1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-09314
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Charles D. Swift, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s 2009 overseas employment with a defense contractor was terminated
after multiple incidents of improper behavior. He discharged over $250,000 in post-
divorce debts through bankruptcy in 2011, despite paying nothing toward them while
earning about $300,000 in 2009. The evidence is insufficient to mitigate resulting
security concerns. Based upon a review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits,
eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86) on March 14, 2012.
On March 19, 2013, the Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations),
Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The action was
taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
(February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Information, effective within the Department of Defense after
September 1, 2006. 
2
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on April 9, 2013 (AR), and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on June 7, 2013. The case was assigned to me on June 19, 2013. The Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Video Teleconference Hearing on
July 15, 2013, and I convened the hearing, as scheduled, on July 30, 2013. Due to the
failure of the video teleconference equipment, Department Counsel participated by
telephone and only the testimony of three character witnesses who had traveled from
out of town to participate was taken. I granted Department Counsel’s request for a
continuance until September 3, 2013, when the hearing reconvened in a facility with
functioning video teleconference equipment. Applicant, his counsel, and the court
reporter attended the hearings in person. Department Counsel participated from DOHA
Headquarters by telephone and video teleconference. On July 30, 2013, the
Government offered Exhibits (GE) 1 through 7, which were admitted without objection,
and Hearing Exhibit (HE) I, a Government exhibit list. Applicant offered Exhibits (AE) A
through H, which were also admitted without objection. On September 3, 2013,
Applicant testified on his own behalf. I granted Applicant’s request to leave the record
open until September 17, 2013, to permit submission of additional evidence. Applicant
timely submitted AE I, which was also admitted without objection. DOHA received the
transcripts of the hearings (Tr. 1 and Tr. 2) on August 7 and September 13, 2013.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 55-year-old potential employee of a defense contractor, and former
employee of other defense contractors. He is married for the second time, and has two
adult children. He earned a Master’s of Science degree in Systems Management in
1986. He served on active duty during a three-year enlistment in the Army and a six-
year enlistment in the Navy, followed by 26- and 30-month periods, respectively, in the
Reserves. All of his enlistments ended in Honorable discharges. He has been eligible
for a security clearance for many years in connection with his military and post-service
defense contractor positions. (GE 1;GE 6; Tr. 2 at 135.) 
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the truth of SOR ¶¶ 1.a through
1.c, 1.e, 2.a through 2.c, and 3.a through 3.f. He denied SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 3.g, and 3.h, with
explanations. Applicant’s admissions, including his affidavit and statements in response
to DOHA interrogatories (GE 5 and GE 6), are incorporated in the following findings.
Department Counsel, while declining to request modification of the SOR, indicated that
the Government did not intend to proceed under Guideline B as to any allegations
concerning Applicant’s family or financial connections in Thailand. Accordingly, the
Government position is that SOR ¶¶ 3.b through 3.h do not allege facts which, even if
true, would raise security concerns. (Tr. 1 at 18-19; Tr. 2 at 4-6.) These paragraphs are
therefore found for Applicant. 
After a period of financial difficulties and a downturn in home prices in the area
where Applicant lived, he filed his first petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. This
resulted in discharge of his debts in April 1996. Thereafter, he worked to rebuild his
creditworthiness. (AR; Tr. 2 at 30-33.)
3
From 2000 to 2007, Applicant worked for a defense contractor supporting
information systems operations at a major command headquarters. He performed well
there, and built an excellent reputation among coworkers, three of whom have remained
friends with him and traveled to testify on his behalf. They all praised his trustworthiness
and responsibility, as did several more recent coworkers who wrote letters on his behalf.
(Tr. 1 at 27-58; AE H.) He voluntarily left that job, according to his SF-86, to pursue
“Travel and adventure, Middle East, with [another defense contractor]. Career
enhancing.” (GE 1 at 23.) He started working in support of foreign military sales
programs to Gulf Cooperative Counsel countries, which he also enjoyed and did well. In
May 2008, he separated from his wife of 28 years. In December 2008, he filed for
divorce and accepted a new assignment supporting operations of a U.S. defense
agency in Israel. His divorce was finalized in February 2009. (AR; GE 1; GE 5; GE 6.) 
The divorce decree made Applicant and his wife jointly liable for payment of
mortgage loans on their home, and allowed her and their children to live there until the
home was sold. They had borrowed so much equity out of the house that, after the real
estate market collapse, they owed significantly more on the loans than the home was
worth. While Applicant was in Israel, his wife stopped making mortgage payments and
the home was repossessed by the first mortgage lender in a foreclosure. Applicant’s
wife also filed for and was granted Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief around this time, leaving
Applicant solely responsible for their formerly joint debts. (GE 5; GE 6; Tr. 2 at 72-75,
88-92.) 
Applicant’s time in Israel was troubled. He was apprehended by Israeli Defense
Forces personnel for a security violation shortly after arriving at a base where he was to
be quartered and was barred from returning to the site. He had conflicts with his
supervisor, was accused of unauthorized revelations of sensitive and company-
proprietary information, behaved disruptively at work and in a hotel where he resided
temporarily, and was later evicted from an apartment. Finally, he was found sleeping on
duty while assigned as a radar console operator. He admitted that his company
returned him to the United States before the end of his assignment following the last
incident, although the degree to which it was early is unclear from his various
descriptions of events. A Human Resources representative from the company reported
that he was terminated for cause as a result of these incidents. Applicant claimed that
he was reassigned to a temporary location in the United States and left the company
when they did not offer him positions in several projects for which he considered himself
to be qualified. (AR; GE 1; GE 5; GE 6; GE 7; Tr. 2 at 46-67.) 
On his SF-86, Applicant reported that, from September to December 2009, he
lived in a West Bank Israeli settlement in the home of a woman with whom he was in a
relationship and her son. Since leaving Israel, he has not continued his relationship with
this woman. During subsequent security interviews, he denied that he lived with her
during that period, asserting that he stayed there overnight less than half of the time. In
his SOR response, he admitted that he resided with the woman and her son during that
period, but said he had no contact with her since 2009. During the hearing he
equivocated about living with her, explaining that he would have had to obtain
4
permission to live there and had not done so. (GE 1 at 11-12; GE 5 at 42; GE 6 -
10/15/12 interview at 15; AR; Tr. 2 at 98-104.)
Applicant described leaving the company in a series of comments on his SF-86:
“Differences with Senior Mgmt.”; “Significant differences and objections to several
operational policies on the project.”; “Quit job after being told you would be fired . . .
unable to secure follow on assignment.”; “Fired . . . Differences with Sr. Mgmt.
Questioned ethics and behaviors for Israel operations and policies. Blacklisted. Unable
to find coverage in 60 day period.”; “Was not a good fit for the assignment.”; “I call it
fired, but the company had me living out of a hotel without assignment for two months in
[town]. Significant differences with policies, events, and operations in Israel.”; “Over the
course of the assignment, there was a lot of ‘he said, she said’ type of drama. [Name],
the initial site lead, was incorrectly convinced that I was responsible for the
Government’s discovery of millions of dollars of misappropriated funds. Threatened to
destroy me, and pretty much destroyed what had otherwise been a meritful [sic] and
promising employment with [company].” (GE 1 at 21-22.)
Applicant said that he earned about $300,000 during the year he worked in
Israel, with a base salary of $75,000 and the rest resulting from per diem payments.
Although he had numerous delinquent debts, as discussed further below, he did not use
these funds to repay them. He instead chose to spend this money on travel and
entertainment, while also sending twice the amount of support to his ex-wife that was
required under their divorce decree or that he reported as “Alimony paid” on his 2009
federal tax return, and using the rest to make maximum contributions into his retirement
investment accounts that would be exempt from allocation to creditors in bankruptcy
proceedings. (AR; GE 3; GE 5; GE 6; AE E at 2; Tr. 2 at 40-45.)
Applicant said that he remained employed by that company, awaiting a new
assignment, until February 2010. However, in mid-January 2010, he traveled to
Thailand and married his current wife, a Thai citizen. They had met while he was
working in the Middle East and she lived and worked in a country there. From March
2010 to June 2011, they remained living in Thailand. Applicant considered himself
retired, although he had no funds from which to pay his extensive delinquent debts.
They then decided to return to the United States after his wife applied for and was
granted permanent resident status. (AR; GE 1 at 17; GE 5; GE 6; Tr. 67-69.) 
In May 2011, the month before he returned from Thailand to the United States,
Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief without hiring an attorney to represent
him. He used his daughter’s U.S. address, and certified on page 2 of the petition that he
had “been domiciled or has a place of residence, principal place of business, or principal
assets in [the bankruptcy court’s] District for 180 days immediately preceding the date of
this petition or for a longer part of such 180 days than in any other District.” (GE 3 at 1,
2; Tr. 2 at 87.) On page 26 of the petition, he claimed that his 2009 income had been
$75,000. He listed his former home as a prior address on page 31 of the filing, but did
not list it on page 28 in response to the question asking about foreclosures or
repossessions during the preceding year. On page 32 of the filing he listed his ex-wife in
5
response to the question asking him to name spouses and former spouses, but did not
list his current wife. He also failed to disclose her ownership of substantial property in
Thailand, as alleged in SOR ¶ 3.h and admitted by Applicant. Although Applicant was
prohibited, as a foreigner, from direct ownership of this Thai real estate, they had
chartered a Thai corporation through which Applicant, his wife, and his mother-in-law
were to share in that property. Applicant listed the $13,761 student loan he had
cosigned with his son, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d, on the bankruptcy petition as a $10,135
claim. He thought it had been discharged with his other debts when he denied that
allegation. He has since come to realize that the student loan was not a dischargeable
debt and made arrangements to rehabilitate the loan and begin repayment. (AR; GE 3;
GE 5; GE 6; AE I; Tr. 2 at 75-78, 80-86, 93-98.)
Applicant declared no real property and $160,344 in personal property on his
bankruptcy petition. Of that personal property, he claimed $154,049 as exempt IRA
investments. He declared $253,728 in liabilities to creditors holding unsecured claims.
On September 6, 2011, Applicant was granted a Chapter 7  bankruptcy discharge. In
connection with this bankruptcy, he completed the required financial counseling. (GE 3.)
Applicant’s wife runs a small business to support them. He has applied for
several positions since returning to the United States, but they required security
clearances and he no longer had one. Of the roughly $154,000 he claimed in exempt
retirement savings at the time of his bankruptcy, he had withdrawn and spent about
$135,000 by mid-October 2012 to start his wife’s business, and for vacation and travel
expenses. (GE 1; GE 5 at 6; Tr. 2 at 106-110.)
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
6
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.
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. 
The record evidence potentially raises 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. 
Although the details are sketchy, Applicant and his first wife borrowed against the
equity in a previous home, and when a real estate market downturn resulted in them
owing more than the house was worth, they sought and received discharge of their
7
debts in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1996. They repeated this process, culminating in
their 2009 divorce, abandonment of another overly mortgaged home to foreclosure, and
individual Chapter 7 bankruptcies again about 15 years later. During 2009, Applicant
was employed overseas by a defense contractor and earned about $300,000. None of
those funds went toward repayment of the $253,728 in unsecured liabilities that he
subsequently discharged in his 2011 bankruptcy. Instead, he made maximum
contributions into exempt retirement investments, then spent the rest on travel,
entertainment, and payments to his ex-wife and children of about twice the amount
called for in their divorce decree. He made no effort to ascertain his ongoing liability for
the $13,761 student loan which he cosigned with his son until after the hearing, and
provided minimal documentation to corroborate that it is being resolved. These facts
raise substantial security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), and shift 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; 
(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 2011 discharge of more than a quarter million dollars worth of
unsecured debts through bankruptcy, rather than making payments toward them during
2009 while earning over $300,000, was recent and followed his similar treatment of
previous debts in 1996. His failure to resolve the non-dischargeable student loan debt is
ongoing. He offered insufficient evidence from which to conclude that such disregard of
voluntarily incurred obligations is unlikely to recur, or does not cast doubt on his current
reliability or judgment. He failed to demonstrate substantial mitigation under MC 20(a). 
8
Applicant also offered insufficient evidence to support mitigation under MC 20(b).
He neither showed that his serious indebtedness was caused by his later divorce or
unemployment, nor demonstrated responsible action under the circumstances during
the year he earned about $300,000. 
Applicant did undergo the financial counseling required under bankruptcy
statutes, but did not produce a budget or other evidence of prospective solvency,
particularly at the rate he spent his bankruptcy-exempted retirement savings. He
established no clear indications that his financial issues have been or are being
resolved, and are under control for the future. His post-hearing, uncorroborated efforts
to resolve the student loan debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d are insufficient to establish a
good-faith track record of repayment. Mitigation under MC 20(c) or 20(d) was therefore
not shown. 
Applicant failed to sufficiently investigate or document a valid basis to dispute
the legitimacy of the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d, which he conceded and may have
started to rehabilitate and repay after his hearing. Accordingly, he did not mitigate that
allegation under MC 20(e). He admitted owing the remaining alleged debts, which were
discharged in two bankruptcy proceedings.
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 two conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying with relation to the allegations in this case:
(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
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of:
9
(1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client
confidentiality, release of proprietary information, unauthorized
release of sensitive corporate or other government protected
information:
(2) disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior in the
workplace; 
(3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and,
(4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other
employer's time or resources.
With respect to DC 16(b), the SOR alleged failures to disclose Applicant’s
ownership in the home that was lost to foreclosure before his second bankruptcy, and of
any ownership interest by him or his wife in her properties in Thailand, when he
submitted his 2011 Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The preponderance of the evidence
establishes that the foreclosure action concerning the home he owned with his ex-wife
took place more than a year before his bankruptcy filing, and his denial of any
foreclosures during that one-year period was accurate. Accordingly, SOR ¶ 2.b is found
for Applicant even though he admitted its truth without, apparently, realizing that it
alleged that the foreclosure had occurred earlier in 2011. His omission of information
concerning his current wife is less easily resolved. Although he claims that bankruptcy
did not concern her or any debts incurred during their marriage, his use of his
daughter’s address to file the petition and his certification that he had lived in that court
district during the preceding 180 days when filing the petition by mail from Thailand
support the conclusion that he intended to conceal his true marital and resulting
financial status from the bankruptcy court. 
This concealment together with the series of incidents during his employment in
Israel establish significant security concerns under DC 16(d). He was recalled early
from that assignment and terminated from employment for reasons including
unauthorized release of proprietary and sensitive corporate information, disruptive and
inappropriate behavior in the workplace and company-provided residences, a pattern of
rule violations, and misuse of employer’s time and resources. When combined with all
available information, Applicant’s conduct supports a whole-person assessment of
questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, and
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.
AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Four have
potential applicability to the security concerns raised by the facts in this case:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
10
(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 it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(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;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
Applicant never advised the bankruptcy court of his true marital status or assets,
so mitigation under MC 17(a) was not shown. His pattern of disruptive, deceptive, and
irresponsible behavior in violation or defiance of expected norms occurred during his
most recent employment in a security-sensitive position, and he demonstrated no
intervening basis to conclude that it does not reflect his current reliability,
trustworthiness, and judgment. Thus, mitigation was not established under MC 17(c),
17(d), or 17(e).
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
Department Counsel withdrew the allegations of security concerns under this
guideline with respect to Applicant’s ongoing family and financial connections in
Thailand. The lone remaining allegation, in SOR ¶ 3.a, concerns his cohabitation with
an Israeli woman and her son for three months in late 2009. He has had no contact with
either of them since leaving Israel. Accordingly, this relationship does not establish any
disqualifying condition under Guideline B. Applicant’s conduct, and his various
descriptions of it during subsequent inquiries into its security significance, are more
relevant to, and are considered supporting incidents of, the Guideline E and whole-
person security concerns described above and below. 
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
11
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 made an excellent
impression on coworkers, some of whom became good friends, during his employment
from 2000 through 2007. He decided to leave that position and his wife of 28 years to
pursue more exciting and lucrative arrangements working overseas. That started well
and resulted in lucrative paychecks, but his employment in Israel during 2009 was
fraught with problems of his own making. His employment with that company was
terminated, and he married a Thai woman and lived with her in Thailand for about 15
months. Having used none of his overseas earnings to address more than a quarter
million dollars in outstanding debts, Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief
shortly before he and his wife moved to the United States in mid-2011. He had
discharged previous debts under Chapter 7 in 1996, and in 2011 failed to disclose his
remarriage and resulting access to his wife’s assets. This establishes a long and
recurring pattern of avoiding voluntarily incurred commitments, and failure to meet his
lawful obligations. 
Applicant is an educated and mature individual. His conduct of security concern
was voluntary, and he offered no reason that he should not be considered accountable
for his decisions and actions. He did not demonstrate a change in personal attitude or
financial circumstances that would support a finding of permanent behavioral change, or
a finding that recurrence of untrustworthiness and questionable judgment is unlikely. His
track record of living beyond his means reveals an ongoing susceptibility to coercion or
duress. Overall, the record evidence creates substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
 Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Except insofar as the admitted allegation in SOR ¶ 3.a contributes to Guideline E and whole-person factor1
analysis.
12
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline B: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a through 3.h: For Applicant1
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