1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 12-06777
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
January 17, 2014
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on May 29, 2012. (Government Exhibit 1.)  On June 5, 2013, the Department of
Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guidelines F (Financial Considerations) and E (Personal Conduct) concerning
Applicant. 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 (AG)
effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on July 23, 2013, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on August 26, 2013. This case was assigned to me on September 13, 2013. The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on
September 16, 2013. I convened the hearing as scheduled on October 16, 2013. The
Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 6, which were admitted without
objection. Applicant submitted Applicant Exhibit A, which was admitted without
Applicant Exhibits B through K consist of financial documents of the Applicant. Applicant has redacted the1
account numbers on most of the documents. The impact of those redactions on any particular allegation will
be discussed, as appropriate, below.
The issues in that case, ISCR 02-17574, are different than those presented in the current case. (Government2
Exhibit 2.)
2
objection, called one witness (her daughter), and testified on her own behalf. Applicant
asked that the record remain open for the receipt of additional documents. DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on October 24, 2013. Applicant timely
submitted Applicant Exhibits B through M, which were all admitted without objection.1
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 64 and married. She is a prospective employee of a defense
contractor, for whom she has worked in the past, and seeks to obtain a security
clearance in connection with her potential future employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because she is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted all the allegations in the SOR under this Paragraph. Those admissions are
findings of fact. She also submitted additional information to support her request for a
security clearance.
The SOR lists 11 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $49,087. The
existence and amount of most of these debts is supported by credit reports dated June
5, 2012; June 4, 2013; August 26, 2013; and October 16, 2013. (Government Exhibits
3, 4, 5, and 6.) According to Applicant, her financial problems began when she was laid
off by her defense industry employer in 2006. This lay off was the result of a decision
against the Applicant in a prior DOHA case.  Applicant was off of work from February2
2006 to June 2007, when she got a job outside of the defense industry. Her salary
dropped from $26 an hour to $11 an hour. That second job ended in 2011 when the
company went out of business. She was unemployed from that time until the date of the
hearing. Applicant admits to struggling to pay her bills since her lay off in 2006.
(Applicant Exhibit A; Tr. 35-45, 49.) 
The current status of the debts is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a credit card debt in
the amount of $8,200. Applicant testified that she believed she last made a payment on
this debt about a year before the hearing. (Tr. 45-47.) The June 5, 2012 credit report
3
(Government Exhibit 3) shows two entries for this debt, partial account number 0144.
On page 7 it is referred to as “Collection, Purchased by another lender.” Page 8 states,
“Account transferred or sold, Paid charge off.” Applicant did not submit any
documentation about the current status of this debt. Based on all available information I
find that this debt is not resolved.
1.b. Applicant admits that she was indebted to a creditor for a debt in the
amount of $763. Applicant testified that she had made arrangements to pay this debt at
the amount of $50 a month “when I can.” (Tr. 47-48, 50-51.) The June 5, 2012 credit
report (Government Exhibit 3) shows two entries for this debt, partial account number
9973. This debt is shown as 120 days past due. The later credit reports show the
account to be closed, but do not show it as being past due. (Government Exhibit 4 at 2,
Exhibit 5 at 1, Exhibit 6 at 3.) Applicant Exhibit D is a statement from the creditor,
showing Applicant is current on the account. Based on all available information I find
that this debt is being resolved.
1.c. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a credit card debt in
the amount of $8,189. Applicant testified that she had no knowledge of this debt. (Tr.
51-53.) Three of the credit reports show this debt. (Government Exhibits 4, 5, and 6.)
Applicant has not paid this debt, or indicated that she will pay this debt. Based on all
available information I find that this debt is not resolved.
1.d. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a credit card debt in
the amount of $20,588. Applicant testified that she has been making payments on this
debt and has reduced it to approximately $13,000. (Tr. 53-57.) This debt has partial
account number 1808. The October 16, 2013 credit report (Government Exhibit 6)
indicates that this debt has a current balance of $20,338, with $8,057 being past due.
Applicant did not submit any documentation about the current status of this debt. Based
on all available information I find that this debt is not resolved.
1.e. Applicant admits that she was indebted to a creditor for a credit card debt
in the amount of $2,212. Applicant testified that the bank has indicated to her that the
account is closed. (Tr. 57-59.) This debt has partial account number 4004. Government
Exhibit 6 and Applicant Exhibit C support Applicant’s statement that this account is
closed with no deficiency. I find that this debt is resolved.
1.f. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a credit card debt in
the amount of $4,214. Applicant testified that she has been making payments on this
debt and has reduced it to approximately $1,300. (Tr. 59-60.) This debt has partial
account number 75. The October 16, 2013 credit report (Government Exhibit 6)
indicates that this debt has a current balance of $4,064, with $690 being past due.
Applicant submitted a payment coupon from this bank, which stated that an unidentified
account was past due with a balance of $1,061.65. (Applicant Exhibit B.) She also
submitted a letter from this bank, indicating that a $90 payment was made to an account
on August 5, 2013. (Applicant Exhibit H.) The account numbers have been blanked out
on both of these documents. There are four allegations in the SOR concerning different
Government Exhibit 3 indicates that at one time Applicant may have had as many as 19 different accounts3
involving this bank.
4
accounts with this bank (1.f, 1.g, 1.i, and 1.j).  There is no way to know how this3
payment was applied given the state of the record. Based on all available information I
find that this debt is not resolved.
1.g. Applicant admits that she was indebted to a creditor for a credit card debt
in the amount of $1,339. Applicant testified that she has been making payments on this
debt, including a $100 payment the day before the hearing. (Tr. 60-61) This debt has
partial account number 76. The October 16, 2013 credit report (Government Exhibit 6)
indicates that this debt has a current balance of $4,064, with no past-due balance.
Based on all available information I find that this debt is being resolved.
1.h. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a credit card debt in
the amount of $305. Applicant testified that she had no knowledge of this debt. (Tr. 61.)
This debt has partial account number 3766. The October 16, 2013 credit report
(Government Exhibit 6) indicates that this debt has a current balance of $393, with $228
being past-due. Applicant did not submit any documentation about the current status of
this debt. Based on all available information I find that this debt is not resolved.
1.i. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a credit card debt in
the past-due amount of $280. Applicant testified that she has paid this debt off. (Tr. 66-
67.) This debt has partial account number 4388. The October 16, 2013 credit report
(Government Exhibit 6) indicates that this debt has a current balance of $3,555, with
$180 being past due. Applicant submitted a payment coupon from this bank, which
stated that an unidentified account was past due with a balance of $1,061.65. (Applicant
Exhibit B.) She also submitted a letter from this bank, indicating that a $90 payment was
made to an account on August 5, 2013. (Applicant Exhibit H.) The account numbers
have been blanked out. As stated earlier, there are four allegations in the SOR
concerning different accounts with this bank (1.f, 1.g, 1.i, and 1.j). There is no way to
know how this payment was applied given the state of the record. Based on all available
information I find that this debt is not resolved.
1.j. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a credit card debt in
the amount of $314. Applicant testified that she has paid this debt, but is currently
disputing interest charges. (Tr. 67-68) None of the four credit reports in the record
(Government Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6) support this statement. Applicant submitted a
payment coupon from this bank, which stated that an unidentified account was past due
with a balance of $1,061.65. (Applicant Exhibit B.) She also submitted a letter from this
bank, indicating that a $90 payment was made to an account on August 5, 2013.
(Applicant Exhibit H.) The account numbers have been blanked out. As stated above,
there are four allegations in the SOR concerning different accounts with this bank (1.f,
1.g, 1.i, and 1.j). There is no way to know how this payment was applied given the state
of the record. Based on all available information I find that this debt is not resolved.
5
1.k. Applicant admits that she was indebted to a creditor for a credit card debt
in the amount of $2,683. Applicant testified that this is the same debt as that set fourth
in 1.e, above. (Tr. 68.) The account numbers match between the credit reports
(Government Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6.) and Applicant Exhibit C. Based on all available
information I find that this debt is resolved.
Applicant submitted evidence that she is current on her mortgage, and paying
other debts, albeit late in several cases. (Applicant Exhibits E, G, I, J, and K.) Also
submitted was evidence that she had successfully disputed a debt that was not alleged
in the SOR. (Applicant Exhibit F.) Applicant submitted a monthly budget indicating a
monthly income of at least $2,566. Payments for monthly expenses, other than credit
cards and food, totals approximately $1,955. Accordingly, about $600 a month is
available for debt reduction and other costs of daily living. Finally, Applicant admitted
that she had not received any budgeting classes or other financial counseling.
(Applicant Exhibit L at 3; Tr. 69-88.)
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because she has made false statements to the Department of Defense during
the clearance screening process. Applicant admitted that she had false answers on her
questionnaire, but denied there was an intent to deceive the Government.
2.a. Applicant filled out a Government questionnaire in May 2012.
(Government Exhibit 1.) Question 25 of that questionnaire asked if Applicant had “EVER
had a security clearance eligibility/access authorization denied, suspended, or
revoked?” (Emphasis in original.) Applicant responded, “Yes,” and provided the
following explanation of the circumstances, “my clearance was taken until further
investigation then later granted back to me but there was no job openings.” In fact, as
stated earlier, Applicant had her clearance revoked due to a prior DOHA proceeding,
resulting in an adverse administrative judge decision on January 18, 2006; and an
adverse appeal board decision on July 24, 2006. (Government Exhibit 2.)
As a result of the original decision Applicant received a layoff notice from her
employer on February 3, 2006. Part of that notice states, “You [Applicant] will be placed
on recall to [her prior position].” (Applicant Exhibit A.) 
Applicant states that she believed her clearance had been restored to her, based
on receiving that notice. According to Applicant, this notice was similar to ones she had
received in the past, during prior layoffs for non-security-clearance reasons. She
adamantly stated that her employer did not make mistakes when it came to informing
employees concerning their security clearance status. (Tr. 106-116.)
2.b. Regarding her finances, Applicant stated that within the seven years prior
to filling out the questionnaire she had not had bills turned over to a collection agency;
had not had any credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as
agreed; and that she was not 120 days delinquent on any debt.  (Government Exhibit 1
See Tr. 95-106. 4
6
at question 26.)  These answers were not true, as set forth in detail under Paragraph 1,
above.
Applicant states that she did not intend to mislead the Government in regards to
her answers on the questionnaire. Applicant and her daughter both testified that the
daughter filled out this computerized form with input from Applicant. This was because
Applicant had recently had two operations on her thumb and could not operate the
computer. Applicant testified, “You know, she [her daughter] was asking me questions,
and I was answering them and going fast. And it was a mistake because I would never
say that because I know how the Government works. I been there 26 years, and I would
never lie like that.” (Tr. 96.)4
Applicant’s daughter testified that in attempting to help her mother fill out the
form, she made the assumption that her mother’s credit situation was alright. The
daughter took responsibility for not making sure her mother understood the financial
questions. (Tr. 118-124.)
Mitigation
Applicant submitted several letters of reference from friends, and a former co-
worker. (Applicant Exhibit M.) The writers include the executive director of a community
non-profit organization, as well as an administrator of a ministry from her church.
Applicant is described as a woman of “integrity, leadership and enthusiasm,”
“impeccable character,” and someone who is “diligent and highly committed to her
work.” 
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 and
mitigating conditions, which are to be used as appropriate 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
over-arching 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, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, in making a decision.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on
7
his or her own common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the
ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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. 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, “The 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.”
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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
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. 
8
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. As stated above, allegations 1.b, 1.e, 1.g, and 1.k are found for
Applicant. Nevertheless, Applicant continues to have over $40,000 in past-due debts, all
of which have been due and owing for several years. The evidence is sufficient to raise
these potentially disqualifying conditions. 
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ Applicant=s
financial difficulties have been in existence since at least 2006. She has been able to
resolve some of her debts, but does not have a reasonable plan to pay the rest. This
mitigating condition does not have application in this case. 
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “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.” Applicant’s loss of employment in 2006 was due to an
adverse decision in a prior DOHA case. That is not a situation beyond her control.
However, I have taken into consideration the fact that Applicant, once she received
another job, made considerably less money than she had before, and that she has
currently been unemployed for about two years. Applicant does not have a solid grasp
of her financial situation, and no real plans for resolving it. Accordingly, I cannot find that
she has acted reasonably in attempting to resolve her financial situation. This mitigating
condition does not have application in this case.
AG ¶ 20(d) states it can be mitigating where, “the individual has initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant has
submitted some evidence showing that she has made successful payment
arrangements with a few of the creditors listed in the SOR. However, she did not
present sufficient evidence that she has acceptable payment arrangements with the
majority of her creditors.
Applicant testified that she is disputing a portion of the debt in allegation 1.j. AG ¶
20(e) requires that “the individual [have] 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.” I have taken her dispute into consideration, but find there is sufficient evidence
to support the existence of this debt.
In conclusion, as stated above, looking at Applicant’s entire financial situation at
the present time, I cannot find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being
9
resolved or is under control,” as is required by AG ¶ 20(c). Paragraph 1 is found against
Applicant.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
The security concern relating to Personal Conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty or unwillingness to comply with rules or 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.
I have examined the disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 16 and especially
considered the following:  
(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; and
(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.
The following mitigating condition under AG ¶ 17 may apply to the facts of this
case:
(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.
There is no question that Applicant’s answers to questions 25 and 26 on the e-
QIP were wrong. However, they were not intentionally false. In each case Applicant  put
her trust in an entity, or person, who she could reasonably rely on to help her. 
With regards to question 25, Applicant put the Government on notice that she
had lost her clearance. She also had a letter from her employer, who she reasonably
relied on to know the security rules, stating that she was subject to recall to her job.
10
Under the circumstances her statement, while wrong, does not rise to an intentional
deception.
Applicant’s daughter, who has a master’s degree, was helping her mother fill out
the security questionnaire. At that time Applicant was suffering from a physical ailment,
which made it difficult to use the computer, and her daughter has much more education
than Applicant. She reasonably relied on her daughter to make sure Applicant was
asked the proper questions while filling out the form. Applicant’s credible testimony
showed that she was knowledgeable of her financial situation at that time, and would
have answered the question properly if asked. Under the particular circumstances of
this case, Applicant’s actions were not unreasonable, nor do they show particularly poor
judgment. Paragraph 2 is found for Applicant.
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 the relevant circumstances. 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. The administrative judge must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guidelines F and E, above, applies here as well. Applicant has had financial problems
for several years, which have not been resolved. She has a long history of not paying
her debts, and does not currently have a good grasp of her overall financial situation.
Applicant’s conduct with regards to her finances was not mitigated. Applicant did show
that the omission of relevant and material information from her e-QIP was accidental
and not intentional.
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(3), her conduct is recent and continuing. I cannot find that there
have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I also
cannot find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); or that there is no likelihood of continuation or recurrence (AG ¶
2(a)(9)). 
11
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 Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports denying her request 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
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: For 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.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge