1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-04499
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace L. Garcia, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, 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 December 7, 2010. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on May 25, 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).
GE 2; Tr. 49.2
 
2
Applicant received the SOR on June 6, 2012, and she answered it. DOD
received her answer on June 29, 2012. A hearing before an administrative judge with
the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) was requested. Department
Counsel was prepared to proceed on October 9, 2012. DOHA assigned this case to
another administrative judge on October 15, 2012. DOHA reassigned the case to me on
October 22, 2012 for workload reasons. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on
November 26, 2012, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on December 19, 2012.
The Government offered exhibits (GE) marked as GE 1 through GE 9, which were
received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified. She did not
submit any exhibits. I held the record open until January 3, 2013, for Applicant to submit
additional matters if she desired. Applicant chose not to submit any additional evidence.
The record closed on January 3, 2013.  DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on
January 4, 2013.
Procedural Rulings
Notice
Applicant was not sure of the date she received the hearing notice. I advised
Applicant of her right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the Directive to receive the notice 15 days
before the hearing. Applicant agreed to proceed with the hearing as scheduled. (Tr. 8-9)
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a -
1.c, 1.e - 1.o, 1.q - 1.t, 1.v - 1.z, 1.bb - 1.ee, and 2.a -2.g of the SOR. Her admissions
are incorporated herein as findings of fact. She denied the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.d,
1.p, 1.u, 1.aa, and 2.h of the SOR.  She also provided additional information to support1
her request for eligibility for a security clearance. After a complete and thorough review
of the evidence of record, I make the following findings of fact.  
Applicant, who is 37 years old, works in food service for a DOD contractor. She
began her current employment in December 2010. She has not had any disciplinary
problems at her job. Except for two months, she had been unemployed for three years
prior to accepting her current position.2
GE 1; GE 4; GE 4; Tr. 17-18.3
Applicant’s other problems while in the Navy are not identified as an issue in the SOR. Her problems included4
financial issues and an assault charge. Tr. 40-45.
GE 1; GE 4; GE 5; Tr. 23, 46-47.5
GE 4; GE 5; Tr. 24.6
Tr. 25-26.7
 
3
Applicant graduated from high school in 1994 and has some college credits.
Applicant and her husband married in December 2006. They have a three-year-old
daughter, and Applicant has a 15-year-old daughter from an earlier relationship.3
Applicant enlisted in the United States Navy in August 1994. In 1996, Applicant
was pregnant with her first daughter. She wanted to go home and requested leave. The
Navy denied her request. She left her base and was absent without leave (AWOL) for
60 days. She returned to her duty station on her own. She appeared at a Captain’s Mast
for this conduct. Because she had other problems while in the Navy and wanted to
leave, the Navy gave her an ‘Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” in February
1997.  4
From June 1999 until April 2001, Applicant worked as an office clerk in the
shipping department of a technical company. The company fired her in April 2001 after
she had been late three times. After her second tardy arrival, her supervisor warned her
that she would be fired if she was late again. One day when her daughter was sick, she
arrived to work two minutes late. At the end of her shift, her supervisor fired her.5
In June 2005, Applicant and a neighbor argued and threatened each other.
Applicant eventually returned to her house and decided to “let the matter go”. Three
weeks later, she received a postcard from the police, which requested her to report
downtown. She did, and the police arrested her for communicating a threat. Her
neighbor failed to appear for the court hearing, and the court dismissed her case.  6
In October 2005, the police arrested and charged Applicant with simple worthless
check because she wrote a check to a grocery store when she did not have sufficient
funds in her checking account. She acknowledged writing this check. She paid the
check and related charges.7
In March 2006, Applicant’s husband was involved in an altercation with another
female at a fast food place. Applicant drove to the fast food restaurant where she met
with her husband and the police. The police advised that a crime had not been
committed and told everyone to go home. A few weeks later, after receiving a telephone
call about her nephew enticing a riot, Applicant drove to a local movie theater to pick
him up. When she arrived, she identified herself to the police. The police arrested her
for simple assault for the incident with her husband, based on an arrest warrant. The
GE 4; GE 5; Tr. 25.8
GE 4; GE 5; Tr. 26-27.9
GE 1; Tr. 21-22, 27-29, 31-34, 56-57.10
GE 2; Tr. 21-22, 53-54.11
 
4
police released her on her own recognizance. She appeared in court within a month,
and the court dismissed her case as the complaining witness did not appear for the
hearing. Applicant denies assaulting this woman.8
In April 2008, Applicant began working for a child services organization. She
completed a public trust position application (SF 85P) on April 7, 2008. Because she
was working with children, she interpreted the question about assault charges as a
request for any arrests for assault charges against children, not any arrests for assault.
She did not list her simple assault arrest in 2006. When her first paycheck was three
days late, she asked about the check and continued to ask about her check when she
did not receive it. Eventually, the appropriate manager prepared an emergency check
for her. Her subsequent paychecks were received on time. In June 2008, the employer
advised her that it was terminating her for lying on her SF 85P because she did not list
the simple assault arrest. Applicant acknowledged this reason for her termination and
stated that she believed the incident with her first paycheck was also a factor in her
dismissal.9
When Applicant completed the SF 85P in April 2008, she did not list her “Under
Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge from the Navy because the discharge had
occurred more than 10 years earlier. Staff members at her place of employment, who
helped her with the application, told her not to list any incident that occurred more than
10 years earlier. She acknowledged at the hearing that she did not pay careful attention
to the questions and her answers when completing her SF 85P. She failed to list her
arrests for simple assault, communicating a threat, and simple worthless check. She
never met with an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator after she
completed the SF 85P.10
Applicant completed her SF 86 on December 7, 2010. The directions given to her
were simply to tell the truth. Following this directive, Applicant listed her arrests, her
“Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, and her debts.  11
The SOR lists 31 unpaid debts, the majority of which are medical debts. The
medical debts occurred when she was a single mother without health insurance.
Applicant denied five of these debts because she either believed the debt had been
paid or she did not recognize the debt. Applicant did not provide verification that showed
she paid the debts she denied. She has not paid any of the remaining debts, and she
does not have a plan of action to resolve these debts. Because most of the debts are no
longer on her credit report and are more than seven years old, she believed that she did
GE 4 - GE 8; Tr. 18-21, 29-30.12
 
5
not have to pay them. The 2012 credit reports show four unpaid debts, which are four
years or more past due.  Her current bills are paid.12
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 Board provided13
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.”
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
 
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; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Appellant developed significant financial problems when she was single. She
lacked sufficient income to pay her bills, and her lack of medical insurance contributed
to the accumulation of unpaid medical bills. The debts have not been resolved. These
two 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).  Applicant has not provided proof that she paid the five debts she denied. She13
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.
The Appeal Board has explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay overdue creditors or14
otherwise resolve debts:
In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], an applicant must
present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some other
good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the
term ‘good-faith.’ However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good-faith ‘requires
a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and
adherence to duty or obligation.’ Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show
that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy) in order to claim the
benefit of [the “good faith” mitigating condition].
(Internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30301 at 3 (App. BD. Apr. 20, 2004)(quoting ISCR
Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd.. June 4, 2001)).
The DOHA Appeal Board has held that the statute of imitations is not evidence of m itigation in security15
clearance cases. Under Guideline F or in the “whole-person” analysis, the Appeal Board has not addressed
the issue of rehabilitation of finances as a way to mitigate security concerns when debts are old and legally
uncollectible.
 
7
acknowledged that she has not paid the remaining debts listed in the SOR, primarily
because the debts are old and not listed on her current credit reports. Under state
statute of limitations laws,  she has the right to challenge any action against her by a14
creditor to collect these old debts.  Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns15
under Guideline F.
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:
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
 
8
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of:
(1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of
client confidentiality, release of proprietary information,
unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or other
government protected information:
(2) disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior in the
workplace; 
(3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and,
(4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other
employer's time or resources.
For AG ¶ 16(a) to apply, Applicant’s omission must be deliberate. The
Government established that Applicant omitted material facts from her April 2008 SF
85P, when she failed to list her “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge
from the Navy and her three arrests. This information is material to the evaluation of
Applicant’s trustworthiness and honesty. In her response and at the hearing, she denied
that she intentionally falsified her answers on her SF 85P or that she had an intent to
hide her past conduct 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.  
When Applicant completed the SF 85P in 2008, staff at her office advised her
that she did not need to provide any information more than 10 years old. Relying on this
advice, she did not list information about her discharge from the Navy. Concerning her
failure to list the three arrests, she misinterpreted the information being requested. She
thought her employer was seeking information related to crimes against children only.
Applicant voluntarily provided this information on her SF 86 in December 2010 after being advised to be16
truthful on her security clearance application. Because she had not met with an OPM investigator or any other
DOD official after completing the SF 85P in 2008, she provided the correct information at the first opportunity.
 
9
The Government has not established under AG ¶ 16(a) that Applicant intentionally
falsified her SF 85P in April 2008.16
As a 20-year-old, Applicant’s decision to leave her Navy duty station without
permission showed poor judgment. This decision, her job termination in 2001 for
tardiness, and her three arrests reflect a pattern of rules violation. A security concern is
raised under AG ¶ 16(d)(3).
AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; and
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
Although Applicant decided to leave her Naval duty assignment in 1996 without
permission, she decided to return and face the consequences of her decision, which
reflected improvement in her judgment. By firing Applicant in 2001 for being late two
minutes, her employer required her to give greater priority to her job than the care of her
young, and sometimes sick child, or lose her job. Applicant’s first responsibility was to
her child, personally and legally. She showed good judgment by placing her child first.
When she and her neighbor argued in June 2005, Applicant decided to walk away from
the situation and “let it go.” She again showed good judgment, by walking away from the
situation. Her neighbor carried the argument to the police, which led to Applicant’s first
arrest. The neighbor failed to appear in court, an indication that the neighbor did not
intend to pursue this matter. Applicant denied any misconduct in the 2006 incident
which resulted in her simple assault arrest. The individual, who claimed that Applicant
assaulted her, failed to appear for the court hearing on her claim, which raises
questions about the validity of the charges. The court dismissed the charges. Applicant
acknowledged that she had problems with her finances in the past, which led to her
writing checks when she did not have sufficient funds in the checking account. Her
finances are much better. She has not written checks without sufficient funds in a long
time. Overall, the evidence of record reflects that Applicant has matured and makes
better decisions concerning the issues presented in life. She has mitigated the security
concerns about her personal conduct in the past under AG ¶¶ 17(d) and 17(e).
 
10
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. When
Applicant’s financial problems first began, Applicant was a young single mother with
limited income and no health insurance. Her finances have improved in recent years,
but her past debts remain unresolved. Applicant made poor decisions as a young
person. As she matured, Applicant began to improve her decision making. She has
remained out of trouble for a number of years. She is married and has two children. As
a result, she has focused her attention on providing a stable domestic environment for
her family. Her past conduct is not a security concern, but her past debts 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 did not mitigate the security concerns arising from her finances under
Guideline F, while she did mitigate the security concerns about her personal conduct
under Guideline E.
 
11
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.ee: 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