has a 12-year-old child from his first marriage that ended in August
2007. He owns his home. He and his wife own cars that are financed. (Tr. 50-51) He has
approximately $102,000 in his checking and savings account and his wife’s retirement
account contains almost $63,000. (AE A, M) Applicant’s salary is approximately $137,000
a year. (Tr. 27) He has had uninterrupted employment since February 2000. (GE 1 at 17-
25)
Applicant served in the U.S. Army, Army National Guard, and Army Active Duty
Reserve from March 1996 until his honorable discharge in November 2007. While he was
in the Army, he earned some college credits between June 1996 and November 2000, but
received no degree. During his military service, Applicant was deployed to Iraq three times
in a military or civilian capacity to perform information technology or security tasks. (GE 4,
October 2007 interview at 2; GE 4, September 2010 interview at 1-2; Tr. 44). He was also
deployed to Afghanistan. (Tr. 44)
Since February 2010, Applicant has been employed as a senior information
assurance specialist with a defense contractor. He has worked part-time as a warfare
specialist with another defense contractor. He has held a security clearance since June
1996. 
Applicant had a difficult childhood. When he was nine years old, his parents
abandoned him and he became a ward of the state. He lived with approximately ten foster
families until he was 18 years old. Then, he joined the military and developed a growing
interest in computers. (Tr. 54-55)
Financial Considerations-Security Investigation
As noted above in Statement of the Case, interrogatories were sent to Applicant on
June 2, 2011, requiring him to provide the status of the delinquent accounts listed in the
SOR. (GE 5) In his response to the interrogatories dated July 30, 2011, Applicant indicated
that the October 2007 and September 2010 interview summaries were correct with
exceptions identified. (GE 6 at 1-3) The additional comments that he provided about each
listed account and references to Applicant’s earlier interviews will be included in the
following factual findings:
SOR 1.a, state tax lien, $3,385. The lien was filed against Applicant in February
2008. In his September 2010 interview, he told the OPM investigator that he faxed his
deployment orders to the state tax agency and was told no payment was due. (GE 4,
September 2010 interview at 5) In his interrogatory response dated July 30, 2011, Applicant
indicated the tax lien was paid and should be removed from his credit report. (GE 
 At the hearing, a determination was made that AE E was unreadable. (Tr. 16) W ithin the time allowed for1
post-hearing exhibits, Applicant submitted a legible copy of the exhibit setting forth the details of payment. (AE
Q)
4
6 at I4) Documentation provided by Applicant at the hearing reflects the tax lien was not
paid until February 14, 2012. (AE E, AE Q)1
SOR 1.b, delinquent apartment rental account, $5,912. In his October 2007
interview, Applicant claimed that he gave a copy of his deployment orders to the rental
company and had a copy of the company’s release for rent and utilities. (GE 6, October
2007 interview at 3) In his September 2010 interview, Applicant indicated he did not
recognize and had disputed this account. (GE 4, September 2010 interview at 6) The last
activity on the account was in September 2010. In his July 2011 interrogatory response,
he claimed his investigation revealed the company was no longer in business. (GE 6 at 4)
He indicated that he disputed the account and it was removed from his credit report. He
conceded the residence was his home of record and that he had no documents to show
he was not on the lease. (Tr. 61) The Government’s credit report shows that Applicant was
jointly liable for the rental. (GE 2 at 11) The account does not appear in Applicant’s credit
report (AE N). He indicated he would try to retrieve documentation to support his claims
about this account. (Tr. 61) No additional information was provided. 
SOR 1.c, medical, $28. The last activity on this account was July 2007. In his
September 2010 interview, Applicant stated he wanted to pay this account, but the account
could not be found in the creditor’s account system. (GE 4, September 2010 interview at
4) In his July 2011 interrogatory responses, he stated the debt was paid in a follow-up
medical appointment. (GE 6 at 4) At the hearing, Applicant claimed he paid the debt. (Tr.
30-31) He indicated he could supply the documentation. (Tr. 64) No additional
documentation was provided. 
SOR 1.d, medical, $75. The last activity on this account was June 2009. Applicant
told the investigator he was going to inquire about the account. (GE 4, September 2010
interview at 4) In his July 2011 interrogatory responses, Applicant indicated that this co-
payment had been waived and removed from his credit report. He stated however, that he
would pay the debt in full if it had not been waived. (GE 6 at 4) At the hearing, Applicant
noted he had proof that he paid the account. (Tr. 30) AE P reflects the debt was paid after
the hearing on July 2, 2012. (AE P)
SOR 1.e, water bill or fee for overdue library book, $367. The last activity on this
account was in March 2005. In his October 2007 interview, Applicant stated to the OPM
investigator that the account applied to an overdue library book or failure to have his car
registered. (GE 4, October 2007 interview at 2) In his interview of September 2010, and
July 2011 interrogatory response, Applicant believed this account was a delinquent bill for
5
not returning an overdue library book. (GE 4, September 2010 interview at 5; GE 6 at 3)
At the hearing, he was sure the account represented a water bill his former wife owed that
he disputed and had removed from his credit report. He testified that he could try to recover
the dispute documentation. (Tr. 66) The account does not appear in Applicant’s credit
report. (AE N) No dispute documentation was provided. 
SOR 1.f, automobile loan, $18,707. The last activity on this account was July 2007.
In his September 2010 OPM interview, Applicant indicated to the investigator the account
was for his former wife’s totaled car. Applicant’s insurance paid for the car and he
purchased another car. (GE 4, September 2010 interview at 5) In his July 2011
interrogatory response, Applicant explained the debt was: 
paid auto loan insurance for my totaled vehicle, which was paid by the
original creditor after they sold the account to a collections agency . . . I have
not been contacted by any collection agency and/or creditor regarding this
debt, nor did I have any issues obtaining my current auto loan. I failed to
report this debt because I was unaware of it. To the best of my knowledge,
this debt is resolved and/or inaccurate and therefor should be properly
removed from my credit report. (GE 6 at 4)
At the hearing, Applicant accused his father of stealing Applicant’s identity in obtaining an
auto loan. Applicant indicated he was trying to buy a house in 2000 and was informed he
had a delinquent car loan. He retrieved the auto loan documentation and did not recognize
the identification card or signature. His social security number did not appear in the
documentation. He filed a dispute with one of the three credit agencies identifying the
original creditor and the account was removed from his credit report. However, the account
had been sold to a collection agency. (Tr. 33-37) In early January 2012, Applicant indicated
he re-filed a dispute with the credit agency seeking removal of the collection agency from
his credit report. He testified he would look for the documentation. (Tr. 39) Later in this
testimony, he indicated that phone logs and notes were the only documentation that
supports his attempt to remove the collection agency from his credit report. (Tr. 67) The
collection account still appears in his credit report. (AE N) No additional documentation was
provided. 
SOR 1.g, medical, $42. The last activity on this account was May 2010. In his July
2011 interrogatory response, Applicant indicated the debt was paid-in-full. (GE 6 at 4) At
the hearing, he reiterated his position referencing AE J in support. (Tr. 40) After the
hearing, Applicant provided documentation indicating the debt was resolved on July 2,
2012. (AE O)
SOR ¶ 1.h, bank account (open), $516. The last activity on this account was August
2010. This account was sold by the original creditor to a collection agency. In his July 2011
6
interrogatory response, Applicant provided settlement information about an account that
does not apply to SOR ¶1.h, or any other listed account in the SOR. At the hearing,
Applicant testified that he could not recall an account with the bank identified in SOR ¶ 1.h,
and he did not know whether he disputed the account. (Tr. 67-68)
The SOR ¶ 1.h account appears in the Government’s credit report and Applicant’s
credit report. I find that the account (appearing in both reports) is the same for the following
reasons: the name of the collection agency is the same in both reports; the first three digits
of the account numbers match; and the amount of the delinquent account is the same in
both reports. (GE 2 at 13; AE N at 24) The only difference in the account is that a new bank
replaced the old bank as the original creditor of the account. The name of the new bank
who acquired the account appears at page 25 of AE N. Applicant provided no evidence to
support his claim that this account is not his responsibility. 
The only financial counseling Applicant ever had occurred when he was in junior
high school. (Tr. 69-70) Applicant has never sought debt consolidation services. (GE 4,
September 2010 interview at 6)
Character Evidence
Applicant provided three written character references. Mr. C has been Applicant’s
friend since 2001. They were roommates in 2005 and 2006. Mr. C believes Applicant is a
reliable friend and a valuable business adviser. (AE C) 
Mr. B, the president of a defense contractor, wrote a character reference on March
5, 2012. Mr. B’s assessment of Applicant is based on nine months of observation when
Applicant was working at two federal agencies on computer security assignments. (AE B)
Mr. B’s reference is strikingly similar to the comments made by Mr. H, president of a
different defense contractor, in his character reference dated June 25, 2012, based on
three years of observation. (AE H) Other than the different letterhead, different dates when
the character references were written, and different contact information, the references are
almost identical. While each reference praises Applicant’s performance, it seems very
unlikely that the authors would use the same words in describing the quality of Applicant’s
work. The similarities in both references reduce the probative weight that is assigned to
each reference. 
A national organization operates a governing board that administers professional
information technology certifications. The board has certified Applicant as an ethical hacker,
a penetration tester, a global information security specialist, and security specialist.
Applicant needs the certificates in his employment for defense contractors. (Tr. 44-50)
7
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to
classified information.
The disqualifying and mitigating conditions should also be evaluated in the context
of nine general factors known as the whole-person concept to bring together all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision for security clearance eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to
protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to the potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
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 of establishing that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him a security clearance. 
Analysis
Financial Considerations 
The security concern for financial considerations is set forth in AG ¶ 18:
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. Compulsive gambling is a concern
as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage. Affluence that cannot
be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern. It may
indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.
The Government has the responsibility of presenting sufficient information to support
all allegations of the SOR. Based on the credit reports, Applicant’s interrogatory responses,
8
and the record transcript, AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and AG ¶
19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) are applicable. 
Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable. 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 reliability,
trustworthiness, and good judgment) does not apply. Because of Applicant’s conflicting and
misleading statements about when he paid several of the delinquent accounts, the
circumstances of his indebtedness are likely to recur and continues to raise security
concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness. These security concerns are
aggravated by the failure of Applicant to provide documentation to support his testimony
regarding the efforts he made to have other listed accounts removed from his credit report.
AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond
the person's control and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances) does
not apply. Applicant has not established that there were unforeseen events beyond his
control to frustrate his efforts to resolve his delinquent debts. His interviews establish that
he knew about some of the listed accounts in October 2007 and additional listed accounts
by the time of the interview in September 2010. Furthermore, Applicant’s evidence is
insufficient to demonstrate he acted responsibly under the circumstances to resolve his
debts. In July 2011, he provided false information when he stated unequivocally he paid
several of the listed debts. At the hearing, he stated he paid three medical debts that were
not paid until after the hearing. The record shows that he has ample resources to pay the
delinquent accounts. He has been continuously employed since February 2000, either in
the military or in civilian employment. He has ample checking and savings and earns a
good salary. He owns his home and car.
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) is
not applicable. Under this mitigating condition, an applicant should show he has received
counseling and there are clear indications his financial difficulties are being resolved or
under control. With or without financial counseling, an applicant still must demonstrate that
his financial problems are being resolved or under control. Applicant’s financial counseling
in junior high school has little current probative value because it occurred almost 20 years
ago. He has paid four listed debts, but not until after he received the SOR. Given
Applicant’s contradictory statements about when he paid several of the listed debts and his
failure to provide a documentary basis to support his claims of removing other debts from
his credit report, I am unable to conclude that there are clear indications his financial
problems are being resolved or under control.
AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. The record reflects that Applicant has paid four
9
of the listed creditors, but not until after he received the SOR. The timing of his payments
and his conflicting statements about when he paid the creditors cannot be viewed as a
good-faith effort to resolve his debts. 
AG ¶ 20(e) (the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute that 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).
Though SOR ¶¶ 1. b and 1.e have been removed from Applicant’s credit report, Applicant
did not provide documentary evidence setting forth the basis of the dispute and removal.
SOR ¶ 1.f remains on Applicant’s credit report and is not covered by the condition because
Applicant furnished no documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of the
two guidelines. I have also weighed the circumstances within the context of nine variables
known as the whole-person concept. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct,
the administrative judge should consider the following factors:
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 the
participation was 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 eligibility for a
security clearance must be a commonsense judgment based on careful consideration of the
guidelines and the whole-person concept.
Applicant is 34 years old. He is married and his wife is expecting. He also has a 12-
year-old child from another relationship. He served his country from 1996 to November 2007
when he received an honorable discharge. He has held a security clearance since 1996. He
has earned approximately three years of college credits. He appears to have a good
performance record in computer security. He has been a reliable friend to Mr. C. 
On the other hand, Applicant has not been candid and forthright during the security
investigation. This lack of candor has a negative impact on his overall case in mitigation. In
his July 2011 interrogatory responses, Applicant stated unequivocally that he had paid
several of the listed debts. He reiterated this falsehood at the hearing. The documentation
10
shows that he did not pay several of the delinquent debts until after the hearing. This pattern
of dishonest conduct continues to raise questions about his trustworthiness and judgment.
Moreover, Applicant has not provided documentary evidence corroborating the basis of his
disputes with SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.e and 1.f. Having weighed the disqualifying and mitigating
evidence in the context of the whole-person factors, Applicant has not overcome the security
concerns arising under the financial considerations guideline. 
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
Subparagraph 1.a through 1.h: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge