1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-06718
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, Applicant’s eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on April 19, 2010. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on March 23, 2012, detailing
security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, and Guideline E,
Personal Conduct. The action was 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 Adjudicative Guidelines
For Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) implemented on
September 1, 2006. 
 
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the Government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient1
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. “That burden has two components. First, the
Government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the Government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern.” See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009),
(concurring and dissenting, in part) (citations omitted). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See
ISCR Case No. 08-06605 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 4, 2010); ISCR Case No. 08-07290 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 17,
2009).
Item 4.2
Item 4.3
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on April 2, 2012. He submitted a
notarized written response to the SOR allegations dated April 9, 2012, and he
requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. 
Department Counsel prepared a file of relevant material (FORM) and mailed
Applicant a complete copy on August 21, 2012. Applicant received the FORM on
August 27, 2012. He had 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He did not submit a response.
DOHA assigned this case to me on October 2, 2012. The Government submitted nine
exhibits, which have been marked as Items 1-9 and admitted into the record. The SOR
is Item 1, and Applicant’s response to the SOR is Item 2.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a -
1.l, and 2.a of the SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. He
denied the factual allegations in ¶¶ 2.d - 2.g of the SOR.  Applicant admitted the factual1
allegations in ¶¶ 2.b and 2.c with an explanation which negates the intentional language
of the allegation. He also provided additional information to support his request for
eligibility for a security clearance. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence
of record, I make the following additional findings of fact.  
Applicant, who is 56 years old, works as a structural fabricator for a Department
of Defense contractor. Applicant began his current employment in March 2008 after
three months of unemployment. From November 2000 until December 2007, Applicant
worked regularly as an aircraft mechanic.2
Applicant graduated from high school in 1974 and attended trade school from
1972 until 1974. He married his first wife in 1974, and they divorced two years later.
Applicant lives with his fiance and has since 2000. Applicant has three children from
other relationships. His daughters are 27 and 24 years old, and his son is 26 years old.3
During his 2003 investigative interview, Applicant acknowledged owing $15,525
in child support for his oldest daughter and $58,468 in child support for his son and
Item 4 - Item 7.4
Item 7; Item 8.5
Item 5 - Item 9.6
Item 7.7
3
younger daughter. He indicated that he paid child support obligations on and off from
the late 1980s until February 2002, when he began regular monthly payments through
garnishment of his wages. These payments averaged approximately $550 a month. The
April 2010 credit report reflected that his balance on the larger debt had reduced about
$8,000 and his balance on the smaller child support debt had reduced $6,000. As an
attachment to his response to DOHA interrogatories dated December 9, 2011, Applicant
submitted a copy of his earnings statement for the pay period ending November 20,
2011. This earnings statement showed a $302 bi-weekly deduction for child support and
a total payment of $6,904 for the year 2011. Credit reports from 2011 and 2012 show a
reduction in his child support balances, with a total remaining balance of approximately
$46,000 in April 2012.4
Applicant stopped filing his federal and state tax returns beginning with the 1991
tax year because his 1990 tax refund was intercepted and applied solely to his
arrearage for his younger children without giving his older daughter any of the refund. In
his 2003 signed sworn statement, Applicant indicated that the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) advised him that he had not filed his federal tax return for the years 1991, 1992,
1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2001. He also indicated that he had made an arrangement
to pay $100 a month on this debt, but he has not shown that he made these payments.
In his 2010 interview with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator,
Applicant acknowledged that he had not filed his federal tax returns for several more
years. He also stated that he filed his tax returns for the years 2004 and 2006 late.5
The credit reports of record reflect that Applicant’s home state has filed tax liens
against him for unpaid income taxes for the years 1987 through 1990 and 2003 through
2006. Applicant acknowledges that he has not filed his state tax returns since 1990. He
has not taken any action to resolve his state tax liens and state tax debts.6
Applicant contacted a tax service for assistance with his taxes. In June 2011, he
hired an attorney with a tax service to represent him in his tax issues. Through his
attorney, Applicant made an offer to the IRS to pay $550 a month to resolve his tax
liability. Applicant has not provided any documentation to show that the IRS accepted or
rejected his offer, nor has he provided evidence of any payments to the IRS on his tax
debt.7
As of November 2011, Applicant earned $5,173 a month, plus some overtime
pay. His monthly deductions included federal and state taxes, medical, life insurance,
social security, medicare, and child support. His net monthly pay averages
Item 7.8
Item 8.9
Item 3.10
4
approximately $3,100. He has sufficient income to pay his monthly expenses. The credit
reports and his submission to the IRS indicate that he does not own real estate.8
When he completed his e-QIP, Applicant answered “No” to the following
questions in Section 26: Financial Record: 
c. Have you failed to pay Federal, state, or other taxes, or to
file a tax return, when required by law or ordinance?
d. Have you had a lien placed against your property for failing
to pay taxes or other debts?
e. Have you had a judgment entered against you?
j. Have you been delinquent on court-imposed alimony or child
support payments?
k. Have you had your wages, benefits, or assets garnished or
attached for any reason?
When Applicant met with the security investigator on May 13, 2003, he
discussed, in detail, his nonpayment of child support, the amount owed, and
acknowledged past and current wage garnishments for child support payments and
arrearage. In addition, he and the interviewer discussed the status of his federal and
state tax returns. Applicant admitted not filing his federal and state tax returns for many
years and owing money to the federal and state governments on his taxes. He denied
any knowledge of a state tax lien.9
In his response to the SOR, Applicant denies any knowledge of the state tax
liens filed between August 2004 and March 2007. He denies intentionally falsifying his
answer to SOR allegations 2.e and 2.f because he did not know an insurance accident
was considered a judgment (2.e), and he was paying his child support every two weeks
(2.f). In his answer to allegation 2.c, he states that he did not fully understand the
question and to allegation 2.g, he states that he may have mistakenly answered the
question.10
The SOR alleges that Applicant falsified his answers to two financial questions on
his January 9, 2002 security clearance application. The January 2002 security
clearance application is not in the record. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant said he
did not fully understand the questions, and in his 2003 interview, Applicant denies
Item 1; Item 8.11
5
intentionally falsifying his answers on his security clearance application. He explained
that he did not read the questions correctly.11
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 are used 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, an applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
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 an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
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.
 
In assessing whether an Applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F, the Appeal Board12
provided the following guidance in ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008):
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the concept of
“‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through
payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007).
However, an applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off
each and every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate that he has “. . . established
a plan to resolve his financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.”
6
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for financial considerations is set
out 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. 
AG ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; and
(g) failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as
required or the fraudulent filing of the same.
. 
Appellant developed significant financial problems with payment of his child
support. He has not filed his federal and state income tax returns for many years. Most
of the debts have not been resolved. These three disqualifying conditions apply.
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through
20(f), and the following are potentially applicable:12
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). The Judge can reasonably
consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his actions in evaluating the
extent to which that applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is
credible and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a
determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding
debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for
the payment of such debts one at a time. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd.
Apr. 4, 2008). Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in
furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR.
7
(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; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
 Applicant still owes back child support. However, the credit reports of record and
his November 2011 earnings statement show that he is making regular payments on
these debts from his pay through a garnishment. He is resolving his child support debts.
AG ¶¶ 20(c) applies to SOR allegations 1.a and 1.b, which are found in favor of
Applicant. Applicant decided not to file his federal and state income tax returns after his
1990 tax refunds were taken and applied to only one of his child support debts. He has
spoken with the IRS in the past about his tax returns, and in 2011, he made an offer of
payment to resolve his past-due federal taxes. Applicant is given some credit under AG
¶ 20(d) for this offer. However, he did not provide any information about the current
status of his offer nor has he shown that he has made any payments on his federal tax
debt. He has taken no action on his state tax debt. The remaining allegations under
Guideline F are found against Applicant because he has not shown that he has or is
resolving these debts. 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov.17, 2004)(explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-2313313
at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)).
8
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.    
For AG ¶¶ 16(a) and 16(b) to apply, Applicant’s omission must be deliberate. The
Government established that Applicant omitted material facts from his April 2010 e-QIP,
when he answered “no” to five questions about his finances. This information is material
to the evaluation of Applicant’s trustworthiness and honesty. In his response, he denied
that he intentionally falsified his answers on his e-QIP or that he intended to hide his
past financial problems from the Government. When the allegation of falsification is
controverted, the Government has the burden of proving it. Proof of an omission,
standing alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind when
the omission occurred. An administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a
whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning an
applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the omission occurred.13
Applicant admitted that he failed to disclose his failure to file his tax returns. The
Government has been aware since 2003 that Applicant had not filed tax returns for
many years. Given this knowledge and Applicant’s admissions in 2003, Applicant lacked
the requisite intent to hide information about his tax filings from the Government.
Concerning the liens filed by the state, the liens are against him as a person, because
he does not own property. Since this question specifically asks if any liens had been
filed against property he owned, his answer is not a falsification. Applicant has been
paying his child support for many years, and his belief that by paying this debt, he was
current is reasonable. Given his denial of intentional falsification on these five answers,
the Government has not provided any evidence which supports its burden of proving
intentional falsification on allegations 2.c through 2.g. 
The Government did not provide a copy of the January 2002 security clearance
application. However, Applicant admitted the facts in SOR allegation 2.b, but said that
he did not understand the question in 2002. Since the questions address current debts
older that 90 days and debts over 180 days, Applicant’s misunderstanding about the
scope of the questions is not unreasonable. In 2002, his financial problems related to
child support, which he was paying, and unfiled taxes which are usually addressed in a
specific question on the security clearance application. The Government has failed to
establish that the requisite intent to show that Applicant falsified his answers on his
2010 e-QIP. AG ¶16(a) is not established. SOR allegations 2.b through 2.g are found in
favor of Applicant. SOR allegation 2.a is a statement of fact which is specifically
addressed under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Guideline E, Personal Conduct,
is found in favor of Applicant.
9
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The 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 eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant
works steadily and does not have problems at work. He can support himself financially
and does. Applicant fell behind in his child support payments when his children were
young and his income fluctuated. For many years he has worked steadily and has paid
his child support arrearage through a wage garnishment. He is slowly reducing this
debt. He deliberately chose not to file his federal and state income taxes many years
ago because he did not agree with the apportionment of the tax refund. He has not
taken any  steps to resolve his state tax debt and has only made a small effort to
undertake the resolution of his federal tax debt. His decision not to file his tax returns
raises questions about his judgment. His failure to resolve his tax issues when he has
been aware since 2003 that the Government has a concern about this conduct reflects
poor judgment and decision-making. His unpaid taxes and unresolved tax issues remain
a security concern.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude
Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his personal conduct under
10
Guideline E, but he has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances
under Guideline F.
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: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.c-1.l: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.g: For 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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge