1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 13-00735
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has not paid the fines and costs assessed from a recent conviction for
driving without a valid driver’s license. As a result, a warrant for his arrest has been
issued. Additionally, Applicant failed to timely file his federal and state income tax
returns for multiple tax years. He also has failed to satisfactorily address resulting
federal and state tax lien debts. He also has not resolved large child support arrearages
and other past-due debts. His financial problems are continuing and it is likely he will
continue to accrue debts he cannot pay. His request for a security clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On August 3, 2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to obtain a security clearance required for his work as
a defense contractor. Based on the results of the ensuing background investigation,
which included Applicant’s responses to interrogatories from Department of Defense
  Authorized by DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), Section E3.1.2.2.1
  Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.2
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These3
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
 A copy of Department Counsel’s letter forwarding Gx. 1 - 5 to Applicant in advance of hearing is included4
in the record as Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 1. Also, an index listing each exhibit is included in the record as Hx. 2.
 Emails documenting Applicant’s post-hearing submission and Department Counsel’s waiver of objection are5
included in the record as Hx. 3.
2
(DOD) adjudicators,  it could not be determined that it was clearly consistent with the1
national interest for Applicant to continue to hold a security clearance.  2
On September 19, 2013, DOD adjudicators issued to Applicant a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns addressed under the
adjudicative guidelines  for personal conduct (Guideline E) and financial considerations3
(Guideline F). Applicant timely responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a
hearing. The case was assigned to me on March 10, 2014, and I convened a hearing on
April 2, 2014. Department Counsel presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 5, which
were admitted without objection.  Applicant testified but did not present any4
documentary exhibits. I left the record open to receive additional information. The record
closed on April 15, 2014, when I received Applicant’s timely post-hearing submission,
which has been admitted without objection as Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A and B.  DOHA5
received the transcript of hearing (Tr.) on April 17, 2014.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant did not file as required
his federal or state tax returns for tax years 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2012 (SOR 1.a); and
that he owed $90,137 for 16 delinquent or past-due debts (SOR 1.b - 1.p). Under
Guideline E, the Government alleged that in May 2013, he was charged with driving on
a suspended license, to which he pleaded guilty and was fined. (SOR 2.a) Applicant
admitted, with explanations, all of the SOR allegations. (Answer) In addition to the facts
established by his admissions, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is 43 years old and has worked as a professional civilian mariner since
at least 1990. He has been married twice. His first marriage began in June 1996 and
ended by divorce in December 1996. He married his second wife in July 1998. They
separated in April 2004 and divorced in June 2008. They have one child, age 13, who
lives with Applicant’s ex-wife. When Applicant and his second wife separated, he agreed
to pay about $3,000 each month in spousal and child support. When the divorce was
finalized, the court ordered Applicant to pay $1,900 each month, of which $900 was
alimony. The alimony obligation ended in February 2009. (Gx. 2; Gx. 3; Tr. 40 - 41)
3
Applicant works as an electronics engineer and electrician aboard merchant
marine vessels under contract to the U.S. military. His profession has always required
he go to sea for at least four months at a time, after which he is ashore, or “off rotation”
for four months. He is not paid during his time ashore; however, before 2012, he also
received a vacation pay benefit of about $12,000 when he was “off rotation.” However,
recent contract negotiations eliminated that part of mariners’ compensation. Most of the
time when he was “off rotation,” Applicant would live off what he had saved from being
at sea, as well as his vacation pay. Sometimes he would also collect unemployment. In
his eQIP, he listed numerous vessels on which he has served as his workplaces since
1990. While at sea, Applicant has made as much as $10,000 each month. In June
2008, when Applicant’s divorce was finalized, he came home from a tour at sea, but
found he did not have enough money to keep paying his alimony and child support
obligations. As he fell behind on his payments, Applicant at times was jailed for
contempt of the court-ordered payments and  could only get out if he paid his arrearage.
Further complicating his ability to pay his child support obligation was his conviction in
August 2008 for violating a restraining order obtained by his ex-wife. His probation from
2008 until 2010 did not allow him to leave the United States for work, so he could only
get work on coastal water salvage vessels that did not pay what he had been making
aboard overseas merchant vessels. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 3; Tr. 26 - 29, 38 - 46)
As of April 2014, Applicant owed $33,912 in past-due child support. He is
required to pay $1,450 each month, of which $450 is assigned to unpaid amounts. He
testified that a hearing was pending to address his arrearages, and that he thought it
likely he would again be jailed for non-payment. (Ax. A; Tr. 46 - 48)
After he and his wife separated, Applicant did not file his federal or state tax
returns on time for 2006, 2007, 2009, or 2012. His returns for 2006 and 2007 were filed
in 2009. His other returns were filed for him by the IRS in 2013. Applicant did not file his
returns for 2006 and 2007 because expenses from his separation and his support
obligations used up the money he needed to pay his taxes. After his divorce, his filing
status changed and increased his tax obligations, which he could not pay. Rather than
seek extensions or try to negotiate payment plans each year, Applicant decided not to
file his returns. In 2011, the IRS filed a lien against Applicant to collect $32,501 in
unpaid taxes. Applicant established, however, that for the tax years in question, he
owes $18,102. The reduction is the result of lump sum payments he made after
returning to sea in 2010. The lower amount also appears to be the result of an
adjustment by the IRS regarding penalties and interest. In 2012, Applicant started a
repayment plan with the IRS; however, at his hearing, he disclosed that he has not
made a payment on that plan since January 2014. He intends to contact the IRS to
renegotiate a payment plan. (Answer; Gx. 2; Ax. A; Tr. 31 - 35, 49 - 53)
Applicant’s failure to file and pay his federal taxes also resulted in two state tax
liens totaling $18,958. He started a repayment plan in October 2013; however, he has
also fallen behind on those payments. He is not currently making any state tax
payments for past-due amounts. (Answer; Gx. 2; Tr. 53 - 54)
 See Directive. 6.3.6
4
On November 15, 2012, Applicant was interviewed by a Government investigator
as part of his background investigation. Most of the interview focused on his record of
unpaid debts and other financial problems, including the loss of a home to foreclosure in
2008. It was also noted that he had managed to pay off some debts that are not alleged
in the SOR. During the interview, he and the investigator reviewed his income and
expenses, and determined that Applicant had a negative cash flow each month. When
Applicant responded to DOD interrogatories in June 2013, he provided a personal
financial statement (PFS) that showed he still had a negative monthly cash flow of about
$700. At his hearing, Applicant confirmed that his expenses still exceed his income
each month. (Gx. 3; Tr. 61 - 63)
In late 2012, Applicant received a speeding ticket in State A. Early in 2013, he
had to drive to State B to tend to his ailing mother. He mistakenly thought his attorney
had resolved the fines and costs from the State A ticket. His failure to pay State A
resulted in a suspension of his driver’s license there. While in State B, he was pulled
over for speeding and arrested for driving on a suspended license. He pleaded guilty
and was assessed $1,026 in fines and costs. He still has not paid those fines and
understands that State B has issued a warrant for his arrest. (Answer; Gx. 2; Tr. 56 -
61)
Applicant has not obtained professional help with his financial problems. He has
a close friend with experience in handling money who has helped him organize his
debts and embark on a plan to address them. He manages to cover his basic monthly
obligations, but still struggles to pay child support as required. While not working aboard
ship, he works in a shipyard as an electrician. But he makes only about $1,300 weekly.
Applicant acknowledged at the hearing that, aside from his previous tax repayment
plans, he has not paid or otherwise resolved any of the debts alleged in the SOR. (Gx.
2; Tr. 71)
Applicant has an excellent reputation among past and current co-workers and
supervisors. They unanimously praise him for his expertise, hard work, professionalism,
and reliability. (Ax. B)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,6
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative
guidelines (AG). Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a)
of the guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors
are:
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).7
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.8
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).9
5
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified
information.
A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest  for an applicant to either receive or continue to7
have access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  8
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government
has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment,
reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her
own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of
any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the
Government.9
Analysis
Financial Considerations
Available information is sufficient to support all of the SOR allegations under this
guideline. The facts established raise a security concern about Applicant’s finances that
is addressed at AG ¶ 18, as follows:
 The mitigating conditions at AG ¶¶ 20(e) (the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of10
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) and 20(f) (the affluence resulted from a
legal source of income) have not been considered as they are not pertinent to the facts and circumstances
of this case.
6
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. Compulsive
gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including
espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of
income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from
financially profitable criminal acts.
More specifically, available information requires application of the disqualifying
conditions at AG ¶¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); 19(c) (a history of
not meeting financial obligations), and 19(g) (failure to file annual Federal, state, or local
income tax returns as required or the fraudulent filing of the same). Except for tax year
2008, Applicant did not comply with his federal or state tax obligations between 2006
and 2012. He filed tax returns for 2006 and 2007 in 2009. His other outstanding returns
were filed for him by the IRS. Despite having his federal tax debt significantly reduced,
he has failed to pay as agreed under recent federal and state repayment plans.
Applicant also has struggled to pay child support since 2008 and has been jailed for
failing to pay court-ordered obligations. He has also accrued several medical and
commercial debts that remain unpaid. 
I have also considered the following pertinent AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions:10
(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; and
7
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
None of these mitigating conditions apply. Applicant’s debts are recent, multiple,
and continue unresolved. Although his 2008 divorce raises AG 20(b), he did not act
responsibly when faced with his new tax status and his child support obligations.
Applicant cites his loss of work after he was divorced, but his “off rotation” status and
the associated income fluctuation have been a part of his personal and professional life
since 1990. Applicant did not adjust to new obligations and manage his finances so he
could meet them. He continues to struggle in this regard. He has even less income now
that he cannot sail abroad, and his PFS has reflected a negative monthly cash flow
since at least 2012. He has not sought professional financial counseling to resolve his
finances. The organizational assistance he receives from his friend does not constitute
financial counseling under this guideline. Applicant is credited with reducing his federal
tax debt and making payments on other debts; however, his efforts are too sporadic to
constitute a systematic and good-faith effort to overcome his financial problems. 
Applicant’s financial difficulties will not be resolved anytime soon. As of the
hearing, he had stopped paying his tax debts and he was faced with additional jail time
for non-payment of his child support obligations. On balance, Applicant did not mitigate
the security concerns about his failure to comply with his tax obligations or pay his
debts.
Personal Conduct
Available information is sufficient to support all of the SOR allegations under this
guideline. The facts established raise a security concern about Applicant’s finances that
is addressed at AG ¶ 15, as follows:
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.
Applicant’s conviction for driving on a suspended license, without more, would
not present a security concern. However, this event is another manifestation of the
problems presented by his financial problems, discussed above. As with his finances,
Applicant did not attend to a requirement that he pay an otherwise minor speeding
ticket. As a result, the problem was compounded by the loss of his driving privileges.
Similarly, he has now failed to pay the fines and costs from his conviction for driving on
a suspended license and faces a warrant for his arrest. In addition to the general
concern about his judgment and reliability expressed in AG ¶ 15, above, these facts
also require application of the disqualifying condition at AG ¶ 15(c):
8
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.
Of the AG ¶ 16 mitigating conditions, none apply. Applicant’s 2013 arrest is a
continuance of ongoing poor judgment that underlies his financial problems. His arrest
also remains a concern because it indicates an unwillingness or inability to comply with
basic legal requirements and to follow court orders. On balance, the security concerns
raised under this guideline remain.
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts and have applied the appropriate adjudicative factors
under Guidelines E and F. I also have reviewed the record before me in the context of
the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is 43 years old and presumed to
be a mature, responsible adult. He has a long history of professional sea service, and
he has established a solid record for reliability and hard work among those with whom
he has sailed since 1990. However, since at least 2006, Applicant has not managed his
personal conduct or finances sufficiently. This has raised doubts, which Applicant’s
current circumstances have sustained, about his judgment and overall suitability for
access to classified information. Because protection of the national interest is the
principal goal of these adjudications, those doubts must be resolved against the
Applicant.
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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 - p: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
9
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
for Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security
clearance is denied.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge