1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 11-08405 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Philip Katauskas, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
__________ 
 
Decision 
__________ 
 
 
RIVERA, Juan J., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant has a history of financial problems dating back to 2007. He failed to 
establish financial responsibility in the resolution of his delinquent debts. Moreover, he 
falsified his December 2009 security clearance application. The record evidence fails to 
convince me of Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. Clearance is 
denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on December 20, 
2009. On August 1, 2012, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued Applicant a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).1 Applicant answered the SOR 
(undated), and requested a hearing before an administrative judge.  
                                            
1 DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry 
(February 20, 1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security 
Clearance Review Program (Directive) (January 2, 1992), as amended; and the Adjudicative Guidelines 
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), implemented by the DoD on 
September 1, 2006. 
 
2 
 
 
 
The case was originally assigned to another administrative judge on October 22, 
2012, and reassigned to me on December 20, 2012. The Defense Office of Hearings 
and Appeals (DOHA) issued the first notice of hearing on November 19, 2012, 
scheduling a hearing for December 6, 2012. The hearing was postponed and a second 
notice of hearing was issued on December 3, 2012, scheduling the hearing for January 
18, 2013. At the hearing, the Government offered exhibits (GE) 1 through 8, which were 
received without objection. Applicant testified and submitted two exhibits, marked AE 1 
and 2. AE 2 was received post hearing. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on 
January 29, 2013. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
In his Answer, Applicant failed to admit or deny most of the SOR allegations. At 
his hearing, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.k, and 1.l. He 
denied SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.d through 1.j, and 2.a. His admissions are incorporated as 
findings of fact. After a thorough review of all the evidence, including his testimony and 
demeanor while testifying, I make the following additional findings of fact:  
 
Applicant is a 46-year-old employee of a government contractor. He attended 
college for approximately two years during 1986-1987, but he did not complete a 
degree. Applicant married in October 2004, and divorced in September 2007. He has 
two children, a daughter age 18, and a son, age 16.  
 
Applicant worked for a private company as an engineer from June 1994 until 
August 2009, when he was laid off. He started working for his current employer, a 
government contractor, in August 2009. This is his first application for access to 
classified information. 
 
Applicant submitted his SCA in December 2009. Section 26 of the SCA 
(Financial Record), asked Applicant to disclose any financial problems within the last 
seven years. In his answers, Applicant only disclosed that in June 2008, he had some 
property repossessed or foreclosed. Applicant denied any other financial problems 
including having delinquent debts, judgments, liens, and wage garnishments. The 
subsequent background investigation revealed the 10 delinquent debts alleged in the 
SOR, totaling $51,771, which are supported by GEs 3 through 6, and AE 2. The status 
of the alleged delinquent debts is as follow: 
 
SOR ¶ 1.a – This is a $1,737 collection for a credit card account that became 
delinquent in January 2009. In his July 2012 response to DOHA interrogatories, 
Applicant claimed this credit card was awarded to his ex-wife by the divorce court and 
that it was her responsibility to pay it. Notwithstanding, Applicant’s credit report shows 
this account as his individual account. (AE 2) Applicant disputed the account through 
the Equifax Credit Bureau, and apparently the dispute was resolved against him. He 
paid the debt through a garnishment of wages in December 2011. (AE 2, GE 5)  
 
 
3 
 
 
I note that Applicant explained that after the divorce, his ex-wife filed for 
bankruptcy protection and her responsibility for numerous debts was discharged. The 
creditors then started collection actions against Applicant. He believes that this credit 
card should have been his ex-wife’s responsibility. (GE 2) 
 
SOR ¶ 1.b – This is a $8,166 judgment filed against Applicant in November 2007. 
(GEs 3, 4, and 5) In February 2010, Applicant told a government investigator that the 
creditor told him the debt was delinquent, and he did not pay it. Applicant was required 
to appear in court, and a judgment was filed against him. Applicant told the investigator 
that he believed the debt was for a loan taken by his ex-wife. He explained that his 
name appeared in the loan documents because his father (deceased) cosigned for his 
ex-wife’s loan. He and his father had the same name, and Applicant claimed he did not 
cosign the loan.  
 
Applicant claimed he disputed the debt and the dispute was resolved in his favor. 
He presented no documentary evidence to show he disputed the debt, or that the 
dispute was resolved in his favor. Notwithstanding, the debt is no longer reflected in his 
January 2013 credit report. (AE 2)  
 
SOR ¶ 1.c – In July 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed a $17,178 lien 
against Applicant for income tax owed for tax years 2006, 2007, and 2008. Applicant 
claimed he started making payments in 2009. However, the only documentary evidence 
of payments starts in July 2011. As of July 9, 2012, he made six payments totaling 
$1,500, and he owed a total of $18,280. Applicant claimed he only owes $9,780, but the 
documents he submitted show he owes over $18,000.  
 
SOR ¶ 1.d – Applicant claimed that he and his then wife purchased a vehicle 
together. During the divorce, she was awarded the vehicle, and according to Applicant, 
she was made responsible for the loan payment. Notwithstanding Applicant’s claims, his 
January 2013 credit report (AE 2) indicates this was Applicant’s individual account, and 
not a joint account. In February 2010, Applicant told a government investigator that in 
2006, he received a letter from the creditor stating that the car was repossessed and 
collecting an outstanding balance of $13,000.  
 
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant claimed he had an upcoming court date to 
determine whether he or his ex-wife were responsible for the debt. He claimed he 
instructed his attorney to establish a payment plan if his dispute failed. Applicant 
presented no documentary evidence to support any of his claims. 
 
SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f allege delinquent medical debts. The debts became 
delinquent in October and November 2008. (AE 2) During his June 2010 interview with 
a government investigator, Applicant stated he believed these debts were for medical 
services provided to his son.  
 
In his July 2012 response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant claimed he 
contacted the creditor and made arrangements to pay these debts in full. In his Answer 
 
4 
 
 
to the SOR, he stated these were his ex-wife’s debts, but that he had contacted the 
creditor to pay them. He claimed that the creditor did not provide him the documentation 
he requested to pay the debts. Applicant also claimed that he disputed the debts and 
they were removed from his credit report. Applicant presented no documentary 
evidence to show these were not his debts, or that he contacted the creditors. 
Applicant’s January 2013 credit report (AE 2) shows both debts as delinquent and it 
does not indicate Applicant disputed either debt.  
 
SOR ¶ 1.g alleges a delinquent child support obligation totaling $5,197. GE 3, 4, 
and 5 indicate that Applicant acquired the obligation in December 2008. Applicant’s 
January 2013 credit report (AE 2) shows that he was first delinquent in January 2009, 
and that he paid the arrearages in December 2012. Thus, Applicant was in arrearages 
on his child support obligation from January 2009 until December 2012. He has been 
paying his child support obligation through a garnishment of wages. As of his hearing 
date, he was current on his child support obligation.  
 
At his hearing, Applicant repeatedly claimed he was never late on his child 
support obligation. However, in February 2010, Applicant told a government investigator 
that in November 2008, he received a letter from the state’s child support and family 
services organization stating that he was in arrears on his child support obligation. 
Applicant also told the investigator that his wages were garnished in February 2009 to 
pay his back due child support obligation. Applicant’s employer’s letter indicates that as 
of March 2013, his wages were being garnished to ensure payment of his child support 
obligation. (AE 2) 
 
Concerning the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.h, 1.i, and 1.j, Applicant claimed he 
has no knowledge of these debts. He averred he asked his attorney to look into the 
validity of these debts. He failed to present documentary evidence to support a dispute 
of his responsibility for these debts. 
 
Concerning SOR ¶ 1.k, Applicant explained that in 1990, he issued a check that 
was not cashed for six months. By the time the check was presented for payment, he 
had closed his bank account and moved away. The check was returned for lack of 
funds, and the state issued a warrant for his arrest. Applicant apparently paid the 
returned check on July 2011 through payroll deduction. (Tr. 52-53, GE 2) 
 
Regarding SOR ¶ 1.l, Applicant explained that in 2000, he had a business and a 
client paid him with two stolen checks. He deposited the checks in his account, and 
when they were returned as fraudulent checks, Applicant was charged with forgery, 
receiving stolen property, and theft. Apparently, the fraudulent checks were covered by 
a check guarantee company. Applicant paid restitution, established that he had no 
knowledge the checks were stolen, and the charges against him were dismissed. (Tr. 
53) 
 
Section 26 of Applicant’s December 2009 SCA (Financial Record), asked him to 
disclose whether in the last seven years he had defaulted on a loan; had bills turned 
 
5 
 
 
over to collection agencies; had credit cards suspended or cancelled for failing to pay as 
agreed; had failed to pay federal taxes and had a tax lien filed against him; had 
judgments filed against him; had been delinquent on child support payments; had his 
wages garnished or attached; had been over 180 days delinquent on any debts; was 
currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt; and was currently delinquent on a 
federal debt.  
 
Applicant answered “No” to all the above questions and he deliberately failed to 
disclose the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, and 1.d through 1.h. When asked why he 
failed to disclose the required information at his hearing, Applicant explained that he 
was not aware of some of the debts, did not recall the judgments, and that he believed 
he was not delinquent on some debts because he had established payment plans with 
the creditors and was current on his payments. Considering the evidence as a whole, 
Applicant’s explanations are not credible. 
 
Applicant explained that his financial problems were the result of his 2007 
divorce, the passing of his father, and a short period of unemployment in 2009. He 
claimed that most of the alleged SOR debts were his ex-wife’s individual debts, or 
accounts that were assigned to her by the divorce court during the division of the marital 
assets and liabilities. He claimed that when he submitted his December 2009 SCA, he 
was unaware of most of the alleged delinquent debts. Applicant failed to present 
documentary evidence to show the delinquent debts were his ex-wife’s responsibility. 
Moreover, the available documentary evidence show most of the debts were his 
individual debts. Applicant’s own statements established he was aware of the 
delinquent debts, the judgments filed against him, and the garnishment of wages. 
Although Applicant was aware of his debt to the IRS, I note that the lien was not filed 
until after he submitted his SCA. 
 
Applicant retained an attorney to help him dispute the alleged delinquent debts. 
He claimed he prevailed on some of the disputes, that the debts were removed from his 
credit reports, and that resolution of other disputed debts was pending. Applicant 
promised to provide documentary evidence to support these claims, but he failed to do 
so. 
 
Applicant submitted little documentary evidence of payments, contact with 
creditors, or of efforts to resolve his delinquent obligations. I note that he presented 
documentary evidence that a small claims court suit against him (collection action) was 
dismissed (without prejudice) because he was now a resident of another state. (AE 1) 
He also presented documentary evidence that he has been paying both his child 
support obligation and his debt to the IRS through garnishment of wages, and that he 
paid another debt through a wage garnishment.  
 
Applicant testified that he likes his job and he takes his job and his obligations to 
the Government seriously. He acknowledged that he has had some financial problems, 
but believes that his financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond his 
control. Applicant believes that with the assistance of his attorney, he will be able to 
 
6 
 
 
resolve his debts, but it will take time to do so. He promised that as long as he is 
employed he will continue to pay his debts. 
 
Applicant considers himself to be honest, trustworthy, and a dedicated employee. 
He also considers himself to be a loyal American and a good worker. He would like to 
resolve his delinquent financial obligations. He needs his security clearance to retain his 
job, and more importantly to have the ability to pay all of his delinquent debts. 
 
Policies 
 
Eligibility for access to classified information may be granted “only upon a finding 
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended. 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive 
Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 
 
The AG list disqualifying and mitigating conditions for evaluating a person’s 
suitability for access to classified information. Any one disqualifying or mitigating 
condition is not, by itself, conclusive. However, the AG should be followed where a case 
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to 
classified information. Each decision must reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense 
consideration of the whole person and the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). All available, 
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, 
must be considered.  
 
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 the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. The 
applicant bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant or continue his or her security clearance.  
 
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship 
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government has a 
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment, 
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interest 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. 
“[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” 
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; AG ¶ 2(b). Clearance decisions are not a determination of the 
loyalty of the applicant concerned. They are merely an indication that the applicant has 
or has not met the strict guidelines the Government has established for issuing a 
clearance. 
 
 
7 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 Under Guideline F, the security concern is that 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 ¶ 18) 
 
Applicant has a history of financial problems that date back to 2007. His financial 
problems continue to present as evidenced by the 10 delinquent debts alleged in the 
SOR, totaling over $51,000. Considering the record as a whole, I find that the debts 
alleged in the SOR are Applicant’s debts as established by the credit reports and 
Applicant’s testimony. Applicant claimed many of the alleged debts were not his 
delinquent debts, and that he had disputed them. He failed, however, to present 
documentary evidence to show that the debts did not belong to him. Although he 
disputed some of the debts, he also failed to establish a reasonable basis to support his 
disputes. Applicant paid the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a through a garnishment of wages. 
He is current on his child support obligation (SOR ¶ 1.g), which was paid through a 
wage garnishment. 
 
Two of the financial considerations disqualifying conditions apply: AG ¶ 19(a): 
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, and AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting 
financial obligations.  
 
 AG ¶ 20 lists six conditions that could mitigate the financial considerations 
security concerns:  
 
(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 current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; 
 
(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; 
 
(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; 
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts;  
 
 
8 
 
 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the 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; and 
 
 (f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income. 
 
 Applicant’s evidence fails to fully establish the applicability of any mitigating 
condition. His financial problems are ongoing, he has extensive delinquent debt, and the 
evidence fails to show that he acted responsibly in the resolution of the debts, or that he 
acquired the debt under circumstances that are unlikely to recur. AG ¶ 20(a) does not 
apply. 
 
 Applicant’s divorce and his short period of unemployment may be considered as 
circumstances beyond his control that contributed to, or aggravated, his financial 
problems. Notwithstanding, Applicant’s evidence failed to show that he acted 
responsibly in his efforts to resolve his debts. He presented little documentary evidence 
of payments made, contacts with creditors, or of efforts to resolve his delinquent debts, 
except for disputing some debts. The available evidence show that most of the 
payments Applicant made were through garnishment of his wages. AG ¶ 20(b) applies, 
in part, but does not mitigate the financial considerations concerns. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(c) applies in part. Applicant did not present evidence that he participated 
in financial counseling; however, he retained the services of an attorney to help him 
resolve some of his financial problems. Notwithstanding, it does not mitigate the 
financial considerations concerns. Considering the number of debts, the value of the 
debts, the aggregate total of the debts, and his lack of efforts to resolve his debts, I 
cannot find that there are clear indications that his financial problems are being resolved 
or under control.  
 
 Questions remain about Applicant’s current financial situation and his ability and 
willingness to resolve his delinquent debts. Applicant has been employed from 1994 to 
present, except for a short period of unemployment after he was laid off in August 2009. 
Applicant’s SCA indicates he started working for his current employer in August 2009 
and he has been fully employed thereafter. Considering that he was divorced in 2007, 
he failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his failure to address his debts. On 
balance, the evidence available is not sufficient to establish that Applicant has a track 
record of financial responsibility. AG ¶ 20(d) does not apply because Applicant failed to 
submit documentary evidence of good faith efforts to resolve his debts.  
 
 AG ¶ 20(e) applies, in part, but does not fully mitigate the financial concern. 
Applicant’s evidence shows he disputed many of his delinquent debts, but he failed to 
establish that he had a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of his debts. The 
remaining mitigating condition (AG ¶ 20(f)) is not applicable to the facts of this case. 
 
 
9 
 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
  AG ¶ 15 explains why personal conduct is a security concern stating: 
 
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. 
 
  Applicant falsified his December 2009 SCA when he deliberately failed to 
disclose that in the last seven years he had defaulted on a loan; had bills turned over to 
collection agencies; had failed to pay taxes; had judgments filed against him; had been 
delinquent on child support payments; had his wages garnished or attached at least 
three times; had been over 180 days delinquent on debts; and was currently over 90 
days delinquent on some debts.  
 
  Applicant’s falsification triggers the applicability of the following disqualifying 
conditions under AG ¶ 16: 
 
(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;  
 
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning 
relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent 
medical authority, or other official government representative; and 
 
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct, 
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such 
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's 
personal, professional, or community standing. 
 
Applicant claimed that he was not aware of some of the debts, did not recall the 
judgments, and that he believed he was not delinquent on some debts because he had 
established payment plans with some creditors and was current on his payments. 
Having observed his demeanor while testifying and analyzed his testimony in light of all 
the evidence available, Applicant’s claims of lack of knowledge and honest mistake are 
not credible. 
 
Applicant claimed that most of the alleged SOR debts were his ex-wife’s 
individual debts, or accounts that were assigned to her during the division of the marital 
assets and liabilities. He claimed that when he submitted his December 2009 SCA, he 
 
10 
 
 
was unaware that those debts assigned to his ex-wife were delinquent. Applicant failed 
to present documentary evidence to show the delinquent debts were his ex-wife’s 
responsibility. On the contrary, the available documentary evidence show most of the 
delinquent debts were his individual debts. Moreover, Applicant’s prior statements 
establish that before he submitted his 2009 SCA, he was aware of the delinquent debts 
because collectors were calling him, he had judgments filed against him, and his wages 
had been garnished. Applicant was also aware of his debt to the IRS, however, I note 
that the IRS tax lien was not filed until after he submitted his SCA. 
 
Applicant also claimed that he disputed some debs, prevailed on the disputes, 
and the debts were removed from his credit reports. Applicant promised to provide 
documentary evidence to support these claims, but he failed to do so. 
 
 AG ¶ 17 provides seven conditions that could mitigate the personal conduct 
security concerns. Considering the record as a whole, I find that none of the Guideline E 
mitigating conditions apply. AG ¶ 17(a) does not apply because he did not make good-
faith efforts to correct his falsifications before he was confronted with the facts. AG ¶ 
17(c) does not apply because making a false statement is a felony in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 1001, and not a minor offense. The remaining mitigating conditions are not 
raised by the facts and are not applicable.  
 
Applicant’s falsification shows lack of judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, and 
an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. His behavior raises questions 
about his reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, and under the whole-person 
concept. AG ¶ 2(c).  
 
Applicant likes his job and he takes his job and his obligations to the Government 
seriously. He acknowledged that he has had some financial problems, but believes that 
his financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond his control. Applicant 
believes that with the assistance of his attorney, he will be able to resolve his debts. 
 
Applicant considers himself to be honest, trustworthy, and a dedicated employee. 
He also considers himself to be a loyal American and a good worker. He would like to 
continue his service to his country and to resolve his delinquent financial obligations. 
This is his first security clearance application, and he needs his security clearance to 
retain his job, and more importantly to have the ability to pay all of his delinquent debts. 
 
Notwithstanding, the record evidence fails to establish that Applicant showed 
financial responsibility in the resolution of his delinquent debts. Moreover, Applicant 
failed to be honest and truthful in his answers to the 2009 SCA questions. Applicant’s 
 
11 
 
 
financial problems and his deliberate failure to disclose relevant and material 
information on his 2009 SCA adversely affects his credibility and evidence of 
extenuation and mitigation. Considering the record as a whole, Applicant demonstrated 
a lack of suitability for a security clearance.  
 
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.g,      
    1.k, and 1.l:     For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.b-1.f,      
    1.h-1.j:      Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraph 2.a:      Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant eligibility for a security clearance to 
Applicant. Clearance is denied. 
 
 
 
____________________________ 
JUAN J. RIVERA 
Administrative Judge