Item 4.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-11624
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant accrued more than $19,500 in delinquent debts over the past ten
years. He made no progress toward resolution of any of them, and offered no evidence
of an effective plan to resolve these debts or of changes to prevent continued financial
irresponsibility. He deliberately falsified his security clearance application concerning
these debts. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based on a review of the
pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) on November 19,
2010.  On January 11, 2013, the Department of Defense issued a Statement of1
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guidelines F (Financial
Considerations) and E (Personal Conduct).  The action was taken under Executive2
Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960),
Item 3. 3
The Government submitted eight Items in support of the SOR allegations. 4
Item 4.5
Items 1, 5, and 6.6
Items 7 and 8.7
2
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 effective in the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR on February 5, 2013, and
requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on3
February 26, 2013. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was4
provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit
material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the
FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on March 7, 2013, and returned it to DOHA. Within the 30 days provided to do so, he
submitted no additional evidence, made no objection to my consideration of the
contents of the FORM, and did not request additional time to respond. I received the
case assignment on April 25, 2013.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 44 years old, and has worked for a defense contractor since 2007.
He has never held a security clearance, and has no prior military or Federal
Government service. He graduated from high school and attended some college
classes. He is married, with a ten-year-old child and two adult stepchildren.  5
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the truth of all factual allegations
set forth in the SOR, while correctly noting that SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.j are duplicate listings
of the same debt. He also provided an explanation that his false answers alleged in
SOR ¶¶ 2.b and 2.c were based on his mistaken belief that the accounts in question
were charged off and/or placed for collection more that seven years before he executed
his SF 86 in November 2010. After eliminating the duplicate listing, the total due on
Applicant’s 14 delinquent charged off and collection debts alleged in the SOR, and
supported by entries in the record credit bureau reports, is $19,583. This includes a
$5,160 judgment entered against him for a credit card debt in January 2007. The
reports indicate last-activity dates for the delinquent accounts ranging from 2003 to
2010.  Applicant’s admissions, including those made in response to DOHA6
interrogatories,  are incorporated into the following findings of fact.7
Item 8 at 7.8
Items 3 and 8; FORM.9
Items 3, 7, and 8.10
Items 3 and 4.11
3
Applicant held a full-time job as a lead project engineer for a major company from
April 2000 until April 2007, when he left to accept his present position. He told an
investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that his delinquent debts
resulted from his irresponsibility. He said that he was not educated on the management
of his finances and used bad judgement, not realizing that his irresponsibility would
affect all aspects of his life in the future. He also said that he has not received any
financial counseling.8
Applicant documented no payments or settlement arrangements toward any of
the delinquent debts that he discussed with the investigator and in his response to the
SOR, even though two were under $35 and many were under $200. He said that some
had dropped off his most recent credit report, so he felt those debts were no longer
valid. He submitted no information in response to the FORM, which clearly identified
these deficiencies in his efforts to mitigate financial security concerns.9
Applicant submitted a personal financial statement reflecting a net monthly
surplus of $2,259 after paying $2,783 in monthly living expenses and $1,344 toward
current debts. The statement also reflected total assets of $29,500 in the form of a
savings account and a 401(k) plan. Applicant did not explain where his significant
monthly surplus income was spent.  10
As alleged in ¶ 2 of the SOR, Applicant denied, on his SF 86, that he had any
judgments entered against him, or accounts placed for collection or charged off within
the past seven years. He knowledgeably discussed the judgment debt with the OPM
investigator during the interview conducted less than a month after he certified the truth
of his answers on the SF 86. The credibility of his explanation that he thought his bad
debts were charged off or placed for collection more than seven years prior to signing
his SF 86 in November 2010 is greatly weakened by the fact that he also denied having
any debts delinquent for more than 90 or 180 days in his responses to the questions in
Section 26m and n.  I find that his falsifications and omissions were deliberate.11
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. He submitted
no character references describing his judgment,  trustworthiness, integrity, or reliability.
I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person since he
elected to have his case decided without a hearing. 
4
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant 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.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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 the 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.
5
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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. 
Department Counsel asserted, and the record evidence established, security
concerns under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Applicant’s SOR-listed delinquent debts arose over at least the past ten years,
and remain completely unresolved. His financial problems resulted from his choices to
incur debts for goods and services, while failing to meet those obligations despite
steady employment. He provided no evidence of action or intent to satisfy these debts
or avoid incurring additional delinquencies. The state of the evidence raises substantial
security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to
rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(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; 
6
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(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.
Applicant’s fourteen delinquent debts arose over the past ten years, total more
than $19,500, and continue to date. They are frequent, recent, and arose under
circumstances that involved Applicant’s voluntary choices. The ongoing nature of these
debts precludes a finding of unlikely recurrence. Applicant failed to demonstrate that his
reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment have improved, and failed to resolve any of
these debts even after their security implications became apparent. The evidence does
not establish mitigation under MC 20(a). 
Applicant offered no evidence to support mitigation under MC 20(b). He admitted
that his delinquencies arose due to his irresponsibility, and his inaction toward resolution
of any of these debts is not responsible action under the circumstances. 
Applicant denied undergoing financial counseling, and did not establish clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control. He provided no
evidence to establish any good-faith effort to repay his many overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve his debts. MC 20(c) and 20(d) are therefore inapplicable. 
Applicant failed to provide proof to substantiate a basis to dispute the legitimacy
of any of the debts alleged in the SOR, for which the record credit reports provide
substantial evidence. Accordingly, he failed to mitigate those allegations under MC
20(e).
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. The DC alleged by the Government and supported by the evidence is:
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
7
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.
Applicant admittedly made false “no” answers in response to questions asking
about his financial delinquencies. His explanation that he was not aware of the details of
his charged off and collection accounts is contradicted by his description of them to the
OPM investigator less than a month later, and by his false answers to other financial
questions. I specifically find that Applicant intended to conceal this information in
connection with his attempt to qualify for a security clearance because he knew it would
cause problems for him. Security concerns under AG ¶¶ 16(a) were raised by these
facts.
Applicant offered insufficient evidence to support any mitigating condition under
Guideline E. After careful review of the record, I find that none of them apply. He made
no good-faith effort to correct his falsifications, and offered excuses that do not establish
his credibility or capacity to be trusted to follow proper security procedures. His
falsifications were made in connection with the application currently under adjudication,
and he continues to attempt to justify them without accepting responsibility for his
actions. 
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 the 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.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
adult, who is responsible for his voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the security
concerns expressed in the SOR. His financial irresponsibility spans many years, and
continues at present. It involves delinquent debts totaling more than $19,500, toward
8
which he had documented no payments by the close of the record. He has not shown
the ability or willingness to fulfill his legal obligations to his creditors. He did not
demonstrate that these debts arose under circumstances that were beyond his control,
or that he initiated any changes to prevent additional financial difficulties. He offered no
evidence of financial counseling, rehabilitation, good judgment, or responsible conduct
in other areas of his life. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress remains
undiminished. These concerns are exacerbated by his attempt to conceal his financial
irresponsibility on his SF 86 application seeking a security clearance. Integrity is crucial
to the successful protection of sensitive and classified information, and to compliance
with security procedures. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s
present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to
mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial considerations and personal
conduct.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.o: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a through 2.c 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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge