The Government acknowledged that it had not met its burden for personal conduct concerns or falsification      1
of relevant information. (Government Brief)
The Government submitted nine items in support of its case.      2
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 )       ISCR Case No. 12-04144
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i Garcia, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On February 4, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant listing security concerns arising under 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
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and
the adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested an administrative
determination in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant
Material (FORM), dated June 9, 2014.  Applicant received the FORM on June 18, 2014.2
He did not submit  additional information for the record. I received the case assignment
2
on August 7, 2014. Based on a review of the case file, I find Applicant has not mitigated
the security concerns raised. Security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted allegations under Guideline F, ¶¶
1.d-1.h and denied allegations ¶ 1.a-1.c, and 1.i. He denied the allegation under
Guideline E. (Item 3) 
Applicant is 54 years old. He is an engineer with a defense contractor. He
attended college, and in 1999 obtained a certificate. Applicant is married. (Item 4)
Applicant has been employed with his current employer since July 2003. He has held a
security clearance since approximately 1984. (Items 9 and 3) On August 4, 2011, he
completed a security clearance application. (Item 4) 
 The SOR alleges nine delinquent debts totaling approximately $86,155.00.
These include federal tax liens, a state franchise tax, and collection accounts. (Item 1)
Credit reports confirm the debts. (Items 6, 7, and 8) 
Applicant explained in his Answer that his financial issues began in
approximately 2010 when his wife lost her employment, and their income was
drastically reduced. At that time, their combined earnings were about $200,000. In
addition, he explained that the IRS issues arose from a withdrawal from an IRA (401(k)
and resulting tax amounts that he did not have sufficient funds to pay. (Item 3) He
denies living beyond his means. He indicated that he never failed to pay or file taxes.
Once the IRS notified him by mail of tax liens, he began a payment plan. (Items 5 and
9) Applicant prioritized his debts and has a payment plan for his IRS taxes.(Item 5) His
second priority is his home mortgage account, and finally, his personal credit card
debts. 
In 2011, during an investigative interview, Applicant explained that there have
been a multitude of unfortunate events that led to the present financial difficulties. His
wife became deathly ill on a 2004 business trip, which involved additional costs for him.
He traveled to see her while she was in the hospital for several months. In addition, she
could not work and also incurred about $20,000 in surgery costs. Moreover, in 2007, his
dog bit the mailman and Applicant incurred expenses as a result of a lawsuit. (Item 5)
Applicant also disclosed that he was past due on his home mortgage loan in 2010.
(Item 3) In 2013, he obtained a home loan modification.
The record reflects that Applicant has had various payment plans with the IRS,
and this is corroborated by the IRS account transcripts and an incident history report.
(Items 5 and 9) Applicant notes that his wages were previously garnished by the IRS for
approximately $400 a month, and at one point approximately $866.96 monthly
according to a February 24, 2011 JPAS incident report. (Item 9) He is currently paying
the IRS $1,000 a month directly. The tax transcripts substantiate his claim.
3
As to July 2011 federal tax lien, Applicant denied that he owed this amount. The
July 2011 tax lien (SOR 1.a) in the amount of $5,163 he claims is paid. This appears to
be for tax year 2007 and the lien is for the tax year 2010. The 2007 tax year balance is
zero. However, Applicant still owes for tax years 2008 to 2010 as of November 2013 in
the amount of $18,778.32. (Item 5)
Applicant is in repayment status for the September 2011 federal tax lien of
$35,249. (SOR 1.b) He submitted documentation that as of February 2014, the balance
is about $8,200.  Applicant states that the IRS liens will be paid in full by January 2015.
(Item 3) It is not clear from the record what the amount is as of the current date.
Applicant denied the $16,000 credit card collection account in SOR 1.c because
he has paid approximately $4,000 of the debt. He notes that he pays $200 a month.
There is nothing in the record to support the noted payments. A 2013 pay stub shows a
deduction of $200, but that is listed as a tax levy. 
Applicant explained that he is in the process of making payment arrangements to
satisfy the delinquent debts for the SOR allegations 1.d through 1.h. (Item 3) However,
he did not provide any documentation or detailed information in response to the FORM
to substantiate his efforts.
As to the $3,925 in SOR 1.i for a tax debt to a state franchise board, Applicant
denied the debt, stating that it was paid in February. He submitted summaries of his
state personal income tax account. The documents show that as of October 31, 2013,
Applicant carries a zero balance for tax years 2006 to 2008, 2011, and 2012. He has
made payments, but he still owes $3,925 for tax years 2005, 2009, and 2010. His
employer received a wage garnishment order from the state board in the amount of
$5,191.46 for tax years 2009 to 2010. (Item 9)   
Applicant’s monthly net income is approximately $5,526. His wife is still
unemployed. He has a monthly net remainder of about $64.  Applicant’s 2013 personal
financial statement indicates payment to IRS and household expenses, but no other
SOR debts. (Item 5)
Applicant noted in his answer to DOHA interrogatories that most of his money is
going to pay the IRS debts, and he cannot pay his other delinquent debts at this time.
(Item 5) He intends to pay all his delinquent debts when the IRS debt is paid, or when
his wife finds employment.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      3
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      4
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      6
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      7
 Id.      8
4
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. 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. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a3
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  4 5
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. This relationship
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance6
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt7
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a8
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
5
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.”
Applicant’s admissions and credit reports establish his delinquent debts and
federal tax liens. Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC
DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a
history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such conditions raised, it is left
to Applicant to overcome the case against him and mitigate security concerns.  
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulties
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” An unpaid debt is a
continuous course of conduct for the purposes of DOHA adjudications. See, ISCR Case
No. 10-11083 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2012). Applicant still has unresolved delinquent
debt that he plans to address after he completes payments for his tax liens and his
state franchise tax. He has not provided sufficient documentation that he has paid
$4,000 on a collection account. He acknowledges that he has no money to pay the
other credit collection accounts. The delinquent obligations remain. Consequently,
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(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) does not apply.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the behavior 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) partially applies. Applicant provided
information concerning his wife’s unemployment and tax problem that caused financial
difficulties beyond his control. He has been addressing the IRS tax liens and has acted
responsibly in that matter. However, he still has a large unresolved amount of debt that
he is not able to pay at this time. His wife is still unemployed. In response to the FORM,
Applicant did not  present new information presenting more documentation or an
update on the status of his debts.
6
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) partially applies. Applicant has been paying his tax
debts.  He did not present evidence that he received financial counseling. AG ¶ 20(c)
(the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem) does not apply. He
is making efforts to address his delinquent debts. However, given his wife’s
unemployment situation, I find that  there are not clear indications that his financial
problems are being resolved and are under control. 
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 the 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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is 54 years old. He has worked for his current employer since 2003. He has
held a security clearance since 1984. He has worked in the field for many years. He has
been making payments to the IRS. He wants to pay his debts that did occur due to
circumstances beyond his control. However, he needs more time to show that his debts
are under control.  This conclusion, however, does not preclude Applicant from
demonstrating the requisite financial rehabilitation and reform in the future. 
Because Applicant chose to have this matter handled administratively, I am
unable to evaluate his demeanor, appearance or credibility. In relying on the written
record, he failed to submit sufficient information or evidence to supplement the record
with relevant and material facts regarding his circumstances, articulate his position, and
fully mitigate the financial security concerns.  
The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations
should err, if they must, on the side of denials. A denial of his security clearance does
not necessarily indicate anything adverse about Applicant’s character or loyalty. It
7
means that the individual has presented insufficient mitigation to meet the strict
standards controlling access to classified information. 
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
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge