1 
 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of:   ) 
     ) 
    )  ISCR Case No. 12-11097 
    ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is denied.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On January 3, 2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for a position 
with a defense contractor. After an investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM), the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant 
interrogatories to clarify information in his background. After reviewing the results of the 
background investigation and Applicant's responses to the interrogatories, DOD could 
not make the affirmative findings required to issue a security clearance. DOD issued 
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), dated September 27, 2012, detailing security 
concerns for financial considerations under Guideline F. The action wase taken 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 (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the 
adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective in the DOD on September 1, 2006. Applicant 
2 
 
answered the SOR on October 12, 2012. He denied two and admitted three of the five 
allegations.  
 
On December 11, 2012, DOD issued an addendum to the SOR adding two 
allegations under Guideline F, and five allegations for personal conduct under Guideline 
E. Applicant responded to the additional allegations on January 2, 2013. He denied the 
two allegations under Guideline F, and admitted two and denied three allegations under 
Guideline E. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on December 12, 2012, and 
the case was assigned to me on December 20, 2012. DOD issued a Notice of Hearing 
on January 15, 2013, scheduling a hearing for February 5, 2013. I convened the hearing 
as scheduled. The Government offered 17 exhibits that I marked and admitted into the 
record without objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 17. Applicant 
testified and offered seven exhibits that I marked and admitted into the record without 
objection as Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through F. I kept the record open for 
Applicant to submit additional documents. Applicant requested an extension of time to 
submit documents which I granted. Applicant submitted ten exhibits that I marked and 
admitted into the record as Applicant Exhibits G through P. Department Counsel had no 
objection to admission of the documents. (Gov. Ex. 18, Memorandum, dated March 20, 
2013) The record was closed on March 20, 2013. I received the transcript of the hearing 
(Tr.) on February 12, 2013. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is a 42-year-old senior information systems security engineer. He owns 
his own company and is sub-contracted to a defense contractor. He started his own 
company in 2000 and worked part-time in the business until 2006 when the business 
had been established so he could work full time. He is a college graduate with a 
bachelor’s degree in computer science awarded in 1996. He is married to a cardiologist 
and they have two children. He has held a security clearance since at least 1996. 
Applicant’s personal financial statement completed in August 2012 shows a combined 
monthly income for him and his wife of $23,085, with monthly expenses of $6,725, and 
monthly loan payment of $12,680, leaving a monthly remainder of approximately 
$3,680. Applicant lists combined assets with his wife of $166,944. Applicant notes that 
the majority of the assets are from his wife’s 401(k) fund. He also notes that he and his 
wife file separate tax returns. Applicant uses some of the discretionary income to make 
additional payments on delinquent debts. His wife’s income may decrease due to lower 
payments of medical bills because of pending legislation. (Tr. 20-27, 65-67, 78-79; Gov. 
Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated January 2, 2012; Gov. Ex. 2, Response to interrogatories, dated 
September 4, 2012, at 225)  
 
Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 4, dated September 24, 2012; Gov. Ex. 5, dated July 12, 
2012; Gov. Ex. 6, dated January 14, 2012; Gov. Ex. 7, dated May 14, 2003; Gov. Ex. 8, 
dated January 8, 2003; and Gov. Ex. 9, dated January 18, 2002) combined with a tax 
lien notice (Gov. Ex. 11, dated May 15, 2003), and Applicant’s admissions (Response to 
SOR, dated October 12, 2012) establish the following delinquent debts for Applicant: a 
3 
 
federal tax lien for $16,623 (SOR 1.a); a past-due mortgage for $13,885 (SOR 1.b); a 
federal tax debt for tax year 2010 of $24,723 (SOR 1.c); a state tax debt for tax year 
2010 of $4,060; a federal tax debt for tax year 2011 for $7,099; a state tax lien for $692 
(SOR 1.f); and a debt of $825 for unpaid city traffic violations (SOR 1.g). Applicant 
denied he owed the tax of $16,623 subject to the lien. He denied he owes a past-due 
mortgage of $13,885, but admits he owes late fees of $5,823.35. He also denies the 
state tax lien of $695, and the $825 for city traffic violations. He admitted that he owes 
federal taxes for 2010 and 2011, and state taxes for 2010. 
 
The federal tax lien for $16,623 alleged in SOR 1.a is for tax years 2004 and 
2005. Applicant’s accountant prepared Applicant’s tax returns for both years and gave 
the completed returns to Applicant to mail. Applicant believed that he mailed the returns 
each year to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). However, the IRS informed him in 
2010 that they had not received his tax returns for tax years 2004 and 2005. Instead, 
the IRS filed a standard return for Applicant not showing any deductions. The result was 
that Applicant owed federal taxes. Applicant believed that on the tax returns completed 
by his accountant, he was due a refund of approximately $1,000 for 2004, and owed 
approximately $761 for 2005. He did not send a payment with the 2005 return because 
he anticipated that the refund for 2004 would be applied against this debt. In 2010, the 
IRS sent Applicant a tax lien letter informing him that they never received his tax returns 
for 2004 and 2005. Applicant hired an attorney in 2010 to assist him in resolving the 
matter. Unfortunately, the attorney passed away before he could complete the action 
with the IRS. Applicant did not receive further correspondence from the IRS until 
September 2012. (Tr. 27-32) 
 
In September 2012, Applicant met with the IRS concerning his 2004 and 2005 
taxes. Applicant was able to provide the IRS with copies of his returns. At the time of the 
hearing, Applicant had not received a response from the IRS and they have not 
removed the tax lien. In addition to providing copies of the returns, Applicant made a 
good-faith tax payment towards the 2005 taxes of $200 on September 18, 2012. He 
does not believe he owes any additional taxes for 2004 or 2005. However, the post-
hearing documents provided by Applicant show that the IRS placed a tax levy on 
Applicant for tax year 2005 of $1,316.46 in February 2013. Applicant has no tax liability 
for tax year 2004, but his tax year 2005 federal taxes are $1,316.46. (Tr. 32-48, Gov. 
Ex. 3, Fax, dated September 18, 2012, at 139-143; App. Ex. K, Notice of Levy, dated 
February 19, 2013)  
 
The delinquent debt list at SOR 1.b is for the mortgage loans on Applicant’s 
house. Applicant contracted to build a house in late 2007 to early 2008 for 
approximately $1,300,000. He had a primary mortgage loan of approximately 
$1,000,000, and a second mortgage loan from the builder of $196,000. The monthly 
payment on the primary mortgage was $6,900, and the monthly payment on the second 
mortgage was initially $1,900, but reduced to $1,153 after refinancing in 2012. In 2007, 
prior to the house being completed, his wife had to stop work because their son was 
born early, thereby losing income. Applicant also lost income because he was going 
through a contract renegotiation. Applicant and his wife used their savings and 
retirement accounts to pay their everyday expenses. They were initially able to make 
the mortgage payments, but by late 2009 to early 2010, they were delinquent on their 
4 
 
primary mortgage loan payments. They were delinquent on their second mortgage by 
June 2012. Applicant believes he is delinquent about $8,000 on his primary mortgage, 
and about $2,300 on his second mortgage. He stated he recently made a $12,500 
payment on his primary mortgage. (Tr. 49-58) 
 
After the hearing, Applicant presented documentation that he has an agreement 
with the primary mortgage loan holder to bring his mortgage current with a down 
payment of $19,442.85, and continued monthly payments of $10,731 for six months. 
(App. Ex. H, Letter. Dated March 11, 2013) Applicant included a copy of an official bank 
check of $19,442.85 to the mortgage loan holder on March 15, 2013. (App. Ex. I, dated 
March 15, 2013) He also made a payment of $6,813.36 on the second mortgage loan. 
This amount did not include payments towards a late fee of $631.30. (App. Ex. G, 
Letter, dated March 18, 2013; App. Ex. J, Official Bank Check, dated March 15, 2013) 
 
SOR allegations 1.c and 1.e pertain to Applicant’s delinquent federal taxes. As 
noted above, Applicant and his wife file separate tax returns. Applicant filed his federal 
tax returns for tax years 2006 to 2011 on September 18, 2012. He provided no reason 
for not previously filing the returns. (Tr. 58-59; App. Ex. F, Tax Returns, Form 1040, 
various dates)1 At the time of the hearing, Applicant had not received an accounting 
from the IRS of the taxes he owed. He believed it was approximately $80,000. He had 
not made any payments towards this tax debt. Applicant’s tax returns also show that 
there was no withholding from his income for tax purposes. Applicant also admits that 
he did not pay estimated income tax for these years. (Tr. 59-61, 75-81)  
 
After the hearing, Applicant employed a tax consulting firm to assist him in 
determining his tax liability and working with the IRS. (App. Ex. G, Cover Letter, dated 
March 18, 2013; App. Ex. M, Agreement, dated March 1, 2013) Applicant received a 
Notice of Levy from the IRS calculating his taxes for tax years 2005 through 2011 for a 
total of $142,730.27. (App. Ex. K, Notice of Levy, dated February 19, 2013) Applicant’s 
bank account was garnished by the IRS for $10,698.52 on February 28, 2013. (App. Ex. 
L, Account Notice, dated February 28, 2013) 
 
SOR allegation 1.d pertains to Applicant’s state taxes for tax year 2010. 
Applicant admits he owes this debt and has not made any payments on his state taxes. 
The tax consulting firm is also advising him concerning his state tax liability.  
 
SOR allegation 1.f pertains to a tax lien of $692 filed by the same state for tax 
year 2005. Applicant presented documentation that he paid the lien in full on January 3, 
2013. (Tr. 60-61; App. Ex. E1 and App. Ex. P, Payment Confirmation, dated January 3, 
2013)  
                                            
1 The failure to timely file tax returns was not alleged as a security concern. The Appeal Board 
listed five circumstances in which conduct not alleged in an SOR may be considered: (a) to assess an 
applicant’s credibility; (b) to evaluate an applicant’s evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or changed 
circumstances; (c) to consider whether an applicant has demonstrated successful rehabilitation; (d) to 
decide whether a particular provision of the Adjudicative Guidelines is applicable; or (e) to provide 
evidence for whole person analysis under Directive Section 6.3. Consideration of non-SOR allegation of 
failing to timely file tax returns in this decision is strictly limited to these five circumstances.  
 
5 
 
Applicant also presented copies of tax returns for tax years 2006 to 2011 he 
provided to the state on March 13, 2013. These documents show a total state tax 
liability for these years of $11,601.25. (App. Ex. N, state tax returns, various dates; App. 
Ex. O, State tax Calculations) 
 
SOR allegation 1.g pertains to traffic fines owed to a city government. Applicant 
paid all fees owed for traffic offenses. (Tr. 61-65; App. Ex. D, payment, dated February 
4, 2013)  
 
Applicant admits that he was charged with driving while intoxicated in March 
2007. He completed his sentence, which was to attend a safe driving course. (SOR 2.a) 
This is the only criminal incident Applicant had in his life. Applicant admits he was 
charged with driving with a revoked or suspended license in July 2009. (SOR 2.b) At 
some time, Applicant’s driver’s license was revoked for failing to pay a traffic ticket. 
When he was stopped in July 2009, he did not know his license was revoked or 
suspended. He paid the fine and his license was reinstated. (Tr. 67-71) 
 
Applicant did not list these convictions on the security clearance application he 
completed on January 3, 2012. (SOR 2.c) He stated that he believed the driving while 
intoxicated offense was not within the seven years required to be listed on the form. He 
claims to have forgotten the 2009 driving on a suspended license offense. He checked 
with the motor vehicle office before completing the security clearance application and 
the offenses were not listed. His wife is not aware of his driving while intoxicated 
offense. (Tr. 71-72) 
 
Applicant admits that in May 2012, he was again charged and convicted of 
driving without a license. (SOR 2.d) He was released on a summons and had the 
driver’s license renewed. Applicant also admitted that when questioned by a security 
investigator in September 2012 concerning whether he had been involved with police 
since the 2007 driving while intoxicated offense he responded that he had not. (SOR 
2.e) He stated that he did not remember the 2009 or the May 2012 offenses for driving 
without a license. (Tr. 72-75) 
 
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 must be considered 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, 
6 
 
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, the applicant is 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, 
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . . .” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion in seeking 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 that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to 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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
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. (AG ¶ 18) An individual who 
is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate 
funds. However, the security concern is broader than the possibility that an individual 
might knowingly compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses 
concerns about an individual’s self-responsibility, trustworthiness, and good judgment. 
Security clearance adjudications are based on an evaluation of an individual’s reliability 
and trustworthiness. It is not a debt-collection procedure. An individual who is financially 
irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his or her 
obligations to protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one 
aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is at risk and inconsistent with 
the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be debt free, but is 
7 
 
required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial obligations. 
Applicant accrued significant mortgage loan delinquent debt that he just recently started 
to address. He has not paid federal income taxes for the last few years and has a large 
federal tax debt. He also did not file state tax returns with the state tax authority until 
recently, and he now has a significant state tax liability. These facts raise Financial 
Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy 
debts); and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). The evidence 
shows a history of both an inability and an unwillingness to satisfy debt.  
 
I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(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); and AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions 
that resulted in the financial problems 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). 
These mitigating conditions do not apply. Applicant and his wife have significant income 
between them. However, it is noted that Applicant and his wife file separate tax returns. 
Applicant only recently filed his federal and state tax returns and has incurred significant 
taxes owed to both entities. There is no indication that his wife failed to timely file her 
tax returns. The failure to file timely returns and the resulting tax debt is Applicant’s 
alone. Applicant and his wife are both on the mortgage loans, and there was a failure to 
timely pay both the primary and second mortgage loans. Applicant notes that he could 
not pay the mortgage loans or the taxes because his wife’s and his incomes were cut 
due to the birth of their child and his contract renewal. However, some of these events 
happened before they obtained the mortgage loan. They used their savings to maintain 
their lifestyle and make payments on some of their debts including their mortgage loans. 
There is no indication of an effort to chance their lifestyle to ameliorate these debts and 
live within their means. Applicant provided no reasons for failing to file his tax returns 
and pay his taxes. There were no unusual circumstances raised and his finances were 
well within his control. Applicant just did not manage his financial obligations reasonably 
and responsibly, and this irresponsible financial conduct is likely to recur.  
 
I also considered Financial Consideration Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(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). Applicant presented 
no information to indicate he sought or received financial counseling. He has started 
working with a tax adviser to assist him with his tax liability, but there is no indication 
that they are providing him with financial counseling. 
  
I also considered AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For AG ¶ 20(d) to apply, there 
must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” of a good-
faith effort to repay. Good faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, 
prudence, and honesty adherence to duty and obligation. A systematic method of 
handling debts is needed. Applicant must establish a "meaningful track record" of debt 
payment. A "meaningful track record" of debt payment can be established by evidence 
of actual debt payments or reduction of debt through payment of debts. 
8 
 
Applicant has made some payments on some of the delinquent debts listed in the 
SOR. He did not owe federal taxes for 2004, and he made a token payment towards his 
2005 federal taxes. He paid his state taxes for 2005. He paid the fines he owed a city 
for traffic tickets. He recently initiated a plan to bring his mortgage loan current. His 
personal financial statement shows that with he and his wife have the financial means to 
pay the debts. However, good faith requires acting in a reasonable, prudent, honest 
adherence to financial duty and obligations. Applicant only took the steps to pay some 
of the delinquent debts shortly before and shortly after the SOR was initiated. He did not 
present any prudent and honest reasons for not filing his tax returns for tax years 2006 
to 2011 until September 2012. He now has a significant federal tax liability based on the 
returns he filed and IRS calculations. The IRS had to levy his bank account to start 
paying this tax debt. His state taxes have also been calculated and he owes significant 
state taxes. He has not started to pay the newly calculated and verified state taxes. His 
monthly mortgage debt is large. He has made one large payment on the mortgage loan 
in an attempt to bring it current. He has six more large monthly payments to make 
before the loan is considered current. These actions and circumstances do not establish 
a “meaningful track record” of paying either the mortgage loan or the federal and state 
taxes. Applicant’s actions are not a reasonable, prudent, and honest adherence to 
financial obligations. His present and past management of his finances reflect adversely 
on his trustworthiness, honesty, and good judgment. Based on all of the financial 
information available to include the information provided by Applicant, I conclude that 
Applicant has not mitigated security concerns based on financial considerations. 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
A security concern is raised for personal conduct based on Applicant's driving 
while intoxicated and without a license, and his response to police record questions on 
his e-QIP and to a security investigator. Personal conduct is a security concern because 
conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or 
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an 
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified and sensitive 
information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers 
during the process to determine eligibility for access to classified information or any 
other failure to cooperate with this process (AG ¶ 15). Personal conduct is always a 
security concern because it asks whether the person’s past conduct justifies confidence 
the person can be trusted to properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. 
Authorization for a security clearance depends on the individual providing correct and 
accurate information. If a person conceals or provides false information, the security 
clearance process cannot function properly to ensure that granting access to classified 
or sensitive information is in the best interest of the U.S. Government.  
 
Applicant was arrested for driving while intoxicated in 2007, driving on a 
suspended driver’s license in 2009, and driving on a suspended driver’s license in 2012. 
His wife is not aware of these offenses. He did not list the 2007 driving while intoxicated 
and the 2009 suspended license incidents in response to questions concerning his 
police record on the security clearance application he submitted on January 3, 2012. He 
also did not mention the 2009 and May 2012 suspended license offenses to a security 
investigator on September 9, 2012. His failure to list the criminal charges on the security 
9 
 
clearance application and in response to questions from the security investigator raises 
a security concern under Personal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 16(a) (the 
deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material 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); and AG ¶ 16(b) (deliberately providing false or misleading information 
concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent 
medical authority, or other official government representative).  
 
The incidents themselves as well as the circumstances resulting from them also 
raise Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 16(c) (credible adverse 
information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse 
determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, 
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); AG ¶ 16(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 indicting that the person may not properly safeguard protected 
information. This includes but is not limited to consideration of: (3) a pattern of 
dishonesty or rule violations); and AG ¶ 16(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).  
 
The Government produced sufficient evidence to establish the disqualifying 
conditions as required in AG ¶¶ 16(a) through 16(e). The burden shifted to Applicant to 
produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns under 
financial considerations. An applicant has the burden to refute an established allegation 
or prove a mitigating condition, and the burden to prove or disprove it never shifts to the 
Government. Applicant raised conditions that may mitigate the security concern. 
 
In regard to the failure to list the offenses on the security clearance application or 
to the security investigator, I considered personal conduct mitigating conditions AG ¶ 
17(a) (the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, 
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts); AG ¶ 17(b) the 
refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly 
contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal 
counsel advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning the security 
clearance process. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide 
the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully); and AG ¶ 17(c) (the 
offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it 
happened under such unique circumstances that is unlikely to recur and does not cast 
10 
 
doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment). None of these 
mitigating conditions apply.  
 
Applicant denied that he intentionally falsified the responses on the security 
clearance application and to the security investigator. A falsification must be deliberate 
and material. It is deliberate if it is done knowingly and willfully with intent to deceive. 
Deliberately wrong responses to security clearance questions are not minor issues, and 
may happen again. I do not find credible Applicant’s explanation that he did not believe 
the offenses were within the application’s time limit requirement or that he did not 
remember the offenses. Applicant only had one criminal incident in his life. A simple 
arithmetic calculation would show it was well within the seven-year timeline. Likewise, 
the driving on suspended license offenses were only three years or a few months before 
he completed the security application or talked to the security investigator. They 
happened only recently and would be prominent in his mind. He said he checked the 
police records and there was no listing of the offenses. I find that Applicant deliberately 
failed to list the offenses because he did not believe the offenses would be on his 
record.  
 
Concerning the driving while intoxicated offense and the two offenses for driving 
without a license, I also considered AG ¶ 17(c) as noted above; AG ¶17(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); AG ¶ 17(e) (the individual has taken positive steps to 
reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress); and AG ¶ 17(f) 
(the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability). These 
mitigating conditions do not apply. Applicant admitted the offenses but presented no 
information to show a change of behavior. Applicant has failed to present sufficient 
information to mitigate the security concerns based on his personal conduct. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
relevant circumstances. An 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. 
 
11 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance 
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered that Applicant has 
successfully held a security clearance for many years. However, Applicant has not 
presented sufficient information to establish that he acted reasonably and responsibly 
towards his finances. He did not timely file federal and state tax returns, did not have 
money withheld from his income to pay his taxes, and did not pay quarterly estimated 
tax. So he now has large federal and state tax debts that are being collected 
involuntarily from him by the state and federal tax authorities. He has a large mortgage 
debt that he only recently reached agreement to bring current. This will require large 
monthly payments. His past financial track record does not provide confidence that he 
will continue to make these payments. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with 
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. 
For all these reasons, I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated security concerns 
arising under the financial considerations and personal conduct guidelines. Eligibility for 
access to classified information is denied.  
 
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.e:  Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.f – 1.g:  For Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   Against APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 2.a – 2.e:  Against 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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge