1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
         
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 12-08047
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 24, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On July 10, 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for Applicant. (Item
1.) 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 furnished an undated written reply to the SOR (RSOR), and he
requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 2.)
On March 17, 2015, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the
FORM, Department Counsel offered eight documentary exhibits. (Items 1-8.) Applicant
was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on May 13, 2015. Applicant did submit
additional evidence, which has been marked and entered into evidence as Item A. The
case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on June 4, 2015. Based upon a review
2
of the pleadings and exhibits, including Applicant's RSOR and the FORM, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record as described
above, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of
fact: 
Applicant is 51 years old. He was married to his second wife from January 1998 to
January 2014, and he has two children. He attended college from September 1981 to
May 1983, and he served in the United States Marine Corps from June 1984 to June
2004.
Applicant has been employed as an IT Specialist since June 2005, by a DoD
Contractor, and he seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in
the defense sector. (Items 3 and 6.)
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists nine allegations (1.a. through 1.i.) regarding financial difficulties,
specifically overdue debts, and failure to file timely Federal tax returns. The allegations
will be discussed below in the same order as they were listed on the SOR:
1.a.  The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to file his Federal tax return for tax
year 2012 until about March 2014, and he is indebted to the Federal Government for
delinquent taxes for this tax year in the amount of $10,901.99. Applicant admitted this
allegation in his RSOR. (Item 2.)
In Applicant’s response to interrogatories, dated March 19, 2014, he included the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax transcript, which establishes that this debt is owed
and shows no payments have been made toward this tax debt. (Item 6.)
1.b. The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to file his Federal tax return for tax year
2011 until about March 2014, and he is indebted to the Federal Government for
delinquent taxes for this tax year in the amount of $12,396.13. Applicant admitted this
allegation in his RSOR. (Item 2.)
The IRS tax transcript also establishes this debt is owed and shows that no
payments have been made toward this tax debt. (Item 6.)
1.c. The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to file his Federal tax return for tax year
2010 until about May 2012, and he is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent
taxes for this tax year in the amount of $5,810.03. Applicant admitted this allegation in
his RSOR. (Item 2.)
3
The IRS tax transcript also establishes this debt is owed and shows that no
payments have been made toward this tax debt. (Item 6.)
1.d. The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to file his Federal tax return for tax year
2009 until about May 2012, and he is indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent
taxes for this tax year in the amount of $12,730.67. Applicant admitted this allegation in
his RSOR. (Item 2.)
The IRS tax transcript also establishes this debt is owed and shows that no
payments have been made toward this tax debt. (Item 6.)
1.e. The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to file his Federal tax return for tax year
2008 until about December 2009, and he is indebted to the Federal Government for
delinquent taxes for this tax year in the amount of $5,092.76. 
The IRS tax transcript also establishes this debt is owed and shows that some
payments were made in 2011 and 2012, but no evidence was furnished to show
additional payments were made after 2012. (Item 6.) I do not find any evidence has been
introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved.
1.f. The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to file his Federal tax return for tax year
2007 until about December 2009, and he is indebted to the Federal Government for
delinquent taxes for this tax year in the amount of $13,445.11. Applicant admitted this
allegation in his RSOR. (Item 2.)
The IRS tax transcript also establishes this debt is owed and shows that three
payments were made in 2011 and one payment in 2014, but no evidence was furnished
to show additional payments were made to resolve this debt. (Item 6.) I do not find any
evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved.
1.g.  The SOR alleges that a judgment was entered against Applicant in 2008 in
the approximate amount of $5,606, and, as of the date of the SOR, the judgment
remains unpaid. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR, but wrote the debt was
charged off. However, he also wrote that he has been on a payment plan with this
creditor. (Item 2.) A Credit Report, dated March 13, 2015, establishes that this judgment
is still outstanding and has not been satisfied. (Item 7.) I do not find any evidence has
been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.
1.h. The SOR alleges that a judgment was entered against Applicant in 2009 in
the approximate amount of $8,524, and as of the date of the SOR, the judgment remains
unpaid. Applicant denied this allegation in his RSOR, writing that this judgment was
satisfied and paid in full in January 2014. (Item 2.) A Credit Report, dated March 13,
2015, establishes that this judgment has been satisfied. (Item 7.) I find that this debt has
been resolved.
1.i. The SOR alleges that Applicant is indebted for a collection account in the
approximate amount of $48, and as of the date of the SOR, the debt remains unpaid.
4
Applicant denied this allegation in his RSOR, writing that this account was paid in full in
March 2014. A letter from the creditor of this debt, included with the RSOR, shows that
this debt was settled in full on March 19, 2014. (Item 2.) I find that this debt has been
resolved.
With regard to all of the Federal tax debt listed on the SOR as 1.a, through 1.f.,
above, and totaling more than $60,000, Applicant included some documentation with his
RSOR showing that he had made 18 payments of approximately $7,200 from November
2010 to August 2012. However, no evidence was introduced to show Applicant has
made any payments since 2012. Additionally, Applicant wrote that he has sought
counseling with a tax relief service that is assisting him in receiving a low settlement, and
that there is clear indication that the tax problem is being resolved. (Item 2.) However, in
his post-FORM submission, he wrote that he has been working with the tax relief service
to come to a settlement plan, but no indication was given by Applicant that any
settlement with the IRS has yet been reached. (Item A.)
Applicant wrote that his financial problems occurred because of a failing marriage
and his ultimate divorce. (Item 2.) However, Applicant did not explain how or why his
failing marriage kept him from filing his Federal tax returns in a timely manner. 
In a Personal Financial Statement that Applicant prepared on March 15, 2014, his
monthly net remainder, after subtracting his expenses and debts from his income, was
$46.21. (Item 6.) No explanation was given by Applicant as to how he would be able to
resolve his overdue debts with a net monthly remainder of $46.21.
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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶ 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
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
5
contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere
speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance
decision. 
A person who applies for access to classified information seeks to enter 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 adverse 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 AG ¶ 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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt, especially to the Federal
Government, which has not been satisfied. Additionally, AG ¶ 19(g), “failure to file
Federal, state or local income tax returns as required” is applicable in this case as
6
Applicant failed to file timely Federal tax returns for several years, from 2007 through
2012. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. Under AG ¶  20(b), it may be mitigating where, “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.” As reviewed
above, Applicant explained his financial difficulties occurred because of his marital
problems which ultimately resulted in a divorce, although Applicant failed to explain why
this situation kept him from filing his Federal tax returns, or paying the substantial taxes
due, in a timely manner. Also while Applicant did make some payments toward his tax
debts, he does not currently have an agreement with the IRS to resolve this very large
Federal tax debt. Therefore, I do not find that Applicant has been responsible under the
circumstances, and I do not find that this mitigating condition warrants significant
consideration in this case.
AG ¶ 20(d) is also not applicable because more than $60,000 is still owed to the
IRS for Federal tax debt, and while Applicant did make some payments from 2010 to
2012, he has made no payments since then.Therefore, Applicant he has not “initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” and I do not find
this or any other mitigating condition applicable in this case. 
Finally, I cannot conclude that Applicant will be able to pay off his past debts or
keep up to date on his current debts and expenses, especially if any new or unexpected
debts are incurred. Therefore, I find that Applicant has not mitigated the Financial
Consideration concerns, which are found against 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. 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.      
7
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited above
as to why the disqualifying conditions apply and no mitigating conditions are established,
I find that the record evidence leaves me with significant questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person
concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security
concerns under the whole-person concept. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as
required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. - 1g.: Against  Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.h. - 1i.: 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 eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge