1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 12-01353
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns raised by his deliberate
concealment of a relationship with a foreign national. He also failed to mitigate security
concerns about his delinquent debts. His request for continued eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case
On October 6, 2011, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to obtain or renew a security clearance required for
his job with a defense contractor. After reviewing the results of the ensuing background
investigation, which included his responses to interrogatories from Department of
 See DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended, Section E3.1.2.2.1
 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended. See also Directive, Section E3.1.1.2
 See Directive, Enclosure 2. See also 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).3
 See Directive, Enclosure 3, Section E3.1.7. The FORM included 11 documents (Items 1 - 11) proffered in4
support of the Government’s case.
 FORM at p. 3.5
2
Defense (DOD) adjudicators,  it could not be determined that it is clearly consistent with1
the national interest for Applicant to have access to classified information.2
On July 23, 2013, DOD issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
alleging facts that raise security concerns addressed by Guideline B (Foreign Influence),
Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations).  Applicant3
timely responded to the SOR and requested a decision without a hearing. On April 7,
2014, Department Counsel for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM)  in support of the SOR. Applicant received4
the FORM on April 21, 2014, and was notified that he had 30 days to file a response to
the FORM. The record closed after Applicant failed to submit any additional information
within the time allowed. The case was assigned to me on September 15, 2014.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline B, the Government alleged that Applicant’s wife (SOR 1.a) and
mother-in-law (SOR 1.b) are citizens of and reside in a foreign country. However, after
reviewing all of the available information about those allegations, including Applicant’s
response to the SOR, Department Counsel withdrew these allegations and has not
pursued disqualification of Applicant under Guideline B.5
Under Guideline E, the Government alleged that Applicant deliberately made a
false statement to an agency of the United States by failing to disclose a close and
continuing relationship with a foreign national, to wit, his then-girlfriend and current wife,
as he was required to disclose in response to EQIP Section 19 (SOR 2.a). It was also
disclosed that Applicant, while holding a DOD security clearance, deliberately concealed
for nearly two years from his DOD contractor employer the fact that he had been dating
a foreign national beginning in about December 2009 (SOR 2.b). Finally, DOD alleged
that Applicant violated security regulations at an overseas U.S. military installation by
taking his cell phone into secured areas, despite having been counseled against doing
so (SOR 2.c) Applicant denied, with explanations, all three Guideline E allegations. 
As to SOR 2.c, there appears to be no basis in this record for this allegation.
Also, Department Counsel did not argue in support of that allegation in the FORM.
Accordingly, I conclude SOR 2.c for the Applicant.
3
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owes $3,295 (SOR
3.a) and $12,356 (SOR 3.b) for two delinquent accounts that were referred to collection
agencies. Applicant admitted both allegations, and averred that he is paying off the debt
at SOR 3.a, but has been unable to communicate with the SOR 3.b creditor to set up a
payment plan. (FORM, Item 4) 
In addition to the facts established by Applicant’s admissions, I make the
following findings of fact. Applicant is 37 years old and works as a field services
technician for a nationally-known information technology (IT) corporation. He was hired
for that job in July 2011 after a brief period of unemployment. Beginning in March 2009,
Applicant worked as an IT customer service representative for his previous employer,
who sponsored his first request for a security clearance. Applicant was granted the
clearance for his work at an overseas U.S. military facility until April 2011. His current
application for clearance is for work with his current employer at a different overseas
location. (FORM, Items 5 - 7)
Applicant has been married three times. His first marriage in June 1997 ended by
divorce in May 2001. He married his second wife in July 2001, but they separated in
April 2009, around the time he deployed overseas for work. A divorce was pending as of
December 2011. (FORM, Items 5 - 7)
In December 2009, Applicant began a relationship with a female foreign national
in the country where he was working. They dated throughout his time there, and he
eventually sponsored her for a visa so she could visit him in the United States beginning
in May 2011. They lived together in the United States until she returned to her country in
July 2011. Applicant returned to that country for a week to see her in October 2011.
They were married in May 2012. (FORM, Item 7)
When Applicant submitted his latest EQIP in October 2011, he did not disclose
his relationship with the foreign national who is now his wife. His first official disclosure
of that relationship occurred in December 2011. (FORM, Items 6 and 8) In November
2011, when he was asked by a Government investigator why he had not disclosed this
information in his EQIP, Applicant stated that he tried to input the information “but for
reasons unknown was unable to do so.” (FORM, Item 7, Summary of Personal Subject
Interview at page 7) When Applicant responded to SOR 2.a, he averred that he had
misunderstood the question posed in EQIP Section 19. The question requires
disclosure of any such contacts and relationships occurring in the seven years
preceding application for a clearance. (FORM, Items 4 and 5)
As to SOR 2.b, Applicant denied that he intentionally failed to disclose his
relationship with his now-wife between 2009 and 2011. He claimed to have notified his
superiors by email, and that he was aware, through training he and his co-workers
received, of the security concerns associated with such a relationship. Applicant did not
present copies of any emails or other documentation (FORM, Item 4)
A credit report obtained in 2011 subsequent to Applicant’s most recent
application for clearance showed he had numerous delinquent debts. His financial
problems at that time stemmed from the breakup of his second marriage, and from
 Directive. 6.3.6
4
medical expenses associated with the treatment of one of his children. Unfortunately,
that child died in 2006 at a young age. Applicant was left with significant medical
expenses not covered by insurance. More recently, he has two significant unpaid debts.
The debt alleged at SOR 3.a is for unpaid rent that accrued when Applicant broke his
lease in 2011 to accept his current overseas job. Applicant averred in response to the
SOR that he is paying this debt, but only documented a single payment of $150 on a
three-year-old debt of $3,295. The payment was made two weeks after the SOR was
issued. 
Available information also shows, as alleged at SOR 3.b, that Applicant still owes
$12,356 for a delinquent auto loan that Applicant stopped paying in 2006, around the
time his child died and after Applicant had left work to care for that child. Applicant
worked with the creditor for about a year, but the car was eventually repossessed. The
amount alleged represents the remainder due after the car was resold. Applicant did not
take any action to resolve this debt until after receiving the SOR and is now unable to
contact the creditor that currently holds this debt. (FORM, Items 4, 7, 9 - 11)
As to Applicant’s current finances, a personal financial statement (PFS) he
provided in response to DOD interrogatories shows he has about $1,940 remaining
each month after paying his expenses. No debt payments were included in his
expenses. Credit reports obtained in 2013 and 2014 do not list new delinquencies after
2011. (FORM, Items 7, 10, 11)
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. Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a) of the
new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors are:
(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.
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).7
 Directive, E3.1.14.8
 Directive, E3.1.15.9
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.10
 See Egan; Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 2(b).11
5
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. Department Counsel must produce sufficient
reliable information on which DOHA based its preliminary decision to deny or revoke a
security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, Department Counsel must prove
controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  If the Department Counsel meets its burden, it8
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the case for disqualification.  9
No one is entitled to a security clearance. Thus, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion to establish that it is clearly consistent with the national interest for
the applicant to have access to protected information.  A person who has access to10
such information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust
and confidence. Thus, there is a compelling need to ensure each applicant possesses
the requisite judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness of one who will protect the
nation’s 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 to classified information in favor of the Government.11
Analysis
Personal Conduct
The information presented in the FORM is sufficient to raise a security concern
about Applicant’s personal conduct. That security concern is articulated 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.
More specifically, these facts and circumstances require application of the
following AG ¶ 16 disqualifying conditions:
6
(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;
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of . . . (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule
violations; 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, . . .
In response to the SOR 2.a allegation that Applicant deliberately omitted from his
2011 EQIP the fact that he had been in a relationship with a foreign national for two
years, he stated that he misunderstood the question. However, in a 2011 interview with
a Government investigator, he stated that he tried, but was unable, to input the
information. His conflicting explanations are sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent
to deceive within the meaning of AG ¶ 16(a). 
Further, as to SOR 2.b, Applicant did not notify the Government, either directly or
through his employer, about his close relationship to a foreign national for more than
two years, all the while as he held a security clearance. He did not support his claims
that he timely sent emails to his supervisor about his relationship. Also, he has not
explained why the only official notification of record, again, occurred after two years had
passed, despite his own acknowledgment that he and his coworkers had received
training about the security implications of such conduct. All of the foregoing supports AG
¶¶ 16(d)(3) and (e)(1).
I have also considered the mitigating conditions at AG ¶ 17. Only AG ¶ 17(e) has
any application here, insofar as the fact of his relationship to a foreign national is now a
matter of record. Nonetheless, Applicant did not make any prompt, good-faith effort to
correct his omissions from his EQIP, and delayed for two years notification of his foreign
relationship while holding a security clearance. These facts underscore the security
concerns about Applicant’s willingness to be candid with the Government, and his ability
to follow procedures designed to safeguard classified information. In sum, I conclude
Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised under this guideline. 
7
Financial
The Government’s information is sufficient to show that Applicant has a history of
past-due or unpaid debts for at least the past eight years. The facts established by SOR
3.a and 3.b raise a security concern that is articulated at AG ¶ 18, as follows:
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 following AG ¶
19 disqualifying conditions:
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
By contrast, the following AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions are pertinent to these
facts and circumstances:
(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
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
As to AG ¶¶ 20(a) and 20(b), Applicant’s financial problems began around the
time his child was ill. The resulting medical expenses and loss of income resulted in the
car repossession debt alleged at SOR 3.b. Such circumstances are not likely to recur
and were certainly beyond Applicant’s control. However, the debt for unpaid rent,
8
represented by SOR 3.a, was incurred when Applicant decided to break his lease to
take his current job. As to SOR 3.b, the experience of losing a child is tragic and the
impact on one’s finances cannot easily be imagined. Nonetheless, over time it is not
unreasonable to expect more action to resolve delinquencies than is documented here.
Coupled with Applicant’s failure to pay anything on the debt at SOR 3.a, I cannot
conclude that his indebtedness does not reflect adversely on his judgment, or that he
has acted responsibly under the circumstances.
As to AG ¶¶ 20(c) and (d), Applicant did not establish that he acted in good faith
to resolve his debts. There is no track record of correspondence with his creditors, and
a single, post-SOR payment does not constitute a serious attempt to resolve a debt.
Applicant’s PFS shows he has sufficient monthly cash flow to embark on a meaningful
repayment plan, but Applicant has not accepted the need to demonstrate that his
finances are in order and no longer pose a security risk. On balance, I conclude he has
not mitigated the security concerns raised under this guideline.
I also have evaluated this record in the context of the whole-person factors listed
in AG ¶ 2(a). I conclude that doubts remain about Applicant’s 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 B: WITHDRAWN
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c: For Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a - 3.b: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all available information, 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