DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------------  )       ISCR Case No. 14-03851
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Adrienne Strzelczyk, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 29, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) dated April 18, 2014.  (Government Exhibit 2.)  On January 23,
2015, 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 the DoD 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.
Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on February 19, 2015, and 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 Applicant on May 28,
2015.  Applicant received the FORM on July 8, 2015.  Applicant was instructed to
submit information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt.
Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM.  This case was assigned to the
undersigned on September 22, 2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, and
exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
 FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 50 years old, and married with six children.  He has completed his
GED and several university level certificate programs in software related areas.  He is
employed with a defense contractor as a Senior Systems Engineer Consultant and is
seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with this employment.
The Government opposes 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
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
Applicant served in the United States Army in either reserves or on active duty
from August 1983 to February 2005, when he retired with an honorable discharge.
During his time in the military, he held a security clearance.      
Applicant has a history of financial indebtedness.  There are thirteen delinquent
debts set forth in the SOR that total in excess of $69,738.  Applicant admitted to
allegations 1.a., not filing his state income tax returns; 1.c. and 1.d., to being indebted
for two Federal tax liens; 1.e., a judgment; and 1.q., one of the delinquent debts.  In
regard to the delinquent debts set forth in 1.b., 1.f., 1g., 1.h., 1.i., 1.j., 1.k., 1.l., 1.m.,
1.n., 1.o., 1p., and 1.r, he denies them, claiming that he has paid them.  He failed to
provide any documentary evidence to substantiate the payments.  Applicant has been
employed on a full-time basis with his current employer since April 2010.  
Applicant’s credit report dated April 29, 2014, which includes information from all
three credit reporting agencies, reflect that Applicant is indebted to each of the creditors
set forth in the SOR.  (Government Exhibit 4.)     
According to Applicant’s answer to the SOR, Applicant became excessively
indebted without his knowledge.  He stated that his wife has always handled the
household finances.  He thought that she was paying the bills on time and without
difficulty.  He states that he did not learn of his delinquent debts until he met with the
investigator during his security clearance background investigation in May 2014.
(Government Exhibit 3.)  The following debts show delinquent and owing on his credit
report.  (Government Exhibit 4.)
1.a.  Applicant failed to file his 2010, 2011, and 2012, state income tax returns.
He states that he did not have the money to pay the taxes he owed and so he simply
“blew it off.”  (Government Exhibit 3.)  He claims that he and his wife have since set up
a payment arrangement with the state and they are currently paying their taxes.  There
is no documentary evidence to show that these taxes have been paid or are being paid.
1.b. A state tax lien was issued against the Appellant in April 2014 for unpaid state
3
taxes.  This remains owing.  There is no documentary evidence to show that this lien
has been paid.   
1.c., and 1.d.  Two federal tax liens were entered against the Applicant, one in
May 2011, for $36,075; and the other in October 2011, in the amount of $3,790.  Both
liens remain unpaid, as there is no documentary evidence to show that they have been
paid. 
 
1.e. A judgment filed against the Applicant by a financial institution in the amount
of $19,762 for a boat that Applicant purchased and defaulted on remains owing.
Applicant stated that he has paid down some of the debt and is currently making
payments of $1,000 monthly.  There is no documentary evidence in the record to
support this claim.  
1.f. A delinquent medical account in the amount of $424 remains owing.
Applicant stated that he is unaware of the debt. 1.g.  A collection account in the amount
of $182 remains owing.  Applicant stated that he was unaware of the debt.  1.h.  A
collection account in the amount of $704 remains outstanding.  Applicant stated that he
was unaware that he owed the debt.  1.i.  A collection account in the amount of $469
remains owing.  Applicant stated that he was unaware that the debt was outstanding.
1.j.  A collection account in the amount of $689 remains outstanding.  Applicant stated
that he was unaware of the debt.  1.k.  A collection account in the amount of $264
remains outstanding.  Applicant stated that he was unaware of the debt.  1.l.  A medical
account in the amount of $100 remains owing.  Applicant stated that he was unaware
that the debt went into collections.  1.m.  A medical account in the amount of $70
remains owing.  Applicant stated that he was unaware that the debt went into
collections.  1.n. A medical account in the amount of $250 remains outstanding.
Applicant stated that he was unaware of the debt.  1.o. A medical account in the amount
of $582 remains owing.  Applicant stated that he was unaware that the debt went into
collections.  1.p.  A delinquent account owed to Verizon in the amount of $168 remains
owing.  Applicant stated that he was unaware that the account went into collections.
1.q. A delinquent utility account in the amount of $339 remains owing.  Applicant stated
that he was unaware that the account went into collections. 1.r.  A delinquent child
support debt in the amount of $3,060 remains owing.  Applicant states that he has never
missed a child support payment and does not know why this is showing a collection
balance.  (Government Exhibit 3.) 
Applicant failed to submit a reply to the FORM.  There is no documentary
evidence to show that he has repaid any of his financial obligations.  There is no
evidence of a meaningful track record of repayment or a substantiated basis to dispute
the legitimacy of the debts.   
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 obligations. 
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; 
5
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
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, 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 this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This 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.
6
The evidence shows that Applicant remains excessively indebted.  Absent
compelling documentary evidence that Applicant acted responsibly and in good faith to
repay his financial obligations, or that he established a track record of repayment, or
has a substantiated basis to dispute the legitimacy of the debt, he has failed to show
sufficient mitigation under Guideline F.  
In this case, Applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence to show that
he has resolved his debts.  Simply because he states that he has paid them does not
prove that the debt has been resolved.  Also, simply because he was not aware of them
does not mean he does not owe them.  If he does not believe he owes them, he has the
burden of proving that he does not owe them.  At the present time, he remains
delinquently indebted to all of the creditors set forth in the SOR, totaling approximately
$69,000.  There is no evidence of any efforts to repay the debts, be it prior to or after
receipt of the SOR.  There is no evidence of even an attempt to pay the smallest of the
debts, which is only $100.  In the absence of documentary evidence submitted in
response to this FORM to show that Applicant has been able to attain some resolution
on his delinquent debts and establish a track record of debt repayment, this concern
must be decided against him in evaluating his suitability to have access to classified
information.     
Applicant’s history of excessive indebtedness, without sufficient mitigation,
demonstrates a pattern of unreliability and poor judgment.  Applicant failed to provide
proof of payment, receipts, or any documentation to demonstrate that he has, can, or
will resolve his delinquent debts.  There is nothing in the record to show that Applicant
can live within his means.  Without more, Applicant has failed to establish that he is
fiscally responsible.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that he has received credit
counseling to help him set a budget and learn to live within it, or that his finances are
under control.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, Applicant has not met his burden
of proving that he is worthy of a security clearance.  He has not sufficiently addressed
the delinquent debts in the SOR, and does not have a concrete understanding of his
financial responsibilities.  Thus, it cannot be said that he has made a good-faith effort to
resolve his past-due indebtedness.  He has not shown that he is or has been
reasonably, responsibly or prudently addressing his financial situation.  Applicant has
not demonstrated that he can properly handle his financial affairs or that he is fiscally
responsible.  His debts are significant.  Assuming that he demonstrates a history and
pattern of fiscal responsibility, including the fact he has not acquired any new debt that
he is unable to pay, he may be eligible for a security clearance sometime in the future.
However, he is not eligible now.  Considering all of the evidence, 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.  There is no evidence in the record to show that Applicant has done
7
anything to resolve his debts.  In fact, from what is presented, Applicant could benefit
from intense financial counseling. In this case, none of the mitigating conditions are
applicable.  Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).    
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating 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 his history of financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on his
ability to safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that Applicant
has not overcome the Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance.
Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against Applicant as to the factual and
conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 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.
Subparas.  1.b. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.c. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.d. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.e. Against the Applicant.
 Subpara.    1.f. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.g. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.h. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.i. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.j. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.k. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.l. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.m. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.n. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.o. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.p. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.q. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.r. Against the Applicant.
8
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this 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