Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-5, and Applicant exhibits (AE A-I). AE I was1
timely received post-hearing.
The DoD 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: )
)
XXXXX, Xxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxx )       ISCR Case No. 11-00148
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Raashid S. Williams, 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 18 January 2012, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising security concerns under Guidelines F, Financial
Considerations and E, Personal Conduct.  Applicant timely answered the SOR,2
requesting a hearing before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).
DOHA assigned the case to me 13 July 2012 and I convened a hearing 9 August 2012.
DOHA received the transcript 17 August 2012.
 
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant denied the SOR allegations based largely on his claim that all the debts
have been removed from his credit report. He is a 29-year-old senior remedy consultant
employed by a defense contractor since January 2011. He has not held a clearance
previously. 
In his November 2008 clearance application (GE 1), Applicant disclosed a single
delinquent automobile loan (at SOR 1.m) in response to questions asking him to
disclose any financial problems. However, in addition to his delinquent automobile loan,
Applicant had 18 additional delinquent debts as alleged at SOR 1.a-l and 1.n-s.
Applicant was aware that he had many other delinquent debts beside the one debt he
disclosed, and claims that he failed to disclose these other debts because he was not
aware of the exact number and amount of his debts (Tr. 46). Nevertheless, during a
January 2009 subject interview, he told the investigator that he was aware of most of
the debts because he had obtained a copy of his credit report in 2006, after he was
denied a non-federal job because of his financial problems (GE 2). He also
acknowledged (Tr. 44-46; 72-74) that he knew that he had delinquent debts that the
Government wanted him to report.
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits confirm, 19 delinquent debts totaling
nearly $41,000. His evidence shows that he has been paying his delinquent child
support (SOR 1.a) by court-ordered garnishment since July 2011 (Answer; AE B), and
that he settled a delinquent education loan (SOR1.q) in May 2011 (Answer, AE E). He
settled a delinquent cell phone account in August 2012 (AE I). Applicant claims, without
corroboration, that the remaining debts have been paid and removed from his credit
report or disputed and removed after investigation showed he was not responsible for
the debt.
Although Applicant denied the remaining debts, during his January 2009 subject
interview (GE 2), he acknowledged owing each of the alleged debts and provided
details of the circumstances under which he incurred the debts and defaulted on them.
Applicant’s failure to corroborate his claims that the debts were paid or removed for
other reasons makes it impossible to determine whether any of the debts were actually
paid or merely removed from his credit report because they had become more than
seven years old.
Applicant attributes his financial problems (Answer; Tr. 24) to his immaturity and
financial irresponsibility when he was younger. He claims to have a budget, but provided
no copy of it. He has not received any financial counseling. Recently, he has been
working to bring delinquent credit card accounts and a mortgage current. He is carrying
balances on several credit cards, and usually makes only the minimum payments on the
card.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶ 19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;4
3
Applicant has not contacted any of the creditors holding his delinquent debt to
either confirm the debts or dispute them, although his credit reports show him disputing
a number of accounts not alleged in the SOR. Similarly, he provided proof of payment
on several accounts not alleged in the SOR. Applicant’s character reference considers
him honest and trustworthy (AE I).
 
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, applicant bears a heavy burden of
persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.3
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant’s debts go back several
years, and he has not documented meaningful action to address them.4
Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. His
financial difficulties are both recent and multiple, and occurred under circumstances that
¶ 20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that5
it is  unlikely to recur . . . 
¶ 20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and6
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶ 20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that7
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶ 20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.8
¶ 16.(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel9
security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, . . . [or]
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . .;
¶ 17(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification10
before being confronted with the facts;
4
could recur.  The debts were due to Applicant’s financial irresponsibility and immaturity,5
not circumstances beyond his control, and he has not acted responsibly in addressing
his debts.  He has received no credit or financial counseling, nor has he demonstrated6
that his financial problems are under control, or that he has a plan to bring them under
control.  The Government is not the collection agent of last resort, and outlasting your7
creditors until the debts age off your credit report is not a financial plan. He has not
made a good-faith effort to satisfy the debts.  Accordingly, I conclude Guideline F8
against Applicant.
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline E, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicants are expected to give full and
frank answers during the clearance process. Although Applicant failed to report any
financial problems beyond his delinquent car loan, he was aware of numerous other
delinquent debts because he had reviewed his credit report some years earlier when he
had been denied employment because of delinquent debts. This conduct constitutes a
deliberate omission or evasiveness inconsistent with the candor required of applicants.  9
None of the Guideline E mitigating conditions apply. The concealed information
was relevant to a clearance decision. Applicant did not disclose this adverse information
until his subject interview.  Moreover, Applicant had particular reason to know the10
importance of disclosing his financial problems because he had previously been denied
employment because of his delinquent debts. Applicant’s failure to disclose this
information demonstrates a lack of candor required of cleared personnel, particularly
with his background as a Government security specialist. The Government has an
interest in examining all relevant and material adverse information about an applicant
before making a clearance decision. The Government relies on applicants to truthfully
disclose that adverse information in a timely fashion, not when they perceive disclosure
to be prudent or convenient. Further, an applicant’s willingness to report adverse
information about himself provides some indication of his willingness to report
inadvertent security violations or other security concerns in the future, something the
5
Government relies on to perform damage assessments and limit the compromise of
classified information. Applicant’s conduct suggests he is willing to put his personal
needs ahead of legitimate Government interests. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline E
against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph q: For Applicant
Subparagraphs r-s: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: 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