1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 14-01651
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has resolved his past-due debts, which arose due to an unexpected
loss of employment and subsequent employment at a significantly lower wage.
Applicant did not intentionally falsify his answers to questions about his finances when
he submitted his most recent security clearance application. His request for a security
clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On November 15, 2013, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to renew a security clearance required for his work as
a defense contractor. Based on the results of the ensuing background investigation,
Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators could not determine that it is clearly
  Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.1
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These2
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 the Government’s exhibits to Applicant in advance of3
hearing is included in the record as Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 1. Also, an index listing each exhibit is included in
the record as Hx. 2.
 Tr. 10 - 12.4
2
consistent with the national interest for Applicant to continue to hold a security
clearance.  1
On June 2, 2014, DOD 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 considerations (Guideline2
F). Applicant timely responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. The case
was assigned to me on September 29, 2014, and I convened a hearing on October 21,
2014. Department Counsel presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 and 2, which were
admitted without objection.  Applicant testified but did not present any documentary3
exhibits. I left the record open to receive additional information. The record closed on
October 27, 2014, when I received Applicant’s timely post-hearing submission, which
has been admitted without objection as Applicant’s Exhibit (Ax.) A. DOHA received the
transcript of hearing (Tr.) on November 19, 2014.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owes $23,927 for
three delinquent debts that were referred for collection (SOR 1.a - 1.c). Under Guideline
E, the Government alleged that Applicant intentionally made a false official statement
when he failed to list in his EQIP the debts alleged in SOR 1.a - 1.c. 
Applicant admitted the Guideline F allegations and denied the single Guideline E
allegation; specifically, that he intended to make a false statement.  (Answer) In addition4
to the facts established by his admissions, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is 44 years old and works as a field service representative for a large
defense contractor. He was first hired by that contractor in April 2002, but after
completing work on a contract overseas in 2010, he was laid off for lack of work. After
being unemployed for about four months, he found a position with the same company,
but at a different location and for about $25,000 less in annual pay. He now works in a
position similar to the one from which he was laid off, but his income has increased only
a little. (Answer; Gx. 1; Tr. 21, 28)
Applicant enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in May 1990. He was honorably
discharged from active duty in May 1994, and continued his service in the Air Force
 See Directive. 6.3.5
3
Reserve until 1999. In the Air Force, he was trained to perform maintenance and repair
of aircraft electronics and environmental systems. He has continued that work as a
defense contractor. Applicant has held a security clearance continuously since 1991.
(Gx. 1; Tr. 23)
Before Applicant was laid off, his finances were sound and he was able to pay all
of his debts. However, when he found himself unemployed, he used credit cards to help
make ends meet. He testified that his financial problems became serious  after he found
lower-paying work. He continued having trouble meeting the regular obligations
(mortgage, car loans, insurance, etc.) that were already in place when he was laid off. In
2011, he started trying to negotiate settlements of his past-due debts, including the
accounts alleged in the SOR. In March 2014, he was able to resolve the SOR 1.c
account for a personal computer purchase he had financed. He resolved the SOR 1.a
credit card debt in May 2014. As of the hearing, he was still in negotiations with the
SOR 1.b creditor. Applicant testified that he has been unable to resolve his debts any
sooner because it takes time to save enough money to pay the lump-sum settlements
required by each creditor. (Answer; Ax. A; Tr. 27 - 32)
Applicant’s current finances are sound. He has incurred no new unpaid debts in
the past four years, and he estimates he has about $200 remaining each month after
paying all of his regular monthly expenses. Applicant will have additional money
remaining each month in 2015 after he finishes paying off his car loan. Applicant also
has between $40,000 and $50,000 in his retirement savings account. (Tr. 35 - 39)
Applicant answered “no” to questions in Section 26 of his most recent EQIP that
asked if, in the previous seven years, he (1) “had bills or debts turned over to a
collection agency” or (2) “had any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or
cancelled for failing to pay as agreed.” Given his credit history, Applicant should have
disclosed the debts alleged at SOR 1.a - 1.c. In response to SOR 2.a, he denied
intentionally withholding from his EQIP adverse information about his finances. He was
not interviewed as part of the background investigation that ensued from this clearance
application. Applicant acknowledged he was aware of his delinquent debts and should
have answered “yes” to the questions at issue. He contends, however, that he
completed the form in haste and, because he was working at a site abroad, poor
internet connectivity made completing the form difficult. (Answer; Tr. 39 - 46)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,5
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)
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).6
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.7
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).8
4
of the 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.
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 to6
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.  A person who has access7
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.8
5
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:
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) and 19(c) (a history
of not meeting financial obligations). Applicant still owes the debt alleged at SOR 1.b,
and his other two delinquencies were not resolved until earlier this year. 
I have also considered the following pertinent AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions:
(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;
and
(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.
Both of these mitigating conditions apply. Applicant’s financial problems started
when he was laid off in 2010 and unemployed for several months. Thereafter, he was
hired by the same employer for a job that paid significantly less than did his previous
position. He struggled to repay credit card bills he accrued as well as obligations that
already existed when he was laid off. He successfully negotiated settlements of two of
the three delinquencies alleged in the SOR by saving enough money to offer sufficient
lump sums to each creditor. His approach will be the same for the SOR 1.b creditor. 
Applicant has not incurred any new unpaid debts and his finances are generally
sound. As of the hearing, he had a modest positive monthly cash flow, and his available
6
funds after expenses will soon increase when he finishes paying off his car note.
Applicant lives within his means, files and pays his taxes as required, and manages his
finances in a prudent manner. He is not likely to experience similar financial problems in
the future. On balance, Applicant mitigated the security concerns about his past-due
debts.
Personal Conduct
The single allegation under this guideline raised a security concern about
Applicant’s truthfulness 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 did not list his past-due debts when he responded to pertinent
questions in Section 26. He admits he omitted that information, but denied the
gravamen of the allegation; namely, that he intended to mislead the Government
through a false statement about information germane to his suitability for access to
classified information. By denying the allegation, the burden remained on the
Government to prove that Applicant acted intentionally in this regard. I conclude the
record does not show that Applicant had such intent when he submitted his EQIP.
Applicant clearly gave an incorrect response; however, simple mistake is not
disqualifying. Applicant was not interviewed by a Government investigator even though
a credit report was obtained about a month after the EQIP, showing the debts alleged.
Applicant was not confronted with the discrepancy between his credit report and his
EQIP answers, and he was not afforded an opportunity to explain his answers until he
answered the SOR and testified at his hearing. I found his testimony on this issue
credible, and conclude the Government did not meet its burden of proof under this
guideline.
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 44 years old and presumed to
be a mature, responsible adult. He has held a security clearance without incident for
over 20 years through his military and defense contractor careers. His financial
problems did not arise from misconduct or irresponsibility, and the underlying
circumstances no longer exist. Applicant demonstrated sound judgment in resolving his
debts. A fair and commonsense assessment of all available information shows
Applicant’s financial problems no longer pose an unacceptable security concern.
7
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.c: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly consistent with the national interest for
Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security
clearance is granted.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge