1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-02856
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
March 16, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on February 22, 2013.  On July 23, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines
F and E for Applicant.  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG), effective within the Department of Defense after
September 1, 2006. 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on August 8, 2014.  He answered
the SOR in writing on August 21, 2014, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge.  The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) received
the request soon thereafter, and I received the case assignment on December 8, 2014.
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on December 10, 2014, and I convened the hearing
as scheduled on January 22, 2015.  The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through
2
6, which were received without objection.  Applicant testified on his own behalf.  DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on January 30, 2015.  I granted Applicant’s
request to keep the record open until February 23, 2015, to submit additional matters.
On February 23, 2015, he submitted a Closing Statement, but no exhibits.  The record
closed on February 23, 2014.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the factual allegations in all the
Subparagraphs of the SOR.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is a 45 year-old former Marine, who works for a Government
contractor.  (TR at page 21 line 20 to page 28 line 25.)
1.a.  It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor A for a past-due debt in
the amount of about $54.  (GX 6 at page 1.)  He claims he is “in good standing with
them,” but it appears as “UNPAID” on the Government’s most recent, January 2015
Credit Report.  (TR at page 29 line 17 to page 30 line 14, and GX 6 at page 1.)  As
Applicant has submitted nothing in this regard, other than his bare averment, I find that
this debt is past due.
1.b.  It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor B for a past-due debt in
the amount of about $714.  (GX 6 at page 1.)  He now admits this debt, and it also
appears as “UNPAID” on the Government’s most recent, January 2015 Credit Report.
(TR at page 30 line 15 to page 31 line 3, and GX 6 at page 1.)  I find that this debt is
past due.
1.c.  It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor C for a past-due debt in
the amount of about $5,506.  (GX 3 at page 5.)  This debt is the result of Applicant’s
truck being repossessed.  (TR at page 31 line 4 to page 33 line 2.)  He avers that the
creditor never tried to contact Applicant, and visa versa.  (Id.)  However, as it appears
as a “CHARGE OFF” on the Government’s March 2013 Credit Report; and as Applicant
has submitted nothing in this regard, I find that this debt is past due.
1.d.  It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor D for a past-due debt in
the amount of about $6,918.  (GX 3 at page 8.)  This debt is the result of Applicant living
in an apartment for seven years (TR at page 33 line 3 to page 35 line 13.)  He avers
that this was just normal wear and tear of the apartment.  (Id.)  However, as it appears
as a “Collection” account on the Government’s March 2013 Credit Report; and as
Applicant has submitted nothing in this regard, I find that this debt is past due.
1.e.  It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor E for a past-due debt in
the amount of about $674.  (GX 3 at page 8.)  He avers that he “paid” this debt.  (TR at
3
page 35 line 13 to page 36 line 12.)   However, as it still appears as a “Collection”
account on the Government’s March 2013 Credit Report; and as Applicant has
submitted nothing in this regard, I find that this debt is past due.
1.f.  It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor F for a past-due debt in the
amount of about $345.  (GX 3 at page 9.)  He avers that he “totally forgot about” this
debt.  (TR at page 36 line 13 to page 37 line 2.)  As it still appears as a “Collection”
account on the Government’s March 2013 Credit Report; and as Applicant has
submitted nothing in this regard, I find that this debt is past due.
1.g., 1.i. and 1.j.  It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor G for three
past-due medical debts in an amount totaling about $397.  (GX 3 at pages 9 and 10.)
He avers that he “could have sworn . . . [he] paid . . . all . . . [his] co-pays.”  (TR at page
37 lines 3~19.)  As they still appear as “Collection” accounts on the Government’s
March 2013 Credit Report; and as Applicant has submitted nothing in this regard, I find
that these debts are past due.
1.h.  It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to Creditor J for a past-due debt in the
amount of about $163.  (GX 3 at page 9.)  As it still appears as a “Collection” account
on the Government’s March 2013 Credit Report; and as Applicant has submitted
nothing in this regard, I find that this debt is past due.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
2.a.  Applicant answered “No” to “Section 26: Financial Record: Delinquency
Involving Routine Accounts . . . In the past seven (7) years,” on his February 22,
2013 e-QIP, as “property . . . repossessed,” debts “turned over to a collection agency,
and debts “charged off.”  (GX 1 at page 41.)  He avers, in part, that he “didn’t have all
the information they wanted for any credit.”  (TR at page 37 line 24 to page 38 line 21.)
I find this to be a wilful falsification.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
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, which are useful 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 over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision.  According to AG
Paragraph 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
4
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.
Paragraph 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.  Likewise, I have avoided drawing
inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.15,
the 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 applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a
favorable security decision.
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 the 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 Paragraph 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. 
5
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns.  Under
Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  Applicant has significant past due debts that
he has yet to address.  The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying
conditions, requiring a closer examination.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties.  Subparagraph 20(d) applies where the
evidence shows “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.@  Applicant has failed to submit any documentation showing
that he has made a good-faith effort to address his significant past-due debts.  I can find
no other countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here.  Financial
Considerations are found against the Applicant.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in
Paragraph 15: “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.”
The following Disqualifying Condition under Subparagraph 16(a) applies.  It
provides that the “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts
from any personnel security questionnaire . . . or similar form used to conduct
investigations . . .” may be disqualifying.  I can find no countervailing Mitigating
Condition here, as the Applicant could have easily answered his e-QIP honestly, which
he certified as “true, complete, and correct.”  Personal Conduct is found against the
Applicant.
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 the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances.  Under AG Paragraph 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 Administrative Judge should also consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at AG Paragraph 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
6
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.
I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  The record evidence leaves me with
questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
For these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising
from his Financial Considerations, and Personal Conduct.
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.j. Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a: Against 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 eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
_________________
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge