DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )      ISCR Case No. 11-10114
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
February 12, 2013
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on May 16, 2011.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On October 15, 2012, the
Department of Defense (DoD), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as amended), issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed reasons why DOHA could
not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether
clearance should be denied or revoked.
The Applicant responded to the SOR on October 26, 2012, and he requested an
administrative hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned
to the undersigned Administrative Judge on December 3, 2012.  An amendment to the
Statement of Reasons was issued to the Applicant by Department Counsel on
November 23, 2012.   A notice of hearing was issued on December 5, 2012, and the
hearing was scheduled for January 17, 2013.  At the hearing the Government presented
seven exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 7, which were admitted
without objection.  The Applicant presented no exhibits, but testified on his own behalf.
He requested that the record remain open until February 4, 2013, to submit additional
2
documentation.  The Applicant failed to submit any additional documentation. The
official transcript (Tr.) was received on January 28, 2013.  Based upon a review of the
pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is
denied.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 33 years old and married.  He has two years of community
college and a certificate in human resources.  He is employed with a defense contractor
as an Assistant Facilities Manager and is seeking to obtain a security clearance in
connection with this employment.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admitted the allegation set forth in the SOR under this guideline.
(See Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)  Credit Reports of the Applicant dated May 27, 2011;
August 3, 2012; November 23, 2012; and January 16, 2013, reflect that the Applicant
was at one time indebted to a creditor for a medical account placed into collections in an
amount totaling about $62,667.  (Government Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 7.)  The Applicant has
been working full time for his current employer since March 2009.
In October 2005, the Applicant was employed on a cruise ship where he had
limited medical insurance as long as he was employed there.  He started experiencing
debilitating joint pain that forced him to quit his job.  He became very sick experiencing
lung and kidney failure and other complications.  After three unsuccessful attempts at
trying to get medical attention at a clinic, he was referred to a hospital.  Although he had
no medical insurance he had a credit card and knew he could charge what he needed in
order to pay for the medical care he needed.  After a series of tests it was determined
that he had lupus.  He stayed in the hospital for three weeks and saw numerous
specialists for his condition.  He paid his doctor bills, lab work, and other medical
expenses.  While in the hospital he was told to apply for financial assistance that was
funded by various charities including the Lupus Foundation.  The Applicant applied for
the financial assistance and received some charitable gifts that he thought covered his
hospital expenses.  When he left the hospital he did not receive any bills from the
hospital nor did any adverse reporting end up on his credit report.
The Applicant testified that during his interview with the DoD investigator on June
21, 2011, he learned that he owed a debt to the hospital in the amount of $62,667.
Prior to learning about this debt, he has always paid his bills on time.  He testified that
3
he has never before been late on a credit card debt, a car loan, car insurance, nor has
he even had a lien or judgment entered against him.    
When he received the SOR that alleged the particulars of the debt, he contacted
the hospital to obtain more information.  They initially could not find the Applicant’s
account as they had recently changed their accounting system.  With real concern for
his security clearance eligibility, he contacted them a second time and they were able to
provide him with his account information.  He states that he then contacted the
collection agency to work out an agreeable settlement offer.  
Since working for his current employer, the Applicant has received periodic pay
increases and his management is pleased with his job performance.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in conduct involving
questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness 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.  
The Applicant denied the allegation set forth in the SOR under this guideline.
(See Amendment to the SOR and Applicant’s Answer to the Amendment.)  
The Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing dated May 16, 2011.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  Question 26(g) on the
application, asked the Applicant if he had any bills or debts turned over to a collection
agency?  The Applicant answered “NO.”  This was a false response.  He failed to
disclose the medical account that had been turned over to a collection agency that is
discussed above.  (Government Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 7.)  Since the Applicant did not
know about the debt until he met with the DoD investigator he cannot be held
responsible for deliberately failing to disclose it on his application.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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
4
is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond
the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected
medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted
responsibly under the circumstances;
Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
15.  The Concern.  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.
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
    b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
5
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavior
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order
. . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a
determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility and dishonesty which
demonstrates poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
6
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with his security clearance eligibility.
In regard to the Applicant’s personal conduct, I find the Applicant to be open,
honest and candid.  I do not find that he deliberately or intentionally concealed material
information from the Government on his security clearance application regarding his
medical account that is in collection.  As discussed above, he was not aware of the debt
until he met with the DoD investigator.  Therefore, when he completed the application,
he did not know about the debt and did not intentionally conceal it.  Accordingly, I find
for the Applicant under Guideline E (Personal Conduct.)
 It is noted that the Applicant has normally been a responsible individual who has
a history of paying his bills on time and living within his means.  However, after his
medical emergency he became tremendously delinquently indebted to one creditor in
the amount of $62,667.  He has known about the delinquent medical account for over a
year.  Since then, he has done nothing more than contact the collection agency to
negotiate a settlement.  The debt currently remains outstanding and owing.  He testified
that he is still in the process of working out the arrangements.  However, he has failed
to provide any documentation to corroborate his efforts at settlement negotiations or to
substantiate any of his testimony.   
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations, apply.  Mitigating Conditions 20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the
financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a
business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation),
and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances applies but is not
controlling in this case.  
Clearly the Applicant’s medical emergency brings some mitigation, however,
since learning of the debt, the Applicant has done very little if anything to address it, and
cannot be said to have acted responsibly under the circumstances.  Given the fact that
the debt is so large, and he has not reached a settlement, he has not made even one
payment toward resolving it, nor has he set up a payment plan, he cannot be said to
have made a good faith effort toward resolving it, nor has he shown financial
rehabilitation.  Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has not introduced
persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome
the Government's case. 
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole-person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness,
7
unreliability, an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other
characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard classified
information.
  I have considered all of the evidence presented.  It fails to mitigate the negative
effects of his financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on his ability to
safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has
failed to overcome the Government's case opposing his request for a security
clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the
factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.  Paragraph
2 is found for the Applicant.   
     FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.a.: Against the Applicant.
  Paragraph 2: For the Applicant.
        Subpara.  2.a.: For the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all 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
the Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge