The issues raised under Guideline B and some of the debts raised under Guideline F were addressed in a1
previous decision by Administrative Judge Mark Harvey issued on December 20, 2009. ISCR Case No. 08-
12020.
1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-11638
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on January 29, 2008. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on April 3, 2013, following an incident report.
The SOR details security concerns under Guideline B, foreign influence, Guideline F,
financial considerations, and Guideline E, personal conduct.  The action was taken1
under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
(February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel
Some of the exhibits submitted by Applicant are duplicates of exhibits offered by the Government.2
2
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
Adjudicative Guidelines For Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
(AG), implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant received the SOR on April 22, 2013, and he answered it on May 7,
2013. Applicant requested a hearing before an administrative judge with the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on August 9, 2013, and I received the case assignment on August 26, 2013. DOHA
issued a Notice of Hearing on September 16, 2013 for a hearing scheduled on October
10, 2013. Due to the Government shutdown, the hearing was cancelled. A second
Notice of Hearing was issued on October 30, 2013, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on November 21, 2013. The Government offered exhibits (GE) marked as
GE 1 through GE 13, which were received and admitted into evidence without objection.
Applicant testified. He submitted exhibits (AE) marked as AE A through AE N, which
were received and admitted into evidence without objection.  DOHA received the2
hearing transcript (Tr.) on December 4, 2013. I held the record open until January 6,
2014, for Applicant to submit additional matters. Applicant timely submitted AE O - AE
T, which were received and admitted without objection. The record closed on January 6,
2014.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Motions
At the hearing, Department Counsel motioned to amend the SOR caption to
include the case number and to correct the e-QIP section number in SOR allegation 2.c.
The motions are granted. The case number, 12-11648, is added to the caption, and
SOR allegation 2.c is corrected from section 29 to section 27. (Tr. 7-8, 88-89.)
       
Request for Administrative Notice
Department Counsel submitted a request that I take administrative notice of
certain facts relating to Afghanistan. The request and the attached documents were not
admitted into evidence, but were included in the record as Hearing Exhibit 1, I-IX. The
facts administratively noticed are limited to matters of general knowledge and matters
not subject to reasonable dispute, and are set out in the Findings of Fact below. 
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a -
1.i, 3.a, and 3.b of the SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact.
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the Government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient3
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. “That burden has two components. First, the
Government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the Government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern.” See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009),
(concurring and dissenting, in part) (citations omitted). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See
ISCR Case No. 08-06605 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 4, 2010); ISCR Case No. 08-07290 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 17,
2009).
GE 1; Tr.53, 135-136, 147-148.4
GE 1; GE 8; AE A; AE N; Tr. 16-24.5
3
He denied the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1, 1.j - 1.s, and 2.a - 2.f of the SOR.  He also3
provided additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security
clearance. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the
following findings of fact.  
Applicant, who is 43 years old, works as a trainer for DOD contractors and again
seeks employment as an Afghan linguist for DOD contractors. Applicant and his wife
married in 2000 and divorced in 2008. They have a 13-year-old son, who lives with his
mother. Applicant is required by the court to pay $1,000 a month in child support.4
Foreign Influence
Applicant, his parents, his two sisters, ages 41 and 37, and his former wife were
born in Afghanistan. His 29-year-old brother was born in Pakistan. When Applicant’s
father’s life was threatened by the Russians following their invasion of Afghanistan,
Applicant and his family fled from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the early 1980s.
Applicant’s father fought the Russians as a resistence fighter until 1987, when he
sought political asylum in the United States. Applicant and his family moved to the
United States in 1987, where Applicant graduated from high school and lived until 1993.
From 1993 until 1996, Applicant lived overseas with his family while his father worked
as a consultant in an Afghan embassy. During this time, Applicant attended college. The
family returned to the United States after the Taliban came into power in Afghanistan
because his father did not agree with the governmental policies of the Taliban.
Applicant, his parents, his younger sister, and his brother became U.S. citizens in 2001
or 2002. His son was born in the United States. His older sister became a U.S. citizen in
2008.5
Following the ouster of the Taliban, Applicant’s father returned to Afghanistan to
help rebuild the country after nearly 20 years of war. He worked in two important
government positions during the nearly four years he lived in Afghanistan. Through his
position and work, Applicant’s father worked with high-level Afghan government officials
In 2004, the U.S. Army commanding general wrote a highly complimentary letter about Applicant’s father’s6
skills and work. AE K.  His father also received a distinguished medal of achievement award from another U.S.
military general. Id.
GE 8; AE A; AE L; AE M; AE N; Tr. 97-100, 103-104, 109-110.7
GE 8; AE A; AE B; Tr. 79-84.8
4
and coalition forces.  Applicant’s father was well-respected in the province where he6
grew up and sought to unify the various tribes in the province. His father left Afghanistan
in 2006 for health reasons and because of increasing threats to his life by extremists.
His father continues to live in the United States. Applicant returned to work in
Afghanistan twice in 2004. Applicant’s younger brother spent the three summers living
with their father in Afghanistan. His brother owns a residence in the United States,
where he lives when he is in the United states. His brother works for nongovernment
organizations (NGO) as a researcher, writer, and cultural advisor. Although his brother
does not have a security clearance, he provides assistance with security in Afghanistan.
In December 2012, his brother’s car was attacked with a rocket launched by the
Taliban. His younger sister recently returned from Afghanistan, where she worked as a
linguist and cultural advisor to the U.S. military. She has a security clearance.7
Financial Considerations
After his return to the United States in 1996, Applicant started working in the
mortgage industry. He began his own mortgage business in 2000, which, with the help
of his former wife, he operated until 2007. Applicant hired an individual to work in his
business. When he traveled to Afghanistan in 2004, this employee induced
unsuspecting homeowner’s to refinance their soon to be foreclosed property or to
restructure their existing mortgage, charging them an illegal fee for the refinance and
using a false credit rating. The employee forged Applicant’s name on financial
documents and misrepresented the services of Applicant’s company. Customers sued
Applicant and his company. When he discovered the illegal and fraudulent actions of his
employee, Applicant filed criminal charges against the employee. Applicant worked with
the local district attorney, who obtained a conviction against the employee. The district
attorney verified that Applicant was the victim of forgery caused by the actions of his
employee. As the result of this situation and the economic downturn, Applicant ceased
operating his business in 2007. He spent thousands of dollars on attorney fees,
exhausting his savings and other assets to resolve his legal situation. Applicant and his
wife divorced in 2008. He also paid legal expenses related to his divorce.  8
From October 2008 until March 2009, Applicant worked part-time as a carpenter.
He was unemployed for the next year. From March 2010 until October 2010, Applicant
worked as a linguist and cultural advisor in Afghanistan for a DOD contractor. He was
unemployed between October 2010 and April 2011. He began working as a language
and cultural instructor for military bases, a job he still holds. His current work is
sporadic. In June 2011, while working at an Army base, he broke his ankle. He did not
GE 8; GE 12; Tr. 59, 61.9
Applicant income in 2010 came primarily from his contract work overseas, which may not be subject to10
federal income taxes.
GE 9; AE O - AE R; Tr. 66, 140-141.11
GE 1; GE 10; AE O; Tr. 58-59, 147-148.12
5
have medical insurance to pay his medical expenses. He believed his medical bills had
been paid through an assistance program at the hospital.9
Applicant provided a copy of two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) account
transcripts for the tax years 2008 and 2011. The account transcript for 2008 shows an
income of $2,273 and no tax due. He also provided his federal tax returns for the tax
years 2009, 2010, and 2011. His 2009 tax return reflects a total income of $4,348 and
an entitlement to a refund of $601. Applicant requested an extension of time to file his
2009 federal tax return, which was received by the IRS in October 2012. His 2010
federal tax return, which was prepared and filed in December 2012, indicates an income
of $89,093, a tax liability of $16,379 owed to the IRS, and a tax liability of $5,786 owed
to the state revenue department.  Applicant failed to withhold any money from his10
income as an independent contractor to pay these taxes, which remain unpaid.
Applicant used this money to repay his family and friends money owed. Applicant’s
2011 federal tax return, which was prepared and filed in December 2012, reflects an
income of $29,911 and a tax liability of $5,990 owed to the IRS and a tax liability of
$450 owed to the state revenue department. His tax transcript for 2011 also shows he
owes $3,674 in self-employment taxes and about $1,400 in penalties. He has not paid
these taxes.11
Applicant lives with his parents. He does not pay any living expenses at this time
because of his income. He provided two documents, which show his income for 2013.
These documents indicate earnings totaling approximately $13,610 plus per diem and
travel payments of approximately $6,800. In an income statement prepared for the IRS,
Applicant indicated he had a monthly income of $1,500, $1,100 in assets, and $1,620 in
monthly expenses, including $1,000 a month in child support. He admitted that he was
behind in his child support payments.12
The SOR identified 19 purportedly continuing delinquencies as reflected by credit
reports from 2008 and 2013, totaling approximately $78,557. SOR allegations 1.j
through 1.s raise a security concern about debts presented to Administrative Judge
Harvey in Applicant’s prior case. Judge Harvey concluded the SOR allegations 1.k
($474), 1.o ($422), and 1.q ($399) had been paid. These debts are resolved in
Applicant’s favor. Judge Harvey concluded that the debts in SOR allegations 1.m ($171)
and 1.p ($599) had not been resolved and that the debt in SOR allegation 1.j ($166)
was in a payment plan. He did not discuss the debts in SOR allegations 1.l ($164) and
1.n ($1,854). Applicant provided documentation indicating that the debts in SOR
allegations 1.j and 1.n are paid. This same documentation reflects that Applicant had
ISCR Case No. 08-12020, p.4; GE 2; GE 13; AE C.13
Applicant believes the two IRS tax liens are for the same tax years. Tr. 132-133.14
ISCR Case No. 08-12020, p.4; GE 2; GE 13.15
Applicant indicated his accountant died while he was in Afghanistan in 2004. Thus, his tax returns were not16
filed. (GE 8, p. 20 - April 19, 2008 personal subject interview). In this same statement, he indicated that he
negotiated a payment plan for the taxes owed for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. He paid the IRS $380 a
month and still owed $15,000. Id. His payments stopped when his business failed.  
GE 10; AE T; AE U; Tr. 65-66, 132-139.17
6
only one account with the creditor listed in allegations 1.j and 1.l. Thus, allegation 1.l is
resolved.  Judge Harvey noted that Applicant paid four other non-SOR debts and that
Applicant had a settlement proposal for his car repossession, which is not listed on
recent credit reports. The debts listed in SOR allegations 1.m through 1.q are not listed
on the January 2013 and November 2013 credit reports.  13
Judge Harvey also discussed existing tax liens. He found that Applicant had paid
on the $8,162 IRS tax lien and that the lien had been released. Judge Harvey also
concluded that Applicant agreed to pay the state revenue department $100 on his
$3,230 tax debt. Two tax liens in the amount of $3,230 have been released. Applicant
resolved more than $14,000 of federal and state tax debts in the past. However,
Applicant has again incurred unpaid taxes. The 2013 credit reports show a state tax lien
of $9,370 and an IRS tax lien of $24,581. The November 2013 credit report also shows
an IRS tax lien of $30,079.  This last tax lien has not been alleged as a debt and the14
SOR was not amended to include this debt. Because the SOR alleges financial
problems, this debt will be considered in conjunction with the whole-person analysis.15
In April 2010, after obtaining employment as a linguist, Applicant retained the
services of a tax group to help him resolve his tax issues. He paid this group $2,500.
Shortly thereafter, he deployed to Afghanistan. He did not keep regular contact with the
company while deployed. Upon his return to the United States, he learned that the
company had not performed any services for him and despite his requests, did not
perform any work to resolve his tax debts. In November 2012, he contacted another tax
service company to help with his tax issues. He paid them $300 for limited services.
With an additional $2,500 payment, this firm will work with him to resolve his tax debts.
Applicant prepared two forms for the IRS. One form provides information about his
income and assets, and one form is an Offer in Compromise. On the second form,
Applicant indicates problems with his taxes for the years 2002 through 2006, which are
related to his business and problems connected to his accountant,  and for the years16
2010 through 2012. He offered to settle his federal tax debt for $18,000, payable in
monthly installments of $750 for 24 months. He advised the IRS that he will make the
payments from any income he has or with the help of his family. Applicant did not
provide proof that he submitted this document to the IRS.17
He denied any knowledge of this judgment at his previous hearing. ISCR Case No. 08-12020, p.4.18
GE 4; AE C; Tr. 74-75.19
GE 5; GE 6; AE S.20
GE 2; GE 13; Tr. 61-63.21
7
The SOR alleges that Applicant owes two unpaid judgments. Applicant denied
knowledge of these judgments, particularly the $7,610 judgment in allegation 1.r.18
Applicant provided a letter dated March 17, 2010 from the judgment creditor in SOR ¶
1.r. The judgment creditor advised that Applicant was not the defendant based on his
middle name and social security number. This debt is resolved in Applicant’s favor.19
During the course of the lawsuits filed against his business and him, Applicant
stipulated to the entry of a $17,500 judgment against him on the advice of the
prosecutor. The court signed the judgment order on April 24, 2007. Two months later,
on June 20, 2007, plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Request for
Dismissal of this case. This judgment is resolved in Applicant’s favor.20
The two 2013 credit reports identify seven medical bills, totaling $15,229
(allegations 1.a through 1.g). The reports also reflect that Applicant disputed six of the
seven debts. Except for allegation 1.e, which Applicant continues to dispute after
resolution, the results of his disputes of the other debts are unknown. He has not
disputed SOR allegation 1.a, a $3,224 medical bill. At the hearing, Applicant denied
disputing these medical bills. The November 2013 credit report lists five additional
medical bills, totaling $5,719. Applicant intends to consolidate his medical bills, but does
not have the ability to pay these bills on his current income. He has not had financial
counseling in recent years.21
Personal Conduct
The SOR alleges that Applicant intentionally falsified the following questions on
his January 2008 E-QIP:
Section 23: Your Police Record
c. Are there currently any charges pending against you for any
criminal offense? He answered “no” and did not disclose his
2007 pending driving under the influence (DUI) charges.
d. Have you ever been charged with or convicted of any
offenses related to alcohol or drugs? He answered “yes”, but
did not disclose his 2007 DUI arrest.
Section 23: Public Record Civil Court Actions
Response to SOR; GE 3; GE 8.22
8
In the last 7 years, have you been a party to any public
record civil court actions not listed elsewhere on this form?
Applicant answered “no” without listing the judgments
identified in SOR allegations 1.r and 1.s.
Section 27: Your Financial Record
d. In the last 7 years, have you had any judgments entered
against you that have not been paid? Applicant answered
“no”, failing to disclose the two judgments listed in SOR
allegations 1.r and 1.s.
 
The police arrested Applicant for DUI in October 2007, specific date unknown.
The court sentenced Applicant to community service, fined him $2,000, and directed
him to attend alcohol education programs on an unknown date. Applicant completed all
of the requirements of his sentence by the date of his second personal subject interview
on May 23, 2008. Applicant did not acknowledge this arrest on his e-QIP, but he did list
his 2005 DUI arrest and a 2001 driving with a suspended license arrest. He also listed
delinquent debts. He did not acknowledge the judgments, one of which he was
unaware, nor the civil actions. During his initial personal subject interview on April 18,
2008, Applicant discussed his financial problems in depth with the Office of Personnel
Management investigator (OPM), including being sued many times because of the
actions of his employee. He also discussed all three of his DUI arrests. The interview
summary does not state that he volunteered this information nor does it indicate that he
was presented with evidence of his DUI arrest in 2007 or of the lawsuits against him.
The record does not contain any evidence of his DUI arrest, except his statement to the
OPM investigator. The three credit reports do not list the two judgments. Applicant
denies an intent to hide this information from the Government.22
Applicant deployed to Afghanistan in the spring 2010 and returned to the United
States on leave on October 1, 2010. During this time, he worked with classified
information. He took all precautions to protect classified and sensitive information, and
he took online classes for protecting classified information. While on vacation in the
United States in October 2010, Applicant contacted his employer and advised that he
did not intend to return to Afghanistan because he was dissatisfied with his employer’s
management of personnel. Before he left on vacation, he told his supervisor of his intent
not to return to Afghanistan. On December 3, 2010, his employer placed an incident
report in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS), concerning Applicant. The
employer stated that on November 22, 2010 during an inspection of a room in a
residential facility used by Applicant while in Afghanistan, military police discovered a
classified document. The incident report assigns the placement of the classified
GE 7; GE 8; AE F.23
GE 8.24
GE 11; AE F.25
GE 11; AE F - AE J.26
9
document in this room to Applicant and notes that there is little likelihood that the
document had been compromised.23
Applicant’s employer leased four rooms in a residential building for use by its
employees on a base through which they all passed while in Afghanistan. Applicant
signed for use of a room in June 2010. He remained in the room for three or four days
then moved to another location to work. He returned to the room in August 2010 for four
days before moving to another work location. At the beginning of September 2010, he
stayed in the room two days before going to a third work location. He last returned to
the room a few days before he left for the United States on October 1, 2010.24
The JPAS incident report states that his room and the other rooms rented by his
employer were for transient purposes. Applicant provided three statements from co-
workers in Afghanistan who also used these same rooms. All three stated that the
rooms were transient quarters used by many different staff moving through this base.
The rooms were often not cleaned, as indicated by the trash and debris the witness
found in the rooms. Applicant denies leaving the document in the room.25
Applicant received several letters of recommendation, praising his skill and
expertise in assisting the military in Afghanistan. His knowledge of the language and
culture provided valuable assistance when working with the local people and the many
issues in Afghanistan. He has received many letters of recognition for his work as a
trainer between 2011 and 2013. His student evaluations of his teaching skills reflect a
rating of 3.6 out of 4.0, and high satisfaction with his presentation skills and willingness
to work with the students. His performance appraisal for his 2010 work in Afghanistan
states that he was the best Afghan American to work with the military and civilians in
Afghanistan.26
 
Administrative Notice
Afghanistan
I take administrative notice of the following adjudicative facts. Afghanistan is an
Islamic Republic and emerging democracy. With the support of the United States and
other nations, its new government endeavors to build a new system of government and
to rebuild the country’s infrastructure. Its Army and police force are well trained. It
continues to face significant challenges from the insurgency and terrorist organizations
supported by the ousted Taliban and Al Qa’ida. Security and violence remain a serious
issue. The government is not complacent about the terrorist threat, the insurgency, or
HE 1.27
10
security issues; rather it actively seeks to eliminate all with the assistance of the United
States and NATO. The new government is working to reverse a long legacy of serious
human rights abuses, but serious problems remain. Afghanistan is now an active
member of the international community, has signed a “Good Neighbor” declaration with
six nations bordering it, and promotes regional cooperation. The United States supports
the emergence of a broad-based government in Afghanistan and has made a long-term
commitment to help Afghanistan rebuild itself. The leaders of both countries concluded
a strategic partnership agreement committing to a long-term relationship between both
countries, which was signed on May 2, 2012. Despite its differences with the United
States, Afghanistan continues to seek U.S. support as it moves forward towards
democracy and stability. None of the documents offered in support of the request for
administrative notice indicate whether Afghanistan is an active collector of intelligence
information.27
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 are 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 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,
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, an applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
11
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 an 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.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “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
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. 
AG ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;   
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; and
(g) failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as
required or the fraudulent filing of the same.
Applicant developed significant financial problems when his mortgage business
failed and due to unemployment and underemployment. He filed his income tax returns
for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011 in December 2012. He owes federal and state
income taxes. Many of his debts have not been resolved. The above disqualifying
conditions apply.
12
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through
¶ 20(f), and the following are potentially applicable:
(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
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.
While he was in Afghanistan in 2004, an employee misrepresented the services
of Applicant’s mortgage company, defrauded customers, and forged Applicant’s name
to financial documents. As a result of his employee’s actions, customers sued Applicant
and his business, resulting in a significant loss of business and income. Shortly after
this incident, the mortgage industry collapsed, which ended his business in 2007. In
2008, he and his wife divorced, causing more financial difficulties. Since the collapse of
his business, Applicant has worked sporadically and often for low wages. He broke his
ankle in 2011. He did not have health insurance to pay his medical bills as he could not
pay for insurance. Applicant’s financial problems are the result of circumstances beyond
his control. When he learned about the actions of his employee, he filed criminal
charges against his employee and cooperated with the prosecution of the employee.
When he appeared for his hearing in 2009, he established that he resolved his IRS lien
and a number of small debts. Since then, he resolved the remaining debts listed in his
earlier SOR despite his limited income in most years.
Applicant has not had financial counseling. Since his last hearing, he has not
incurred credit card debt or obtained loans for a car or a house. He lives with his
parents, which limits his monthly living expenses. His current living expenses are under
control. However, he has not been able to resolve his new tax liens or his medical bills
partially due to unemployment or underemployment. His credit reports reflect that he
disputed the medical bills, which he denies. He has indicated that he will pay these bills
when his income increases. He used his 2010 income to repay debts to family and
friends, however, he did not pay his taxes or his current debts. He works as an
independent contractor and as such, he is responsible for withholding money to pay his
yearly taxes and money for his social security taxes. To his credit, he twice hired tax
13
consultants to help resolve his tax issues. The first company did not perform any
services, and the second company has obtained his tax transcripts. He has prepared an
offer in compromise for the IRS and explained how he plans to pay his debt. The above
mitigating conditions are only partially applicable because he did not act responsibly
about his taxes under the circumstances and I am not confident at this point that his tax
debt and medical bills can or will be resolved or are under control.
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 the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
(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;
(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; and
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct,
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's
personal, professional, or community standing, or (2) while in another
country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is
legal in that country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a
basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence
service or other group.
The Government alleges four incidents of falsification by Applicant when he
completed his 2008 e-QIP. For AG ¶ 16(a) to apply, Applicant’s omissions must be
See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov.17, 2004)(explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-2313328
at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)).
14
deliberate. The Government established that Applicant omitted material facts from his
2008 security clearance application when he answered “no” to questions about his
civilian court record and failed to list his 2007 DUI. This information is material to the
evaluation of Applicant’s trustworthiness and honesty. At the hearing, he denied
intentionally withholding this information on his e-QIP. 
When the allegation of falsification is controverted, the Government has the
burden of proving it. Proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove
an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the omission occurred. An administrative
judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is
direct or circumstantial evidence concerning an applicant’s intent or state of mind at the
time the omission occurred.28
Applicant was aware of his 2007 DUI arrest when he completed his e-QIP. He
was also aware of the multiple lawsuits filed against him because of the conduct of his
former employee. I find this evidence sufficient to establish that he provided incorrect
information on his e-QIP. He, however, did not intentionally falsify the e-QIP, as  alleged
in SOR ¶ 2.d.1 because this debt is his father’s debt and he had no knowledge of it. A
security concern has been established under AG ¶ 16(a) by SOR allegations ¶¶ 2.a -
2.c and 2.d.2, but a security concern has not been established by SOR allegation 2.d.1,
which is found in favor of Applicant.   
Concerning the security violation allegation in SOR ¶ 2.f, the JPAS entry detailing
a possible security violation by Applicant in Afghanistan is sufficient to raise a security
concern under AG ¶ 16(c). Likewise, Applicant’s agreement to the entry of a judgment
against him in 2007 in a civil lawsuit raises a security concern under AG ¶ 16(e)
because his failure to list this judgment could create vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation or duress for him.
The Personal Conduct guideline also includes examples of conditions that can
mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 17(a) through ¶
17(g), and the following are potentially applicable:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(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; and
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable
reliability.
15
When Applicant met with the OPM investigator, he openly discussed his 2007
DUI as well as his 2005 and 2001 arrests. He also discussed the fact that multiple
lawsuits had been filed against him because of the criminal conduct of his former
employee. Since the record does not contain a criminal records report and the credit
reports do not reference either judgment, I find that Applicant voluntarily provided this
information to the OPM investigator and was not confronted with this negative
information. He mitigated the security concerns raised in SOR allegations 2.a, 2.b, 2.c,
and 2.d.2 under AG ¶ 16(a).
Applicant mitigated the security concern raised by the $17,500 consent judgment
because he proved that the judgment had been dismissed and because the
circumstances surrounding the entry of the judgment arose out the actions of his former
employee, conduct that is unlikely to recur as Applicant is no longer in business for
himself. AG ¶ 16(c) applies to SOR allegation 2.e.
Finally, Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by the JPAS entry
because the entry itself acknowledges that the room in which the classified document
was found is a transient room, a fact verified by Applicant’s coworkers and friends. From
June 2010 until October 1, 2010, Applicant used the room four times for a few days
each time while transiting between assignments. Many other individuals used the room
during this time period and after Applicant left Afghanistan. His employer conducted an
inspection of the room seven weeks after Applicant departed and after others had used
the room. His employer placed the entry in JPAS nearly two months after Applicant
returned to the United States and after Applicant resigned. The information provided is
insufficient to substantiate SOR allegation 2.f under AG ¶ 16(f). The personal conduct
guideline is found in favor of Applicant.
Guideline B, Foreign Influence
AG ¶ 6 expresses the security concern regarding foreign influence:
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual
has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be manipulated or
induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a
way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by
any foreign interest. Adjudication under this Guideline can and should
consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or
financial interest is located, including, but not limited to, such
considerations as whether the foreign country is known to target United
States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a
risk of terrorism.
AG ¶ 7 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
ISCR Case No. 09-06457 (App. Bd., May 16, 2011)29
Id.30
16
(a) contact with a foreign family member, business or professional
associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a
foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; and
. (b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that
create a potential conflict of interest between the individual's obligation to
protect sensitive information or technology and the individual's desire to
help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information.
Applicant’s parents, sisters, and son are citizens and residents of the United
States. His former wife is a permanent resident, who reside in the United States. Thus,
no security concern is raised by these family members, except his father because of his
past connections. Applicant’s brother is a citizen of the United States, but he works in
Afghanistan for NGOs. Applicant’s father worked in important positions in Afghanistan
from 2002 until 2006. Through his work, his father had regular contact with high ranking
officials in the Afghan government. Applicant has other family members in Afghanistan,
but these family members are not a security concern as his contacts with them are
minimal Applicant maintains a normal familial relationship with his brother. His father
returned to the United States almost eight years ago for health and safety reasons. His
father does not stay in contact with officials in Afghanistan. His family relationships and
his father’s past affiliations are not per se a reason to deny Applicant a security
clearance, but his contacts with his brother and his father’s past positions must be
considered in deciding whether to grant Applicant a clearance.  The Government must29
establish that these family and business relationships create a risk of foreign
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion by terrorists or would
create a potential conflict of interest between his obligations to protect sensitive
information and his desire to help his brother who may be threatened by terrorists. 
In determining if such a risk exists, I must look at Applicant’s relationships and
contacts with his family, as well as the activities of the Government of Afghanistan and
terrorist organizations within Afghanistan. The risk that an applicant could be targeted
for manipulation or induced into compromising classified information is real, not
theoretical. Applicant’s relationship and contacts with his brother in Afghanistan and his
father’s past business contacts raise a heightened risk and a security concern because
of the terrorists activities in Afghanistan. The evidence of record fails to show that the
Afghan Government targets U.S. citizens in the United States or in Afghanistan by
exploiting, manipulating, pressuring, or coercing them to obtain protected information.
Thus, the concern that the Afghan Government will seek classified information is
moderate. The same cannot be said of the terrorists organizations operating in
Afghanistan, whose goals are to destroy or prevent the growth of a stable, central
government.  30
Id.; Except for his American-raised brother, Applicant’s close family members live in the United States.31
17
Under the guideline, the potentially conflicting loyalties must be weighed to
determine if an applicant can be expected to resolve any conflict in favor of U.S.
interests. In determining if Applicant’s contacts in Afghanistan cause security concerns,
I considered that Afghanistan and the United States have a relationship, which includes
working together on international security issues and trade. There is no evidence that
the Afghan Government targets U.S. citizens for protected information. The human
rights issues in the Afghanistan continue to be a concern. While none of these
considerations by themselves dispose of the issue, they are all factors to be considered
in determining Applicant’s vulnerability to pressure or coercion because of his brother in
Afghanistan. Applicant’s contacts with his brother and his father’s past business
contacts raise a heightened risk under AG ¶¶ 7(a) and (b).
The Foreign Influence guideline also includes examples of conditions that can
mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 8(a) through ¶ 8(f),
and the following are potentially applicable:
(a) the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in
which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those
persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be
placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign
individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the
U.S.; and
(b) there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual's sense of
loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, group, government, or country is
so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships
and loyalties in the U.S., that the individual can be expected to resolve any
conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest.
The past official contacts of Applicant’s father are not likely to place Applicant in
a position of having to chose between the interests of the United States and
Afghanistan because his father is no longer working in the positions which bring him into
contact with Afghan government officials. His father lives quietly in the United States
and has no plans to return to work in Afghanistan. Applicant’s brother works in
Afghanistan to support its continued economic growth. Terrorists bombed his brother’s
car in late 2012, intending to kill the occupants of the car. The evidence is not clear as
to whether his brother was a specific target, which Applicant believes, or the bombing
was more general. His brother provides security support to U.S. forces. Applicant’s
sister worked as a linguist and cultural advisor in Afghanistan. The work of Applicant’s
family members provides support to the United States and to Afghanistan. Applicant
and his family members recognize the obligations they have to the United States. They
are loyal to the United States as is Applicant. Applicant can be expected to resolve any
conflict of interest in favor of the United States.31
18
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 an 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. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Following the
invasion of Afghanistan by Russia and threats to his family’s well-being, Applicant and
his family sought a new life in the United States. His family remains in the United States,
and over time, all family members became U.S. citizens. Applicant, his father, his
brother, and one sister have worked in Afghanistan to help their former homeland
develop economic and political stability, after living in the United States where economic
and political stability are more readily experienced. Neither Applicant nor his family
members has expressed an intent to permanently return to Afghanistan, although his
brother continues to work regularly in Afghanistan for NGOs to help ensure democracy.
Applicant has little, if any, contact with extended family members in Afghanistan. His
brother is the target of terrorists whose intent appears to be to kill anyone helping the
Afghan people achieve economic and political stability, not because of his father or
Applicant.
Applicant has been forthright with the OPM investigator about his finances and
the legal problems arising from his mortgage business without being confronted about
his debts or his 2007 DUI. The 2007 judgment, which is dismissed, is the result of
actions by his employee, not Applicant. Since others used the room in which the
19
classified document was found, the JPAS entry does not reflect negatively on Applicant
because his employer has no way of determining that Applicant is the one who left the
classified document in the room. Applicant was the last one to sign for the room, but not
the last one to use the room. This fact is insufficient to establish that he left the
document in the room.
Since his last hearing, Applicant resolved the debts identified in his prior SOR.
He, however, has incurred more debts. He has been unable to resolve these debts
because of sporadic income. While his past history reflects that he will probably resolve
his unpaid medical bills, a concern remains about unpaid debts, particularly his
substantial tax debts. As an independent contractor, Applicant is responsible for setting
aside money to pay his federal and state taxes out of his earnings, as well as his self-
employment social security taxes. He did not do this. To his credit, he is taking steps
towards the resolution of his federal tax debts by making an offer in compromise to the
IRS to resolve his debts. At this time, it is unknown if his offer has been submitted to the
IRS and if it will be accepted. He needs more time to resolve his debts, particularly his
tax debts. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance concerning his personal
conduct and his foreign influence, as he mitigated the security concerns raised.
However, a security concern remains about his finances under Guideline F. He has not
mitigated the security concerns raised about his finances.
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.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.j - 1.s: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.f: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline B: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 3.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 3.b: For Applicant
20
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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge