DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-01171
           )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 29, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on August 15, 2013.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On May 13, 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 May 2014 and on March 23, 2015, and
he requested a hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned
to the undersigned Administrative Judge on May 4, 2015.  A notice of hearing was
issued on June 3, 2015, scheduling the hearing for June 24, 2015 by video-
teleconference.  The Government presented five exhibits, referred to as Government
Exhibits 1 through 5, which were admitted without objection.  The Applicant presented
six exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s Exhibits A through F, which were admitted without
objection.  The Applicant testified on his own behalf.  The record remained open until
close of business on July 8, 2015, to allow the Applicant to submit additional supporting
1
  Unbeknownst to the Applicant, his initial divorce papers filed in 2007 were prepared and /or filed improperly and the
final order of dissolution was a fake.  He subsequently met another woman, and they eventually married.  Applicant’s
ex wife went for a medical procedure, which she thought was covered by Tri Care, but was not, as she was no longer
in the system as Applicant’s dependent.  She brought a legal complaint against Applicant and the matter was investigated
by the Army CID.  Applicant re filed for divorce and became officially divorced.  His second marriage had to be
annulled, and then he remarried his current wife.       
2
documentation.  Applicant submitted seven documents, referred to Applicant’s Post-
Hearing Exhibits A through G, which were admitted without objection.  The official
transcript (Tr.) was received on July 6, 2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings,
exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 42 years old and married a second time with four children.  He
has a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice and is currently working on his Master’s
Degree.  He is employed with a defense contractor as an Senior Network Engineer 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 he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admits allegation 1.a., and denies the remaining allegations set
forth in the SOR under this guideline.   Credit Reports of the Applicant dated September
5, 2013; and April 26, 2015, reflect that the Applicant was indebted to each of the
creditors in an amount totaling in excess of $95,0000.  (Government Exhibits 4 and 5.)
    
Applicant served in the United States Army from November 1989 until June
2013, when he retired with an honorable discharge.  During his military career, he
received numerous awards and decorations, including five Army Achievement Medals,
seven Army Commendation Medals, four Good Conduct Medals, two National Defense
Medals, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and others, and a litany of letters of
achievement and recognition.  He maintained a security clearance throughout his time
in service without interruption.  Applicant went through an Article 32 investigation for
fraud, but the matter was dropped for insufficient evidence and did not go to a Court
Martial.  (Tr. p. 44.)      1
Applicant was married to his first wife from 2001 to 2011.  They legally
separated in 2007.  From the time they separated through the time of divorce, Applicant
3
always paid child support.  Until the court order in July or August 2012, he paid $1,600 a
month.  The court order increased the amount to $1,900 per month.  Applicant has
always paid the debt and to his understanding he has never been behind.  Applicant
started living with his current wife in 2008, and they were married in 2014.            
1.a., According to his credit reports, Applicant was indebted to a state for an
account that was placed for collection in the approximate amount of $51,199.  Applicant
explained that this was a monetary lump sum awarded by the court in July or August
2012, for spousal support and medical bills to his ex-wife.  The court order appears to
be retroactive, indicating that Applicant was in arrears.  Applicant states that he learned
of the court judgment in June 2013.  (Tr. p. 35.)  Since then, Applicant has been making
regular monthly payments through the requisite Department of Social and Health
Services and has already reduced the amount to $41,483.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A and
Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.)
1.b., Applicant was indebted to a creditor for an account placed for collection in
the approximate amount of $18,216.  Applicant states that this was a duplicate of a debt
concerning the repossession of his vehicle in 2007.  He contacted the creditor to dispute
the duplicate reports on his credit.  This debt has been removed from his credit reports.
(Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit C.)
   
1.c., Applicant was indebted to a creditor for an account placed for collection in
the approximate amount of $1,084.  Applicant states he disputed the debt in August
2012.  He reported that he was a victim of identity theft and the debt was fraudulent.
(Applicant’s Exhibits B and C.)  This debt has been removed from his credit reports.
(Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit C.)  
1.d., Applicant was indebted to a creditor for an account placed for collection in
the approximate amount of $378.  Applicant states that he disputed the debt in August
2012.  He reported that he was a victim of identity theft and the debt was fraudulent.
(Applicant’s Exhibits B and C)  This debt has been removed from his credit reports.
(Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit C.)
1.e., Applicant was indebted to a creditor for an account that was placed for
collection in the approximate amount of $122.  Applicant states that he disputed the
debt in August 2012.  He reported that he was a victim of identity theft and the debt was
fraudulent.  (Applicant’s Exhibits B and C.)  This debt has been removed from his credit
reports.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit C.) 
1.f., Applicant was indebted to a creditor for an account placed for collection in
the approximate amount of $24,873.  Applicant states that this is a duplicate debt on his
credit report for the repossession of his vehicle in 2007.  He contacted the creditor to
dispute the duplicate report.  This debt has been removed from his credit reports.
(Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit C.)
4
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 August 15, 2013, and
answered, “NO,” to a series of questions concerning his finances.  (Government Exhibit
1.)  Section 26 asked, “In the past seven years, have you been delinquent on alimony or
child support payments?”  Applicant answered, “NO.”  The Government contends that
this was a false answer.  Applicant explained that he answered, “NO,” to the question
on his e-QIP because all of his child and spousal support payments have been made on
time.  Since the court order was imposed, he has not missed a payment and has been
making regular monthly payments through the state Department of Social and Health
Services.      
Section 26 of the same application further asked, “In the past seven years have
you defaulted on any type fo 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?”  Applicant answered, “NO,” to each of the questions.  The
Government asserts that these  were false responses, since the Applicant failed to list
the delinquent debts set forth above.  Applicant again explained that the reason he
answered, “NO,” to these questions on his e-QIP was because these were all items he
disputed as fraudulent on his credit report.  They have all been removed from his credit
report and no longer show as derogatory.    
Applicant’s military service documents, which include his performance evaluation
reports for 1993, 1996, 2000, 2001, and 2003 through 2008, reflect that he consistently
received above average ratings.  He either received an “excellent,” which means that he
exceeds standards; or “success,” which means that he “fully meets standards” in every
category.  He is noted as being among the best, and was consistently recommended for
promotion ahead of peers.  Overall he was considered to be an outstanding soldier.
(Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit E.)    
Letters of recommendation from friends and professional associates reflect that
Applicant is known as a highly intelligent and professional individual who works
diligently and follows all rules and regulations.  He shows integrity and morals, and
consistently demonstrates honesty and trustworthiness.  He is considered to be a
mentor and role model for many.  He is said to be an upstanding citizen who is a
proactive member of the community, a devout member of his faith, and a great father to
his children.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit D.) 
5
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.(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;
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;
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;
20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts;
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.
6
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.
Condition 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.
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 behavioral
changes;
 
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
7
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
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 that 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 his personal conduct, Applicant was truthful and candid with the
Government on his security clearance application when he answered the questions
concerning his finances.  Since he has disputed each of the debts alleged, and they
were removed from his credit report, he answered the questions correctly.  I find that he
did not conceal this information from the Government on the application.  
8
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 his
security clearance eligibility.
Here, Applicant’s history of financial indebtedness has been mitigated.  His
separation and divorce, and subsequent court order for child and spousal support
generated some financial confusion.  In addition, as a victim of identity theft, his credit
was blemished through no fault of his own.  He has since cleared this up and his
finances are under control.  He is, and has been, making regular systematic payments
in compliance with the court order to pay child and spousal support.   He has not missed
a payment since he was made aware of the court order.  His credit report shows that he
is current with all of his financial obligations and is in good standing.  He has
demonstrated that he is fiscally responsible.  He has shown that he can and will resolve
his debts.  He has further shown an ability to live within his means.  At this time, there is
sufficient evidence of financial rehabilitation.  Applicant has demonstrated that he can
properly handle his financial affairs. 
Applicant has met his burden of proving that he is worthy of a security clearance.
Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has 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 Conditions  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; 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; 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; 20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts, and 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 apply.  Accordingly, I find for 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,
9
and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard
classified information.
  
I have considered all of the evidence presented.  It mitigates the negative effects
of his financial indebtedness and his personal conduct, and the effects it can have on
his ability to safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the
Applicant has overcome the Government's case opposing his request for a security
clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding for 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:       For the Applicant.
Subpara.  1.a.                  For  the Applicant.   
Subpara.  1.b.                 For  the Applicant.
Subpara.  1.c.                   For  the Applicant. 
Subpara.  1.d.                  For  the Applicant.   
Subpara.  1.e.                      For  the Applicant.
Subpara.  1.f.                   For  the Applicant. 
Paragraph 2:                  For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  2.a.                  For  the Applicant.
Subpara.  2.b.                  For  the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge