The Government submitted six items for the record.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-00918
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On April 24, 2014, the Department of Defense  (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under  Guideline E (Personal Conduct),
and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The action was taken under Executive
Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960),
as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended
(Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a review based on the written
record in lieu of a hearing. The case was assigned to me on July 18, 2015.  Department
Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated May 4, 2015 . Applicant1
received the FORM on May 12, 2015. Applicant submitted  a response to the FORM.
Based on a review of the case file, eligibility for access to classified information is
denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the majority of the SOR allegations
under Guideline F  and provided explanations. He denied SOR allegations 1.s, 1.t, 1.v
through 1.x, and 1.z. Applicant denied the allegation under Guideline E.
Applicant is 47 years old. He received his undergraduate degree in 2008 and his
Master’s degree in 2011. Applicant is married and has two children. He served in the
United States Marine Corps (USMC) from 1986 until 1991, receiving a bad conduct
discharge. He has been employed with his current employer since 2012, working
overseas. (Item 2) He has held a security clearance since 2003. 
Financial
The SOR alleges 26 delinquent debts totaling approximately $135,690, of which
17 are federal student loans totaling approximately $106,843. (Item 1) In his answer to
the SOR, Applicant admitted that payments have been initiated for accounts alleged in
1.a through 1.r for the student loan accounts. He provided information that he is paying
$100 monthly, which started in May 2014 until the present. (Response to FORM)
Applicant presented documentation that he has paid the following debts: SOR
1.s for $648, 1.t for $472. 1.v for $1,096, 1.w for $1,177, 1.x for $1,297 and 1.z for
$946. He noted that he is “in negotiations” for the debts listed in 1.d for $8,655; 1.u for
$6,891 and 1.y for $7,665. (Documents in File)
As to SOR allegation 1.d for $8,655, he answered that he was in negotiations
with them. In response to the FORM, he stated that he “reached out” to them, but the
account has gone to collection. He is still communicating with the primary lender to
resolve the account. For SOR allegation 1.y, Applicant answered that negotiations were
in progress. However, in response to the FORM, he stated that the account had gone to
“charge off” status. He again stated that he is trying to communicate with the primary
lender to resolve the issues.  
Applicant attributes his delinquent debt to a one-income family. In addition, he
stated at one time that he was not actively engaged in the day-to-day management of
his family finances. He blames frequent and repeated overseas travel for work duties,
which prevented him from monitoring his accounts. His overseas work began in 2009
and continued through December 2014. At one point, he  had two residences to
maintain, one stateside and one abroad.  He worked in Afghanistan, Greenland, and
Bahrain. He commuted when he lived in the United States from one state to another for
work. He left the financial details to his wife. (Response to FORM).  
Applicant submitted a detailed budget in response to the FORM. He listed
payments for the student loans, his living expenses, and other credit payments. The net
monthly remainder was approximately $329. Applicant takes responsibility for the
financial issues. He realizes that the decision to solely entrust the management of the
household income to his wife without his input was a poor choice. He obtained a
3
Quicken Financial Management Software to facilitate more effective budgeting and to
utilize a feature of the program which provides financial guidance. 
Applicant stated that the decision to incur student loan debt, which is the bulk of
the debt was not poor decision making. He believed that his company would reimburse
him for the courses, but he learned that they would not. He also did not understand the
intricacies of the federal loan process. He claims that he did not receive information
pertaining to the student loans for mail sent to him had been delayed due to his change
of address. He thought the student loans were in deferment. 
Personal Conduct
When Applicant completed his February 2013 security clearance application, he
responded “No” to Section 26 - Financial Record questions concerning any financial
delinquencies. He denied deliberate falsification of the debts. He stated that he knew he
was behind in some payments, but was making continuous payments, even if they were
less than full amount. He stated that he learned about the student loans after the
investigative process started. He did acknowledge in his November 2013 interview that
he fell behind because he could not afford to make all the payments and that he was
trying to consolidate the loans. (Item 3) Since he acknowledged the two accounts that
were in collection, he knew he had something to disclose on his security clearance
application. He intentionally falsified his security clearance application. He reported that
he was unaware of the other accounts.  His credit reports show that many accounts are
noted as “pays as agreed.” (Item 5) In that same report, certain student loans are listed
as in deferred status. Other student loans are listed as date of last payment March
2015, but with an earlier delinquency date.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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. 
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
4
The U.S. Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
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.
5
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(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
(d) credible adverse information in an adjudicative issue area 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 judgment, 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.
Applicant answered “No” on his 2013 security clearance application in response
to Section 26-Financial Record. In his 2013 interview, he was confronted with the
student loans in collection and responded that he fell behind in payments for various
reasons. He also stated that his wife was handling the business affairs. He also stated
in his 2013 interview that he was aware of the two accounts alleged in SOR 1.u and 1.v.
Since he was aware of the two accounts noted above and did not disclose any financial
issues, I find he intentionally falsified his security clearance. The inconsistency does not
allow me to find in his favor for the personal conduct. Given the amounts of the two
collection accounts, it is untenable that Applicant had no indication that he had some
financial issues. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the national security. I have
doubts about his judgment. There are no mitigating conditions that apply in this case.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for financial considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.” It also states that “an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
 Applicant incurred delinquent debt in the amount of $135,690. Seventeen debts are
student loans totaling $106,843. Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying
Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such conditions
raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against him and mitigate security
concerns.  
6
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulty
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” Additionally, some of the
delinquent accounts are considered recent because they remain unpaid. Applicant still
has two unresolved debts. He has his student loans in consolidation status and has
made payments since 2014. He paid the majority of the other credit debts. He made an
attempt to contact the two collection accounts, but he has no plan in place these
delinquent debts. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC)
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) partially applies.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior 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)
does not apply. Applicant worked abroad and had two separate residences at times. He
left the household and financial management to his wife. He noted a period of
unemployment. He had a one income family. He believed his student loans would be
reimbursed by his employer, but that was not the case. He paid several bills and
believed his student loans were in deferment. I find that he acted responsibly. 
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies to his student loans and those debts he
has paid. As noted, Applicant has provided evidence that he paid various accounts and
that he has been paying on his student loans since 2014. He has two accounts that are
not resolved, which he intends to resolve. He has obtained software to help with his
budget and finances.  FC MC 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) applies.
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 an 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. 
7
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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is a 47 year old employee of a defense contractor. He is married. He served
in the military. He has worked as a contractor overseas for several years.
Applicant provided evidence mitigating the Government’s case concerning the
financial considerations security concerns. As to the personal conduct security
concerns, there is not consistent information in the record. He acknowledged two
accounts that were in collection during his 2013 interview. He did not disclose that
information in response to Section 26. He intentionally falsified his security clearance
application. I cannot find in his favor simply from the written record for the personal
conduct issues. Any doubts must be resolved in the Government’s favor. 
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  : FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-z: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E : AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge