1 
 
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
[Name Redacted] )  ISCR Case No. 14-03103 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOGAN, Erin C., Administrative Judge: 
 
On September 5, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial 
Considerations, and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. 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.  
  
 On October 27, 2014, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing on 
the record. Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on February 
4, 2015. Applicant received the FORM on March 10, 2015. He had 30 days from his 
receipt of the FORM to submit additional information in response to the FORM. 
Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM. On May 2, 2015, the FORM was 
forwarded to the Hearing Office and assigned to me on that same date. Based upon a 
review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified 
information is denied. 
 
 
2 
 
 
Procedural Matters 
 
 The Government moved to amend the SOR pursuant to paragraph E3.1.13 of the 
Directive. As an alternative, I am amending the SOR pursuant to paragraph E3.1.17 of 
the Directive in order to conform with the evidence. SOR ¶ 2.b is amended to reflect the 
correct date of execution of the Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP), which is December 28, 2012, and to delete the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 
1.q, 1.r, and 1.t because they became delinquent during the same month or after the e-
QIP was executed. As a result Applicant could not have deliberately omitted these debts 
because they were not delinquent at the time he executed the e-QIP application.  
 
SOR ¶ 2.c is amended to reflect the correct date of execution of the e-QIP 
application which is December 28, 2012. It is also amended to delete the name of the 
company that is alleged to have fired Applicant for Privacy Act purposes. The company 
will be referred to as Company A. In addition, the statement that Applicant was 
terminated following allegations of sexual harassment was deleted as well as the 
statement that “Available information indicates that you were cleared of wrong-doing 
and are eligible for rehire.” I find both amendments to be minor.  
 
 SOR ¶ 2.b is revised, as follows: 
 
You falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing executed by you on December 28, 2012, in 
response to ‘Section 26 – Financial Record….Delinquency Involving 
Routine Accounts – Other than previously listed, have any of the following 
happened? In the past seven (7) years….you had bills turned over to a 
collection agency?....In the past seven (7) years, you had any account or 
credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as 
agreed….In the past seven (7) years, you have been over 120 days 
delinquent on any debt not previously entered….You are currently over 
120 days delinquent on any debt?’ You answered, “Yes” and listed only a 
resolved mortgage foreclosure; whereas in truth, you knew, and sought to 
conceal, that you had those delinquencies set forth under SOR 
subparagraphs 1.a – 1.c, 1.e – 1.p, and 1.s of the Statement of Reasons. 
 
SOR ¶ 2.c is revised as follows: 
 
You falsified material facts on an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing, executed by you on December 28, 2012, in 
response to ‘Section 13A – Employment Activities.’ With regard to your 
employment with [Company A], you were asked, ‘For this employment, 
have any of the following happened to you in the last seven (7) years? 
Fired; Quit after being told you would be fired; Left by mutual agreement 
following charges or allegations of misconduct; Left by mutual agreement 
following notice of unsatisfactory performance.’ In response, you 
 
3 
 
 
answered, “No”, and thereby deliberately failed to disclose that you were 
fired from [Company A] in March 2011. 
 
Rulings on Evidence  
 
 Items 11 and 12 of the FORM are portions of the Report of Investigation (ROI) 
from the background investigation of Applicant. Item 11 is a ten-page document 
containing a summary of an interview of Applicant on February 26, 2013, in conjunction 
with his recent background investigation. Item 12 is one page document, dated March 
18, 2013, containing a summary of the investigator’s notes of a follow-up interview of 
Applicant on March 12, 2013. DODD 5220.6, enclosure 2, ¶ E3.1.20 states, “An ROI 
may be received with an authenticating witness provided it is otherwise admissible 
under the Federal Rules of Evidence.” (see ISCR Case No. 11-13999 (App. Bd., 
February 3, 2014)).  
 
Although Applicant, who is representing himself, has not raised the issue via an 
objection, I am raising it sua sponte because Items 11 and 12 are not properly 
authenticated. Applicant’s failure to mention this issue in a response to the FORM is not 
a knowing waiver of the rule because he more than likely was unaware of the rule.  
Waiver means “the voluntary relinquishment or abandonment – express or implied – of 
a legal right or advantage, the party alleged to have waived a right must have had both 
knowledge of the existing right and the intention of forgoing it.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 
1717 (Bryan A. Garner, editor-in-chief, 9th ed., West 2009).  
 
Applicant was not expressly informed of the requirement in ¶ E3.1.20 of the 
Directive. I cannot conclude he expressly waived this rule. He did not respond to the 
FORM. In accordance with the Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E3.1.20, Items 11 and 12 are 
not admissible and will not be considered in this Decision because the documents are 
not authenticated.   
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his response to the SOR, Applicant admits SOR allegations 1.a – 1.e, 1.g, 1.h, 
1.j – 1.n, 1.q, 1.r, 1.t, and 1.u. He denies SOR allegations 1.f, 1.i, 1.o, 1.p, 1.s, and 2.a – 
2c.    
 
 Applicant is a 46-year-old employee of a DOD contractor seeking to obtain a 
security clearance. He has worked for his current employer since February 2012.  He 
served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1989 to September 
2001. He received an Honorable Discharge. After separating from active duty, he has 
worked for several DOD contractors. He separated from his wife of 23 years about a 
year and half ago. They have three children, two daughters, ages 22 and 20, and a son, 
age 17. (Item 4; Item 5)   
 
On December 28, 2012, Applicant submitted an e-QIP application. In response to 
Section 26 – Financial Record Delinquency Involving Enforcement, Applicant answered, 
 
4 
 
 
“No,” to the following questions: “Other than previously listed, have any of the following 
happened to you? (You will be asked to provide details about each financial obligation 
that pertains to the items listed below) In the past seven (7) years, … you had a 
judgment entered against you. (Include financial obligations for which you are the sole 
debtor, as well as those for which you are a cosigner or guarantor).” A background 
investigation revealed that Applicant had three judgments as set forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.j, 1.k, 
and 1.l. (Item 1, section 26; Item 6 at 5; Item 7 at 4) 
 
On the same e-QIP application, dated December 28, 2012, in response to 
section 26 ‘Section 26 – Financial Record….Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts – 
Other than previously listed, have any of the following happened? In the past seven (7) 
years….you had bills turned over to a collection agency?....In the past seven (7) years, 
you had any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to 
pay as agreed….In the past seven (7) years, you have been over 120 days delinquent 
on any debt not previously entered….You are currently over 120 days delinquent on any 
debt?’ Applicant answered, “Yes” and listed a resolved mortgage foreclosure account. A 
subsequent background investigation revealed 16 delinquent debts, an approximate 
total over $36,000. The debts included 11 collection accounts, two charged off 
accounts, and the three judgments mentioned in the previous paragraph. (Item 5, 
section 26; Item 6; Item 7) 
 
Finally, Applicant answered, “No” in response ‘Section 13A – Employment 
Activities.’ With regard to your employment, you were asked, ‘For this employment, 
have any of the following happened to you in the last seven (7) years? Fired; Quit after 
being told you would be fired; Left by mutual agreement following charges or allegations 
of misconduct; Left by mutual agreement following notice of unsatisfactory 
performance.’ During the background investigation, it was discovered that Applicant was 
fired from his employment with [Company A], a federal defense contractor, in March 
2011. Applicant stated on his security clearance application that he left the employment 
of [Company A] because he “found work with another employeer [sic] for a pay 
increase.” (Item 5, Section 13A)  
 
Applicant’s past financial history included a Chapter 13 bankruptcy which 
Applicant filed on April 9, 1997. He listed total assets of $20,500 and total liabilities of 
$41,805. The bankruptcy was discharged in 2002. (Item 4 at 6; Item 9; Item 10) 
 
In his response to the SOR, Applicant mentions that his recent financial problems 
began in June 2006 when his mother was diagnosed with cancer. Applicant moved his 
mother into his home. When she passed away in November 2006, he paid for the 
funeral costs. Applicant mentions that he was “let go” from his job with [Company A], a 
defense contractor, in March 2011 because he was told that he was too close to the 
government. The loss of this job took a toll on the family finances and their savings. 
Applicant was unemployed for several months. His wife’s compulsive buying disorder 
also caused financial distress on the family which eventually resulted in their separation. 
(Item 4) 
 
 
5 
 
 
Applicant subsequently took positions with several contractors. He progressed to 
positions involving more responsibility and pay increases. Applicant says that even 
during the hardest times, he never thought to engage in any activities which would 
result in the loss of his security clearance. He does not gamble and does not partake in 
illegal activities in order to generate funds. (Item 4)  
 
After his marital separation, Applicant claims that he was able to pay off several 
of his past debts.  He does not mention specifically which debts have been paid off and 
did not provide proof of payment.  He contacted a credit counseling firm to work on a 
debt management program. He states the program provides the benefits of credit 
concessions, such as reducing or eliminating interest rates, lowering monthly payments, 
and waiving the late/over limit fees. He states the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a – 1.c, 
1.e, 1.f, 1.h, 1.i, 1.l – 1.n, 1.p, and 1.t are in his program with the credit counseling firm. 
He did not provide a copy of his agreement with the credit counseling firm or information 
on the status of the debts. (Item 4) 
 
Applicant claims the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.g, 1.j, 1.k were paid in full on 
June 2014. He did not provide documentation to verify that the debts were paid. He 
states that he is paying $25 a month for each of the medical debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 
1.q and 1.r. ($50 total). He did not provide documentation showing that he was making 
timely payments towards these debts each month. The debts are medical bills related to 
treatment of his diabetes and high blood pressure.  Applicant is disputing several debts 
(SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 1.f, 1.i, 1.n, and 1.p). If it is discovered during the dispute process 
that the debts are his, he will resolve these debts through the credit counseling firm.  
Applicant provided proof that he disputed the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.o and 1.s and 
they were deleted from his credit report. SOR ¶¶ 1.o and 1.s are found for Applicant. 
(Item 4, at 19) 
 
Regarding the falsification allegations under the personal conduct concern, 
Applicant says it was not his intent to falsify or conceal any information about his 
financial record (SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b). Applicant claims his employer’s facility security 
officer sent his e-QIP notification to his employer’s e-mail address. Applicant works off-
site and rarely looks at his employer’s e-mail address. He was not aware that he was to 
complete his e-QIP application until he was sent the request a third and final time. He 
was given a short deadline to complete his e-QIP application. He claims he did not have 
time to request his credit reports and submit the appropriate responses on his e-QIP 
application within the deadline. 
 
SOR ¶ 2.c alleges that Applicant deliberately omitted that he was fired from 
[Company A] in March 2011.  Applicant claims that he did not intend to falsify or conceal 
that he was fired. He claims that his manager was trying to force him to quit his job. 
When he was not successful, his manager let him go because he was too close to the 
government customer. Applicant claims it had nothing to do with performance, or any 
allegations of sexual harassment. (Note: The original SOR ¶ 2.c alleged Applicant was 
fired following allegations of sexual harassment. SOR ¶ 2.c was amended to allege only 
 
6 
 
 
that Applicant failed to disclose he was fired from [Company A] and not the basis for his 
removal.) I find Applicant’s description of being “let go” is the equivalent of being fired.  
   
Applicant provided seven character letters consisting of current and former 
coworkers. All describe Applicant as professional, hard-working, with great integrity. He 
works long hours and is willing to go the extra mile. He is a valued employee. His 
current government customer is so impressed with him that they are considering 
offering him a government position. (Item 4 at 9-15) None of these letters are signed by 
the author of the letter. As a result, they are given less weight.  
 
Several of his references were co-workers with Applicant at [Company A], the 
location where he was fired in March 2011. (Item 4 at 11-12, 14-18) They state that 
Applicant was the most dedicated contractor assigned to their branch. He had a good 
rapport with his co-workers, often inviting everyone to attend his son’s hockey games. 
One co-worker, who was a government employee at the work-site, states:  
 
The contempt with which the contractor [redacted], held for [Applicant’s] 
working relationship with the government, and the support by his 
subordinates, took its eventual toll on him. In the eyes of the [redacted] 
contract manager, [name redacted], as well as the assistance contract 
manager, [name redacted], they undertook a calculated and specific 
program to target [Applicant]. (Item 4 at 11-12)  
 
 Another former co-worker indicates that she was the person who made the 
harassment allegation. She claims it was a misunderstanding. It was resolved and she 
and Applicant continued to amicably work together. Several months later, Applicant was 
dismissed for unknown reasons. She states, “The profound impact [Applicant] had 
within the office resulted in [redacted] employees sobbing as [Applicant] walked by with 
his belongings.” She states that Applicant is a trustworthy and honest person who is 
committed to the United States and the security of our government. (Item 4 at 14) 
Another former co-worker provided copies of e-mails that summarize that she believed 
Applicant was terminated without justification and that several people were interested in 
looking for new jobs because of the new management’s actions. (Item 4 at 16-18)  
 
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 must be considered when 
determining 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 overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), 
 
7 
 
 
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 contained in the record.  
 
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 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 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 
 
8 
 
 
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate 
funds.  
 
The guideline notes several disqualifying conditions that could raise security 
concerns. I find AG &19(a) (an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and AG &19(c) 
(a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply to Applicant’s case. Applicant 
encountered financial problems in the late 1990s, resulting in he and his wife filing for 
Chapter 13 bankruptcy in October 1997. He maintained the five-year payment plan and 
his bankruptcy was discharged in 2002.  In 2008, Applicant began to incur additional 
delinquent debts. At the time the SOR was issued, he had incurred over 16 debts, with 
total balance of over $36,000. Both AG &19(a) and AG &19(c) apply.   
 
An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, 
unconcerned, or careless in their obligations to protect classified information. Behaving 
irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in 
other aspects of life. A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until 
evidence is uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to pay debts under 
agreed terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an 
applicant with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations.  
 
The Government’s substantial evidence and Applicant’s own admissions raise 
security concerns under Guideline F. The burden shifted to Applicant to produce 
evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. (Directive 
¶E3.1.15) An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden 
of disproving it never shifts to the Government. (See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 
(App. Bd. September 22, 2005))  
 
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from financial difficulties. The following mitigating conditions potentially 
apply:  
 
AG & 20(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);  
 
AG & 20(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);  
 
 
9 
 
 
AG ¶ 20(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); 
  
AG & 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts); and  
 
AG &20(e) (the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy 
of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides 
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides 
evidence of actions to resolve the issue) 
 
AG & 20(a) does not apply because most of Applicant’s delinquent debts remain 
unresolved. While Applicant states that he is getting a raise, he provided no specifics 
about his monthly income and expenses.  
 
AG & 20(b) applies, in part, because of the added financial burden of caring for 
his terminally ill mother in 2006 as well as Applicant’s several-month period of 
unemployment after he was fired from [Company A] in March 2011. Both events had an 
adverse impact on his financial situation. His separation from his wife a year and half 
ago also caused an adverse impact because of increased expenses of maintaining 
separate households. While Applicant blames his wife’s compulsive spending for much 
of the family financial problems, there is insufficient evidence in the record for me to 
conclude this premise is accurate. Although Applicant claims he entered into an 
agreement with a consumer credit counseling firm, he provided no documentation of his 
agreement with the firm, nor current information on the firm’s actions with regards to 
resolving his delinquent debt. Applicant says that he is resolving his financial problems, 
but he did not provide sufficient documentation showing that he was doing so. Mitigating 
Condition AG & 20(b) is given less weight because I cannot conclude Applicant acted 
responsibly under the circumstances. 
 
AG & 20(c) does not apply because there is no evidence that Applicant has 
attended financial counseling. His financial problems are not resolved or under control 
because most of his delinquent debts remain unresolved. 
 
While Applicant claims he resolved the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.g, 1.j, and 1.k 
in June 2014, he provided no documentation, such as receipts, to corroborate this 
assertion.  Although he claims that he is paying $25 monthly toward each medical debt 
in SOR ¶¶ 1.q, and 1.r, he provided no proof that he is making these payments on a 
regular basis. I cannot conclude that AG & 20(d) applies because there is insufficient 
evidence to conclude Applicant is making a good-faith effort towards resolving his 
delinquent accounts.  
 
AG & 20(e) applies with respect to the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.o and 1.s. 
Applicant successfully disputed these debts with the credit reporting agencies and they 
were removed from his record.  
 
10 
 
 
Overall, doubts remain about Applicant’s financial situation. While there is some 
mitigation, security concerns under financial considerations remain because of the 
amount of unresolved delinquent debt, and the lack of documentation provided by 
Applicant regarding his attempts to resolve his financial situation. 
 
Guideline E – Personal Conduct 
 
 The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in 
AG &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. 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.  
 
 The following disqualifying condition applies to Applicant’s case: 
 
AG ¶ 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). 
  
 I find Applicant deliberately omitted his delinquent debts and judgments in 
response to section 26 on his e-QIP application dated December 28, 2012. Most of 
these debts were delinquent years before he completed his application. While Applicant 
claims that he did not have enough time to obtain a copy of his credit report before the 
deadline for submitting his e-QIP, he could have answered “yes” to the questions 
regarding judgments, charged-off accounts, and collection accounts. Having held a 
security clearance in the past, he was familiar with this process and should have 
understood that he needed to disclose his financial problems on his e-QIP application.  
 
 I also find that Applicant deliberately omitted that he was fired from [Company A] 
in March 2011 in response to section 13A of his e-QIP application dated December 28, 
2012. In his response to the SOR, Applicant admits that he was escorted off the job site. 
He provided statements from his coworkers that verified that he was fired. Applicant 
was so well liked, his co-workers were crying as he packed his things. Applicant claims 
that his family financial situation was adversely affected as a result of being let go. 
Despite the significant impact he experienced as a result of being fired from [Company 
A], Applicant did not disclose that he was fired from [Company A] on his e-QIP 
application. Instead, he mentioned that he left his employment with [Company A] for a 
better paying position. I find this answer to be deliberately false. While there may be an 
argument that Applicant was wrongfully terminated by [Company A], he still had a duty 
to report the fact that he was fired on his e-QIP application.  
 
11 
 
 
 In Applicant’s case, the personal conduct concern can be mitigated by AG ¶ 
17(a) (the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, 
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts) or AG ¶ 17(c) (the 
offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it 
happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast 
doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment). I find that neither 
apply. Applicant did not make a prompt, good-faith effort to correct the omissions on his 
security clearance application. His failure to list his delinquent debts, and judgments as 
well as his firing from Company A did not happen under such unique circumstances that 
it is unlikely to recur. Applicant’s deliberate failure to list this information on his security 
clearance application raises questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, and good 
judgment. 
 
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. 
        
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant’s past active 
duty service in the Army as well as his favorable employment history. Applicant is highly 
thought of by current and former co-workers. He had several circumstances beyond his 
control that adversely affected his finances, yet he has incurred delinquent debts since  
2008, and continued to incur them while gainfully employed. While Applicant states that 
he is in the process of resolving his delinquent accounts, he failed to provide sufficient 
evidence of the steps he is taking to resolve his financial problems.  
 
Applicant’s deliberate failure to list all of his delinquent debts and judgments in 
response to section 26 of his e-QIP application, and his deliberate failure to disclose 
that he was fired from Company A in March 2011 in response to section 13A of his e-
QIP application raise questions about his trustworthiness, truthfulness, and reliability.  
 
12 
 
 
Despite the favorable recommendations of current and former co-workers, doubt 
remains about his ability to handle and protect classified information. Mindful of my duty 
to rule in favor of national security in cases where there is doubt, I find against 
Applicant.     
 
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.n, 1.p-r, 1.t-1.u:  Against Applicant 
 Subparagraphs 1.o and 1.s:   For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 2.a -2.c:    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. 
 
 
                                                
_________________ 
ERIN C. HOGAN 
Administrative Judge