DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-02349
           )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 26, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on February 18, 2014.  (Government Exhibit 2.)  On July 24, 2014,
the Department of Defense (DoD), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department
of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as amended), issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed reasons why DOHA could
not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether
clearance should be denied or revoked.
The Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on August 15, 2014, in which she
elected to have the case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing.
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to
the Applicant on or about January 13, 2015.  The Applicant received the FORM on
January 26, 2015  The Applicant was instructed to submit information in rebuttal,
extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt.  The Applicant submitted a reply to
the FORM on February 11, 2015.  This case was assigned to the undersigned on March
19, 2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.   
2
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 31 years old and lives with her partner.  She has a high school
diploma and some community college.  She is employed with a defense contractor as
an Office Manager and is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with this
employment.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she is financially overextended and at risk
of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admits the allegations set forth in subparagraphs 1.a., and 1.b., of
the SOR under this guideline.  She denies the allegation set forth in subparagraph 1.c.
(Government Exhibit 3.)  Credit Reports of the Applicant dated March 13, 2014; and
January 7, 2015, reflect that the Applicant was indebted to each of the three separate
creditors in an amount totaling in excess of $18,000.  (Government Exhibits 6 and 7.)
    
Applicant has been employed on a full time basis since at least 2004.  She
attributes her delinquent debt to her partner’s unemployment and underemployment
which began in mid-2011.  Applicant’s income alone is insufficient to meet their
combined expenses.  Thus, Applicant fell behind on her bills, and accumulated debt that
she could not afford to pay.  (See Answer to SOR.)  Applicant states that in May 2008
she and her partner purchased a house.  In June 2008 her partner suffered a severe
knee injury and was immediately put on worker’s compensation until about June 2011.
During this time he underwent three surgeries, knee reconstruction and extensive
physical therapy with a 45% disability to his right knee.  Her partner can no longer go
back to the roofing business and is pursuing other employment.    
According to her credit reports, the following three delinquent debts were
outstanding:  1.(a), a mortgage account owed to a bank in the amount of $17,812, was
in foreclosure status with a total loan balance of $199,802.  Foreclosure proceedings
have been initiated.  (Government Exhibit 7.)  1.(b), a delinquent credit card placed in
collection in the amount of $565 was used to pay a vet bill.  (Government Exhibit 7.)
Applicant states that she plans to pay this debt within the next 30 days.  (See
Applicant’s Response to FORM.)  1.(c), a debt owed to a library was placed into
collection in the amount of $60.  Applicant paid the debt in March 2014.  (Government
Exhibit 3, and Applicant’s response to the FORM, enclosure attachment 2.)
Applicant stated that in an effort to resolve some of her debt, she sold some of
her personal possessions.  She became current with her mortgage, which had fallen
behind, for a while, and the lender decided not to follow through with foreclosure at that
time.  In January 2015 Applicant once again fell behind on her mortgage.  This time in
3
the amount of $3,136, (which is two monthly payments), with a total balance owed of
$193,000.  (Government Exhibit 7.)       
 Applicant states that her intention is to pay off her delinquent debt.  She has,
however, failed to submit any evidence to show that she can maintain fiscal
responsibility for any sustained period of time.  She has not explained how she can
afford to pay her debts.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she has engaged in conduct involving
questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness 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 completed a security clearance application dated February 18, 2014,
and answered, “NO,” to a series of questions concerning her finances.  (Government
Exhibit 4.)  Section 26 asked, “In the past seven years, have you had any possessions
or property voluntarily or involuntarily repossessed or foreclosed? . . . In the past seven
years have you defaulted on any type of loan?  In the past seven years, have you had
bills or debts turned over to a collection agency? . . . In the past seven years, have you
had any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as
agreed? . . . In the last seen years have you been over 120 days delinquent on any debt
not previously entered? . . . Are you currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt?”
Applicant answered, “NO,” to each of the questions.  These were false responses.  She
failed to list the delinquent debts set forth above.  (See Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)  
Applicant claims that at the time she completed the security clearance application
in March 2014, she should have answered, “Yes,” to the questions about default on
loans, charge off of a credit card, 120 days delinquent in the last seven years, and
currently 120 days delinquent.  Applicant claimed, however, that she did not answer,
“Yes,” in response to the questions because she was confused on the terminology.  She
believes her nerves may have gotten the best of her.  This excuse is not credible.  The
questions are not complicated or complex.  Applicant knew or should have known to
answer the questions truthfully and candidly, which she did not.    
After reviewing the eQIP, Applicant stated that she noticed other mistakes that
were not mentioned in her FORM.  She was intimidated by the process and should have
reviewed her responses with her security officer or her supervisor before it was
submitted.  She states that she was unaware that she could ask for help.  She assumed
that she was to complete it on her own.  She now realizes the importance of the
document and the attention to detail she should have taken.  (Applicant’s response to
the FORM.)  
4
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
20.(b) the conditions 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.
Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
15.  The Concern.  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.
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
16.(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; and
5
16.(c) 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
judgement, 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.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
     b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavior
changes;
 
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
6
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence, which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as
emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination
under this order . . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility, dishonesty or
conduct  which demonstrates poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In regard to her personal conduct, Applicant was not truthful and candid with the
Government on her security clearance application when she intentionally omitted
relevant information concerning her finances.  At the time she completed the
application, she knew or should have known that she had several delinquent debts.
The only reasonable conclusion for not revealing the truth concerning her delinquent
debts is that she did not want the Government to know about them.  This misconduct in
inexcusable.  I find that she deliberately concealed the information from the Government
on the application.  
Applicant’s finances are just as bad.  She has paid one of her debts in the
amount of $60.  She states that she plans to pay her delinquent credit card debt that is
owing in the amount of $565 within the next 30 days.  Since this investigation started,
she has been severely delinquent on her house payment to the point that foreclosure
proceedings were started.  She sold some of her possessions and brought her
mortgage current.  Now she is once again falling delinquent on her mortgage payments.
There is nothing in the record that demonstrates that she can remain fiscally
responsible.  Given the fact that her household finances are not what they used to be,
her expenses may simply be more than she can handle.  This type of misconduct is
what the Government is trying to protect against by placing strict requirements on
7
security clearance eligibility.  Presently, Applicant remains excessively indebted, and
her dishonesty has not been mitigated.     
 
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Disqualifying Condition 16.(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, and 16.(c) 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 judgement, 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 apply.  None of the
mitigating conditions are applicable.  Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under
Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
Furthermore, the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  The evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability, and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with her security clearance eligibility.
Applicant’s history of financial indebtedness has not been mitigated.  She
remains excessively indebted and has not demonstrated that she is fiscally responsible.
Applicant must show that she can and will resolve her debts.  She has not shown an
ability to pay her delinquent debts or live within her means.  At this time, there is
insufficient evidence of financial rehabilitation.  Applicant has not demonstrated that she
can properly handle her financial affairs. 
Applicant has not met her burden of proving that she is worthy of a security
clearance.  She has paid off one small delinquent debt.  Admittedly, she brought her
mortgage that was severely delinquent current, but is now, once again, falling behind on
her house payments.  Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has not introduced
persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome
the Government's case. 
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations, apply.  Mitigating Condition 20.(b) the conditions 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 arguably applies, but is not
controlling.  It is noted that Applicant’s partner has suffered some medical problems in
the past that adversely effected the household income. However, even now, Applicant
8
continues to have difficulties paying her bills.  Accordingly, I find against the Applicant
under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).    
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole-person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, a lack of candor, an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations,
and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard
classified information.
  
I have considered all of the evidence presented.  It does not mitigate the negative
effects of her financial indebtedness and her personal conduct, and the effects it can
have on her ability to safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that
the Applicant has not overcome the Government's case opposing her request for a
security clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against the Applicant
as to the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the
SOR.   
     FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1:       Against the Applicant.
Subpara.  1.a.          Against  the Applicant.   
Subpara.  1.b.         Against the Applicant.
Subpara.  1.c.           For  the Applicant. 
Paragraph 2:                  Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.a.               Against the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in theris case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
the Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge
9