1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 12-09511
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to provide enough documentary evidence to substantiate his
contention that his finances are under control. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On May 2, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security
concerns under 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 Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended
(Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DOD on
September 1, 2006.
 On May 19, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the allegations,
and requested a decision on the record rather than a hearing. On August 27, 2015,
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) consisting of
2
 
documents supporting the Government’s allegations. Applicant received the file on
September 10, 2015, and was informed that he had until October 10, 2015 to submit a
response. Applicant did not submit a response, and the case was subsequently
assigned to me on November 5, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 59-year-old married man with two adult children. He has a high
school diploma, earned in 1974, and an associate degree, earned in 2001. (Item 2 at 9)
Applicant served in the U.S. Navy from 1974 through his retirement in 1994. His service
was honorable. (Item 2 at 13) Since 2000, he has worked for a defense contractor as a
security guard. (Item 2 at 10) Since approximately 2004, Applicant has also worked
part-time as a tutor. (Item 3 at 1)
In 2010, Applicant’s state taxing authority entered a tax lien against his property
for $5,697, as alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.g. (Item 1 at 3-4) Applicant first fell
behind on his state taxes in 2005 when he realized that he had miscalculated the
amount of income to withhold from his pension and his two jobs. (Item 3 at 2)
Subsequently, he adjusted his withholdings to prevent future income tax payment
shortfalls, and his employer began garnishing his wages, beginning in 2007, as alleged
in SOR subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c. (Item 1 at 1, 3) The 2010 lien reflects the
remaining amount due as of 2010. Applicant presented no evidence as to the current
status of lien payments or whether he has satisfied the lien. 
Applicant owes approximately $9,900 to a health care provider, as listed in SOR
subparagraph 1.d. (Item 1 at 3) In Applicant’s Answer, he acknowledges this delinquent
debt and contends that he contacted the creditor for payoff information. (Item 1 at 3)
This debt remains outstanding. Similarly, Applicant contends that he has contacted the
creditor listed in SOR subparagraph 1.e and is awaiting payoff information.
The debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.f is a medical bill totalling $78. Applicant
contends that he has resolved this debt. (Item 1 at 3) He provided no supporting
documentary evidence.
Policies
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 together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. 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.
3
 
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.” 
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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
(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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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.”
(AG ¶ 18) Applicant has approximately $15,000 of outstanding delinquent debt. AG ¶
19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations,” apply.
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable.
(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;
(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; and  
4
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts. 
Applicant is an industrious man who has consistently been working two jobs for
more than ten years. Under these circumstances, I make no negative security
inferences with respect to his miscalculation of income withholdings from his Navy
pension and his two jobs. Nevertheless, Applicant has the burden of proof to provide
concrete evidence that his delinquent debts have either been resolved, or are in the
process of being resolved. He failed to do this, therefore, none of the mitigating
circumstances apply, and he has failed to mitigate the financial considerations security
concerns.
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.g: 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.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge